PDA

View Full Version : Science Ruining Fantasy



drawingfreak
2010-11-02, 09:10 AM
Do you think our modern understanding of the universe could ruin the magic of a fantasy setting? Has it in your game?

Zeofar
2010-11-02, 09:12 AM
No, why? How do you see it ruining fantasy?
(I mean, you realize that fantasy as a genre is relatively new, right?)

Coidzor
2010-11-02, 09:12 AM
What? No! Killing catgirls isn't a bug, it's a feature! :smallbiggrin:

Heck, even the genetics angle can open up a quest to figure out why the heck humans can breed with gosh-darn everything.

Silus
2010-11-02, 09:17 AM
What? No! Killing catgirls isn't a bug, it's a feature! :smallbiggrin:

Heck, even the genetics angle can open up a quest to figure out why the heck humans can breed with gosh-darn everything.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v502/ycantibu/jack_harkness.jpg

He's the key to that mystery =O

Urpriest
2010-11-02, 09:21 AM
Commoner railguns et al. are bloody annoying.

I don't think physics in principle ruins fantasy, but I do think that people who try to mix in physics with their magic generally do so poorly. One thing I'd love to do eventually is develop a general formulation of physical laws that allows me to describe what sorts of physical laws are needed for a more "magical" universe, and which sorts of "magic" are logically consistent. But I doubt it will ever happen, if only because it's unlikely a university will take kindly to me wasting their resources on such a project.

Democratus
2010-11-02, 09:27 AM
No, why? How do you see it ruining fantasy?
(I mean, you realize that fantasy as a genre is relatively new, right?)

Wait, what? Only if you consider Gilgamesh, the Illiad, Journey to the West, et. al. "relatively new". :smallamused:

Fantasy shouldn't be harmed by science because it doesn't generally happen in our world. It happens in a different place and a different universe - where there aren't such limits on what is possible. Fantasy is as much metaphor as simulation.

Eldan
2010-11-02, 09:28 AM
Honestly? I just generally feel free to ignore physics whenever. Especially now that I have more lectures on the history of science. Things get so much more interesting if you can steal ideas from the greeks and the 16-18th century.

Urpriest
2010-11-02, 09:33 AM
Wait, what? Only if you consider Gilgamesh, the Illiad, Journey to the West, et. al. "relatively new". :smallamused:


Most of those were intended as something more similar to history than to fantasy.

Democratus
2010-11-02, 09:36 AM
Most of those were intended as something more similar to history than to fantasy.

Not at all. These were works of entertainment and cultural identity, like books, movies and comics today. Contemporary listeners did not consider them (Illiad, Journey to the West, etc.) to be historical fact even in ancient times.

dsmiles
2010-11-02, 09:40 AM
I like SCIENCE!

I like FANTASY!

science + fantasy = steampunk fantasy = Iron Kingdoms (my favorite campaign setting :smallbiggrin:)

Not everybody agrees, though. My group is starting to see it my way, though, after I threw some Alchemists' Fire into the AoE of a grease spell. FWOOSH! Then there was much burning of zombies, and much enjoyment to be had by all.

Coidzor
2010-11-02, 09:46 AM
Not at all. These were works of entertainment and cultural identity, like books, movies and comics today. Contemporary listeners did not consider them (Illiad, Journey to the West, etc.) to be historical fact even in ancient times.

I think he might've meant relatively new in the same way that walking upright and speech are relatively new.

Feliks878
2010-11-02, 09:54 AM
As a person who has to deal with physics a lot in his daily life, I sometimes fall to this problem.

I see a spell and immediately think about how that "wouldn't really work" because of X Y or Z. Note this isn't dismissing the idea of "Magic" just the idea of a specific spell effect/feat/ability/rule playing out its cause and effect chain as described. It takes a bit of effort, for me at least, to push my suspension of disbelief long enough to accept something that I would normally reject out of hand.


The "classic" (if somewhat dubious) example is the idea that a person who is falling who then decides to dimension door to the ground would, when they finish their teleport, maintain their momentum and have a rather painful impact with the ground. (This was a very popular thing with Nightcrawler from X-Men, with some authors playing it "realistically" and others ignoring this concept totally.) While this may or may not be true (we obviously cannot teleport people in real life to test it) the science behind it seems sound.

Once I get past that it's usually not a big deal. Despite what some people say, playing a game with Gnomes and Goblins and Wizards and Demons isn't enough for some to automatically dismiss real world physics. If it's a real problem with players it's probably good to set down a ground rule about it (basically: Don't try to use physics to justify something that contradicts game mechanics). We did this, more or less. We sometimes bend or break the rule, but usually we stick to jokes about it.

As much as it bothers you, saying "It's magic!" is a valid thing to do in a D&D game. Frankly it's why so many unbelievable things happen.

dsmiles
2010-11-02, 09:58 AM
The "classic" (if somewhat dubious) example is the idea that a person who is falling who then decides to dimension door to the ground would, when they finish their teleport, maintain their momentum and have a rather painful impact with the ground. (This was a very popular thing with Nightcrawler from X-Men, with some authors playing it "realistically" and others ignoring this concept totally.) While this may or may not be true (we obviously cannot teleport people in real life to test it) the science behind it seems sound.

Cue GLaDOS: "Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out." Yeah, dim door to save yourself from a fall, doesn't work for me either.

Spiryt
2010-11-02, 10:03 AM
The "classic" (if somewhat dubious) example is the idea that a person who is falling who then decides to dimension door to the ground would, when they finish their teleport, maintain their momentum and have a rather painful impact with the ground. (This was a very popular thing with Nightcrawler from X-Men, with some authors playing it "realistically" and others ignoring this concept totally.) While this may or may not be true (we obviously cannot teleport people in real life to test it) the science behind it seems sound.



As there is nothing about changing your velocity or whatever, I'm not sure what would be wrong with it? :smallconfused:

You travel to the spot desired, but you are still falling as you were before...

For game purposes, it probably means that you skip few d6 depending on how much height you "avoided" with the spell.

Boci
2010-11-02, 10:03 AM
Cue GLaDOS: "Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out." Yeah, dim door to save yourself from a fall, doesn't work for me either.

It could go either way. I can't really see anyone "proving" what happens to their momentum when they cast DD.

Democratus
2010-11-02, 10:06 AM
It could go either way. I can't really see anyone "proving" what happens to their momentum when they cast DD.

Well, seeing that they have travelled instantaneously, they have accelerated to a speed greater than light. Thus their momentum would be far greater.

Any travel via teleportation should result in a massive kinetic explosion!

Unless, of course, you wave your hands and say "it's magic" - which means you can ignore anything you like about momentum. :smallbiggrin:

dsmiles
2010-11-02, 10:08 AM
As there is nothing about changing your velocity or whatever, I'm not sure what would be wrong with it? :smallconfused:

You travel to the spot desired, but you are still falling as you were before...

For game purposes, it probably means that you skip few d6 depending on how much height you "avoided" with the spell.

If you manged it in the first round after falling off the cliff, you'd probably end up with nothing more than a few bumps and bruises, since (assuming earth-like gravity) you'd only fall approx 206-ish meters.

Never mind. That would still hurt. :smalleek:

Boci
2010-11-02, 10:09 AM
Well, seeing that they have travelled instantaneously, they have accelerated to a speed greater than light. Thus their momentum would be far greater.

Exactly. And thus you could argue that to prevent that from happening part of the spells effects it to neutralize your momentum.

Esser-Z
2010-11-02, 10:10 AM
For the dimdoor fall, okay, you maintain speed...

But who says you have to maintain your velocity? What prevents you from coming out of the door in a different direction, turning, say, falling into horizontal movement and ending up alright?

dsmiles
2010-11-02, 10:12 AM
For the dimdoor fall, okay, you maintain speed...

But who says you have to maintain your velocity? What prevents you from coming out of the door in a different direction, turning, say, falling into horizontal movement and ending up alright?

Nothing, if the player says that this is the intent. Just like portal. I fall into a vertical portal, and come out from a horizontal portal. Instant charge attack!

Urpriest
2010-11-02, 10:12 AM
Not at all. These were works of entertainment and cultural identity, like books, movies and comics today. Contemporary listeners did not consider them (Illiad, Journey to the West, etc.) to be historical fact even in ancient times.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. While ancient cultures didn't view myths as falling under the same sorts of requirements for verification as modern history or even their own day-to-day claims, they still viewed them as valid enough to be a legitimate basis for action. Otherwise religions and priesthoods could never have existed.

Coidzor
2010-11-02, 10:18 AM
That's a bit of an exaggeration. While ancient cultures didn't view myths as falling under the same sorts of requirements for verification as modern history or even their own day-to-day claims, they still viewed them as valid enough to be a legitimate basis for action. Otherwise religions and priesthoods could never have existed.

You do get into a bit of a chicken and the egg debate that no one wants to get into if you follow this rabbit hole though.

Radar
2010-11-02, 10:19 AM
Cue GLaDOS: "Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out." Yeah, dim door to save yourself from a fall, doesn't work for me either.
It could, if you were able to open the exit in a different direction, then the entrance (which is nowhere specified). After all, rolling on the ground at 50 km/h might be painful (and harmful), but slaming into the ground at 50 km/h is in most cases fatal.

In general, I like to think, that physics can be applied in a fantasy setting. This way it's much easier to predict an outcome to an unusual action. Besides, there is no better battlecry then "For Science!" :smalltongue:

Crow
2010-11-02, 10:22 AM
Commoner railguns et al. are bloody annoying.

I don't think physics in principle ruins fantasy, but I do think that people who try to mix in physics with their magic generally do so poorly.

Agreed....

Feliks878
2010-11-02, 10:30 AM
Ok, so I went away from a few minutes and came back, and now I see exactly what I was implying, regarding the Dimension Door/Falling debate.


This is exactly the kind of thing that can cause problems. From a "scientific" standpoint a lot of people are saying that the person should take the fall damage they've accumulated, etc.

This is where, as a player, we need to step up and just flat out DISMISS our scientific knowledge. It's magic, maybe it bleeds off the velocity, etc. The point is, having it not save someone from a fall is the kind of "science ruining fantasy" I thought this thread was about, at least from an oblique point of view. While these debates are entertaining from a theoretical perspective (What would really happen if...) they aren't necessarily constructive in gameplay.

The Big Dice
2010-11-02, 10:44 AM
If you manged it in the first round after falling off the cliff, you'd probably end up with nothing more than a few bumps and bruises, since (assuming earth-like gravity) you'd only fall approx 206-ish meters.

Never mind. That would still hurt. :smalleek:

The problem is, I can't think of a game that allows for the fact that falls aren't instantaneous. Most games have some kind of Fall X Distance = Take Y Damage formula. Which means a fall of a mile or of a meter take the same amount of time in game.

Gravity and terminal velocity and so on are bringing physics into the same arena as character who are able to ignore conservation of energy.

Terumitsu
2010-11-02, 11:00 AM
Actually, I like some science in my fantasy. It gives a good base of what can and cannot happen with and without magic which then lets me make nifty magic laws for fluff. And players who like to RP love fluff. Heck, a game I'm running right now has several insparations from Chaos Theory in it. So far, it seems to me that, when not forced to be overtly adjacent to each other, they can actually be complementary elements.

Lev
2010-11-02, 11:01 AM
Science doesn't ruin fantasy as fantasy takes place in universe A while we are in universe B.

Squally!
2010-11-02, 11:14 AM
Science doesn't ruin fantasy as fantasy takes place in universe A while we are in universe B.

Why are we in the B universe? I want to be universe 1.

Really tho, science and fantasy can get along just fine, we are playing a science-heavy steampunk game currently, and it all blends together very well. I think the important part is how you handle and describe the science. Its not the stuff we are used to, its what works for teh world.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-11-02, 11:17 AM
Ok, so I went away from a few minutes and came back, and now I see exactly what I was implying, regarding the Dimension Door/Falling debate.


This is exactly the kind of thing that can cause problems. From a "scientific" standpoint a lot of people are saying that the person should take the fall damage they've accumulated, etc.

This is where, as a player, we need to step up and just flat out DISMISS our scientific knowledge. It's magic, maybe it bleeds off the velocity, etc. The point is, having it not save someone from a fall is the kind of "science ruining fantasy" I thought this thread was about, at least from an oblique point of view. While these debates are entertaining from a theoretical perspective (What would really happen if...) they aren't necessarily constructive in gameplay.

Not being a scientist or some one who works with physics on a day to day basis, but could one not argue that mabye the DD just plops you in the position you want with out the valocity/speed/momentum that you had before you teleported.

I guess I'm failing to see why they would keep the momentum and what not. I know what your saying about the Nightcrawler thing but, that "fantasy" world worked differently then a typical dnd setting.

Artanis
2010-11-02, 11:22 AM
Four words: "A Wizard did it."

In a world with magic, the laws of physics work however you want them to work :smallwink:

Aotrs Commander
2010-11-02, 11:28 AM
Ok, so I went away from a few minutes and came back, and now I see exactly what I was implying, regarding the Dimension Door/Falling debate.


This is exactly the kind of thing that can cause problems. From a "scientific" standpoint a lot of people are saying that the person should take the fall damage they've accumulated, etc.

This is where, as a player, we need to step up and just flat out DISMISS our scientific knowledge. It's magic, maybe it bleeds off the velocity, etc. The point is, having it not save someone from a fall is the kind of "science ruining fantasy" I thought this thread was about, at least from an oblique point of view. While these debates are entertaining from a theoretical perspective (What would really happen if...) they aren't necessarily constructive in gameplay.

And on the contrary, I find dismissing everything as "it's magic" without at least attempting some kind explanation (even it's total bovine excrement) as extremely detrimental to my imsersion and worse, my ability to take them game seriously.

I work from a basis of the real world, and work up from there, and there is frequently science in my fantasy. Evolution and biological classification are a common background to my fantasy games (though not always by there modern terms - though my psuedo-Roman world allows me to pirate Latin and/or Greek without loosing any immersion). Magic itself has it's rules and "science" as well, though without technology to back it up, it's not as well understood.



Specifically for the Dimension Door issue, as DM my response would be "Dimension Door is not an immediate action, so you can't cast as you fall. So, you get as far as "Dimens-SPLAT!" as you smack the floor. Take *rolls dice* [damage.] Next time, try loading Featherfall, numpty..." (Exception: if a character was actually falling for more than one round, and then maybe they'd be able to attempt to cast it - with an appropriate Concentration check.)

I think, on balance, I would say you only teleport with your own relative velocity compared to your jump point. So if you were stationary relative to the surface (or open space) of where you were when you teleported, you emerge stationary to that surface (e.g., you teleport from a speeding ship or dragon-back to the shore). If you were able to cast the spell while you personlly were moving relative to your exit point (e.g., you are a teleporting dragon flying along), you keep your relative momentum. (Otherwise a flying dragon who teleports drops out of the sky.)

That way you satisify the various criterion, to my mind. (Dimension Door not saving you from falling being one of them, though, if you fell long enough to cast it, I'd allow you to redirect your momentum. As a one-shot special occurance. Trying to combine phyics and the rules to abuse the rules (or vice-versa) - e.g. commoner railgun - is something I stomp on as a matter of course.)

But i actually like working thse things out. Of course, I have an engineer's mind set and I play with a group of techies and engineers, so...

Feliks878
2010-11-02, 11:34 AM
Not being a scientist or some one who works with physics on a day to day basis, but could one not argue that mabye the DD just plops you in the position you want with out the valocity/speed/momentum that you had before you teleported.

I guess I'm failing to see why they would keep the momentum and what not. I know what your saying about the Nightcrawler thing but, that "fantasy" world worked differently then a typical dnd setting.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that it shouldn't even come up, or at least should remain consistent across spells and rules. People seem to enjoy cherry picking when their science applies and when it doesn't. Why don't creatures suffer from blood loss after being knocked down from 124 hp to 1 hp? Fire only deals 1d6 damage per round with no permanent side effects? That's hardly realistic

What I'm getting is that it shouldn't matter either way. I was just trying to show an example of a classic fantasy "But in science it works this way!" argument. I didn't mean to spark the argument anew in this thread.

Basically, you need an in game "there is this much science" kinda metric in your head. Otherwise nothing makes sense (see the example of mundane fire, above). Basically, A Wizard Did It. That's why the fighter is still at 100% offensive fighting capacity at 1hp. That's why my naked skinny wizard just sat in fire for 20 seconds and walked out without any of his ridiculous elf hairstyle singed.

Edit to reply to the new post above mine:

I can understand trying to use Science to explain some things, what I'm getting at is actively contradicting any sort of in place ruling in favor of some sort of cherry-picked abstract "realism." I think I'm not doing well explaining myself, for which I apologize in general.

But there are so many things in any tabletop RPG (though we're looking at D&D 3.5 specifically in this case) that just Doesn't Make Sense. We can try to explain it, or houserule it on the case by case basis, but this will often turn tedious, especially once you start examining specific spells. (The amount of friction you'd create when casting Time Stop makes it...well, impossible to cast, assuming you were actually moving at such incredible speeds that for between 12 and 30 seconds the whole world appeared to stand still [1d4+1 Rounds]).

Fax Celestis
2010-11-02, 11:35 AM
Science Fiction is just Fantasy written by someone with a science/math degree instead of someone with a history/literature degree.

dsmiles
2010-11-02, 11:40 AM
Gravity and terminal velocity and so on are bringing physics into the same arena as character who are able to ignore conservation of energy.

I like gravity and terminal velocity. It allows me to make my own personal shenanigans, like decimiating an orc army from the top of a very high cliff with a bag of holding full of arrows.

I also like the flammable grease spell, and other effects that I can manipulate in my favor, both as a DM and as a player.

Feliks878
2010-11-02, 11:41 AM
Science Fiction is just Fantasy written by someone with a science/math degree instead of someone with a history/literature degree.

Of course, so many of the people who write science fiction have no concept of science and math, sometimes. :D

If I may quoth the trope: Sci Fi Writers have no sense of scale. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScifiWritersHaveNoSenseOfScale)

RagnaroksChosen
2010-11-02, 01:14 PM
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it shouldn't even come up, or at least should remain consistent across spells and rules. People seem to enjoy cherry picking when their science applies and when it doesn't. Why don't creatures suffer from blood loss after being knocked down from 124 hp to 1 hp? Fire only deals 1d6 damage per round with no permanent side effects? That's hardly realistic

What I'm getting is that it shouldn't matter either way. I was just trying to show an example of a classic fantasy "But in science it works this way!" argument. I didn't mean to spark the argument anew in this thread.

Basically, you need an in game "there is this much science" kinda metric in your head. Otherwise nothing makes sense (see the example of mundane fire, above). Basically, A Wizard Did It. That's why the fighter is still at 100% offensive fighting capacity at 1hp. That's why my naked skinny wizard just sat in fire for 20 seconds and walked out without any of his ridiculous elf hairstyle singed.


I always looked at it as physics is there and constant but then magic changes physics. Though i did enjoy working out angles in 2nd edition's lighting bolt.

Fax Celestis
2010-11-02, 01:16 PM
Of course, so many of the people who write science fiction have no concept of science and math, sometimes. :D

If I may quoth the trope: Sci Fi Writers have no sense of scale. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ScifiWritersHaveNoSenseOfScale)

Yeah, yeah. My point is, they're the same thing written from different directions, that's all. Science fiction IS fantasy, and fantasy IS science fiction (where magic supplants technology as the basis of civilization, there's no question people would experiment with it the same way we experiment now).

hiryuu
2010-11-02, 01:30 PM
Do you think our modern understanding of the universe could ruin the magic of a fantasy setting? Has it in your game?

I game with scientists (one of them is a laser technician, another is a car designer, and the other is a theoretical physicist), and they're never happy with the "it's magic" excuse. They tend to make characters with high ranks in arcane knowledge skills. They see a floating island, they want to get on it, test rocks, run alchemical processes, etc.

Lucky I've worked out enough of a magic physics that the laser tech guy understands the magic item schematics I put out. He's made an artificer/class nerd in our current game.

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 01:36 PM
It could, if you were able to open the exit in a different direction, then the entrance (which is nowhere specified). After all, rolling on the ground at 50 km/h might be painful (and harmful), but slaming into the ground at 50 km/h is in most cases fatal.


The biggest dangers from a 50km/h (or mph for that matter) roll are abrasions and obstacles. Motorcycle racers frequently fall at even higher speeds, and are typically okay due to abrasion-resistant leathers and lack of hard things to slam into.

/motorcyclist

To answer the question...

No, why would it? Magic is, by definition, something that happens outside the realm of science. If it worked by scientific laws, it'd be science.

To pre-empt Niven, the 'indistinguishable from magic' bit really applies to the *observer* of the effect, not the *creator.*

hiryuu
2010-11-02, 01:43 PM
No, why would it? Magic is, by definition, something that happens outside the realm of science. If it worked by scientific laws, it'd be science.

To pre-empt Niven, the 'indistinguishable from magic' bit really applies to the *observer* of the effect, not the *creator.*

Here, it would be, yes, but if it happens in a world where magic exists, that means the laws of that world allow for it, which means we can use science to figure out how it works. I think the problem is that people see magic and science as forces. Magic, in its context, is a force. Science, on the other hand, is not a force, it's a method of description, which means that in a universe with magic, we could use the scientific method to describe it.

FMArthur
2010-11-02, 02:16 PM
I just want to point out that there is a whole subgenre of Fantasy fiction that is directly inspired by modern science. The two are so far from incompatible that it makes me laugh whenever I hear of someone suggesting they are. Fantasy is probably a key component of an inventor's mindset. Science and fantasy fuel each other.

Artanis
2010-11-02, 02:24 PM
Here, it would be, yes, but if it happens in a world where magic exists, that means the laws of that world allow for it, which means we can use science to figure out how it works.

Agreed. Just because the laws are different doesn't mean that there are no laws :smallsmile:

bloodtide
2010-11-02, 02:39 PM
A problem that I see is people not having the ability to use their imaginations and only see things as defined by modern science. A lot of people are stuck in the Real World. And they can't see beyond it. Not everyone has an active imagination. This is very common with people that have a background in science. They can go on all day about whatever science is their specialty, but can not go beyond that. They have a hard time admitting 'any' thing might be unknown or different.

So when you have a magical effect do something like Teleportation. They will put on their science hat and say that it's impossible. They can't step back for even a second and say 'well, it might be possible', as they are so locked into 'science says it's impossible'. You get the same thing with Star Trek.

You often have to remind people that science is not all knowing at any one point in time. What is impossible today, may not be tomorrow. Take any point in history, say 1900, the average spinets of the day would never have dreamed of what we have now.

Actually, Popular Mechanics just put out a nice 'How they saw the future' book. It has articles from years ago and guesses as for how they saw the future. Some of them are dead on, but some were just beyond crazy.

hiryuu
2010-11-02, 02:45 PM
A problem that I see is people not having the ability to use their imaginations and only see things as defined by modern science. A lot of people are stuck in the Real World. And they can't see beyond it. Not everyone has an active imagination. This is very common with people that have a background in science. They can go on all day about whatever science is their specialty, but can not go beyond that. They have a hard time admitting 'any' thing might be unknown or different.

Wrong. This is the opposite of a scientist's mindset. Scientists are among the most curious and awe-filled people I know. Science requires an active imagination to do anything.


So when you have a magical effect do something like Teleportation. They will put on their science hat and say that it's impossible. They can't step back for even a second and say 'well, it might be possible', as they are so locked into 'science says it's impossible'. You get the same thing with Star Trek.

This is just wrong. They will put on their science hat and say "that's interesting, I wonder how that works." Then start devising an experiment to find out.


You often have to remind people that science is not all knowing at any one point in time. What is impossible today, may not be tomorrow. Take any point in history, say 1900, the average spinets of the day would never have dreamed of what we have now.

Just remember the best quote about science ever: "Of course science knows it doesn't know everything. If it did, it'd stop."

RagnaroksChosen
2010-11-02, 02:53 PM
Wrong. This is the opposite of a scientist's mindset. Scientists are among the most curious and awe-filled people I know.

It's not that different im sure alot of people are tainted by "intelectuals" that are just as bad as religous zealots in there embrace of all things scientific. Though I used to play with a bunch of engineers, most of them had a very scientific view of things but they could all switch it off and not be bothered by fantasy elements. We did have one that would bitch about things similar to this thread and finally we gave up arguing and just said its magic.

Roderick_BR
2010-11-02, 02:54 PM
Well, seeing that they have travelled instantaneously, they have accelerated to a speed greater than light. Thus their momentum would be far greater.

Any travel via teleportation should result in a massive kinetic explosion!

Unless, of course, you wave your hands and say "it's magic" - which means you can ignore anything you like about momentum. :smallbiggrin:
Unless magic teleportation in D&D doesn't use momentum at all. Take hyperspace for example, one of the theories is that you temporary teleports into a pocket dimension where normal laws of physics doen't work, unlike light speed travel, where you move so fast that the universe "bends" around you. Hyperspace gives you "ok, do whatever, the rules doesn't apply here", while with light speed, yes, things should go boom. StarTrek space ships should all explode.

Godless_Paladin
2010-11-02, 02:55 PM
Do you think our modern understanding of the universe could ruin the magic of a fantasy setting? Has it in your game?

No and no. I think the exact opposite is true. A scientific mindset enhances the magic of a fantasy setting.


Wrong. This is the opposite of a scientist's mindset. Scientists are among the most curious and awe-filled people I know. Science requires an active imagination to do anything.

...

This is just wrong. They will put on their science hat and say "that's interesting, I wonder how that works." Then start devising an experiment to find out.

...

Just remember the best quote about science ever: "Of course science knows it doesn't know everything. If it did, it'd stop."

Damned straight.

People here seem to have the basic, fundamental concept of what science is entirely backwards.

hiryuu
2010-11-02, 02:57 PM
It's not that different im sure alot of people are tainted by "intelectuals" that are just as bad as religous zealots in there embrace of all things scientific. Though I used to play with a bunch of engineers, most of them had a very scientific view of things but they could all switch it off and not be bothered by fantasy elements. We did have one that would bitch about things similar to this thread and finally we gave up arguing and just said its magic.

Well, engineers can be a headache, especially if you're not ready for the experiments they'll come up with to figure out how magic is working. The problem is that these people are intensely curious about how things work and aren't satisfied until they know how they work. Saying "it's magic" sounds like an excuse to them. For a good look at this mindset, track down the movie "Frog Dreaming" on youtube; it's beautiful.

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 03:16 PM
Here, it would be, yes, but if it happens in a world where magic exists, that means the laws of that world allow for it, which means we can use science to figure out how it works. I think the problem is that people see magic and science as forces. Magic, in its context, is a force. Science, on the other hand, is not a force, it's a method of description, which means that in a universe with magic, we could use the scientific method to describe it.

That's assuming that magic is deterministic. I'm not willing to make that assumption.


Wrong. This is the opposite of a scientist's mindset. Scientists are among the most curious and awe-filled people I know. Science requires an active imagination to do anything.


Cue the Feynman "cargo cult science" speech - but I totally agree with you.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-11-02, 03:23 PM
Well, engineers can be a headache, especially if you're not ready for the experiments they'll come up with to figure out how magic is working. The problem is that these people are intensely curious about how things work and aren't satisfied until they know how they work. Saying "it's magic" sounds like an excuse to them. For a good look at this mindset, track down the movie "Frog Dreaming" on youtube; it's beautiful.

Excuse me I happen to be an engineer though i don't work with experiments...
Being insistently curious about how things work doesn't make you a scientist, I know alot of New-agers that are like that. I think perspective is key here. though i don't disagree with what you are saying i think that a scientific mind set makes things more difficult for a pen and paper mechanics. Granted when PC's ask me to explain how something works in a game through physics i try to explain it. Granted alot of the time is well this is how magic works in this realm/world/system.

Godless_Paladin
2010-11-02, 03:27 PM
Being insistently curious about how things work doesn't make you a scientist Being a bipedal vertebrate doesn't make you a human, but it helps.


That's assuming that magic is deterministic. I'm not willing to make that assumption.

No it isn't. Magic doesn't need to be deterministic in order for you to apply a scientific perspective to it.

hiryuu
2010-11-02, 03:28 PM
That's assuming that magic is deterministic. I'm not willing to make that assumption.

You don't need a deterministic world to use science to describe magic. All you need is a method of observation.

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 04:11 PM
You don't need a deterministic world to use science to describe magic. All you need is a method of observation.

Yes, but you need to be able to make a hypothesis and test it.

If magic is ultimately non-deterministic, no hypothesis will have predictive power.

I mean, I can observe magnets, but just observing a magnet and then saying "magnets, how do THEY work" is hardly science.

And yes, I know quantum mechanics isn't deterministic. However, even then, the chances of particular events *can* be determined, and repeated.

What if even that wasn't the case with magic?

hiryuu
2010-11-02, 04:19 PM
Yes, but you need to be able to make a hypothesis and test it.

If magic is ultimately non-deterministic, no hypothesis will have predictive power.

I mean, I can observe magnets, but just observing a magnet and then saying "magnets, how do THEY work" is hardly science.

And yes, I know quantum mechanics isn't deterministic. However, even then, the chances of particular events *can* be determined, and repeated.

What if even that wasn't the case with magic?

In D&D it sure as hell is. I predict tomorrow, the wizard will have the potential to cast magic missile. I can also predict what it will do when he uses it, and that he won't be able to again afterward, unless he prepared it twice. It has to be scientific from the perspective of its world, otherwise we couldn't cast spells the same way the next day.

If it's not the case, then we can predict that it's not the case, can't we? We've now created a rule that it isn't deterministic. Congratulations.

dsmiles
2010-11-02, 04:23 PM
Do the light and slit test with a light spell. That should have fairly predictable results.
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/interference/doubleslit/doubleslitjavafigure1.jpg
or
http://media.techeblog.com/images/dslit.jpg

Delwugor
2010-11-02, 04:30 PM
I once attempted to put together a magic system based on thermodynamics, industrial control systems and the Transport Equation.
I broke a magical effect into 5 components:

Energy source
Energy transference
Control
Energy tranformation
Delivery/Targeting

Some interesting things I came up with:

Level based magic would interpret levels as use of different sources.
Control must have a seperate energy source than the magic
Entropy plays havoc with energy transference and tranformation
Only 10% of the energy would be delivered to the magic effect. Meaning 90% of the engery drawn from it's source was lost. Control is what helped boost this percentage - at it's own seperate energy cost.
Scrolls become formulated and read more like engineering schematics.
Finally - Radiative heat transfer goes well with Fireball.

This was all just a theorectical excercise that never came into any game play. Really no one else I played with at the time would have been that interested in it.

Godless_Paladin
2010-11-02, 04:37 PM
Yes, but you need to be able to make a hypothesis and test it.

If magic is ultimately non-deterministic, no hypothesis will have predictive power.

I mean, I can observe magnets, but just observing a magnet and then saying "magnets, how do THEY work" is hardly science.

And yes, I know quantum mechanics isn't deterministic. However, even then, the chances of particular events *can* be determined, and repeated.

What if even that wasn't the case with magic?

What?

Nevermind that you won't tell us what your hypothetical world where science can't apply actually is (since you've already admitted that "non-deterministic" actually works out for science); you are just going waaaay off course from talking about anything remotely related to D&D here. Whatever world you're talking about, it would make the Far Realms seem perfectly sane.

Of course there's predictive power. A wizard is clearly able to do something to create a "Web" effect. And odds are he can do it again tomorrow under the same circumstances.


If it's not the case, then we can predict that it's not the case, can't we? Damn right we can.

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 05:27 PM
What?

Nevermind that you won't tell us what your hypothetical world where science can't apply actually is (since you've already admitted that "non-deterministic" actually works out for science); you are just going waaaay off course from talking about anything remotely related to D&D here. Whatever world you're talking about, it would make the Far Realms seem perfectly sane.


I'm not sure where the rancor is coming from. I'm not saying that magic must behave like this, I'm simply saying that there's no real requirement that magic behave in a way that would make it subject to the scientific method in any useful way. Let it be, well, magic.

Susano-wo
2010-11-02, 05:34 PM
I love it when people argue with base assumptions while assuming that the other side has the same, and acting as if their base assumption is the case.

And with any dnd magic and physics discussion, the biggest base assumption is: Game rules are ment for adjuicating actions in play, this may or may not accurately reflect physics or Game rules are simulatory for their game world, ergo Dnd physics is different that RL physics, in that these actions are possible there.

And usually both arguments are cogent from their respective assumptions.

dsmiles
2010-11-02, 05:38 PM
I love it when people argue with base assumptions while assuming that the other side has the same, and acting as if their base assumption is the case.

And with any dnd magic and physics discussion, the biggest base assumption is: Game rules are ment for adjuicating actions in play, this may or may not accurately reflect physics or Game rules are simulatory for their game world, ergo Dnd physics is different that RL physics, in that these actions are possible there.

And usually both arguments are cogent from their respective assumptions.

Alternatively, as I stated previously, you can mix and match. It doesn't really matter, as long as you're consistent within your game world.

Susano-wo
2010-11-02, 05:44 PM
Alternatively, as I stated previously, you can mix and match. It doesn't really matter, as long as you're consistent within your game world.

sure, that is another option. I guess I was just trying to adress the "magic is a mysterious force, it doesn't necessarily give the same results within the same variables, so you can't scientifically test it!" idea, vs the "no, the game rules say that X happenes everytime Y does Z, so magic is therefoer predictable" idea, which basically stem from assumptions about the purpose of game rules.

Godless_Paladin
2010-11-02, 05:49 PM
"magic is a mysterious force, it doesn't necessarily give the same results within the same variables, so you can't scientifically test it!" This statement represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what science means.

"magic is a mysterious force, it doesn't necessarily give the same results within the same variables" does not mean "you can't scientifically test it!"

I can test a Rod of Wonder via the scientific method and draw rational conclusions about its function. The fact that I can't actually tell precisely what will happen when I press the button, not even to the point of probabilistic calculations, is wholly and completely irrelevant to whether or not I can apply the Scientific Method to it.

AslanCross
2010-11-02, 06:05 PM
Commoner railguns et al. are bloody annoying.

I don't think physics in principle ruins fantasy, but I do think that people who try to mix in physics with their magic generally do so poorly. One thing I'd love to do eventually is develop a general formulation of physical laws that allows me to describe what sorts of physical laws are needed for a more "magical" universe, and which sorts of "magic" are logically consistent. But I doubt it will ever happen, if only because it's unlikely a university will take kindly to me wasting their resources on such a project.

I think this is pretty much how I feel about it. My players have never bothered to force vaguely-written rules to conform to realistic natural laws. That's a good thing too, since all of them are science and math majors.

Susano-wo
2010-11-02, 06:08 PM
how do I say this...its not that you can't ever rationally come to conclusions about magical effects, its that science has to be measurable, and requires, for a hypothesis to be tested, to be able to get the same results with the same variables.

So lets take magic spells. if I throw eldritch fire at you, but it doesn't happen the same way each time, and is either A random, B a funtion of how much I focus, or C some combo of the two, how do you measure focus, or how magic works, or what a spell will do in any given instance?

Seems like you are equating rationality with science.

If, when you press a button on the rod of wonder, it does something different each/most times with no pattern, is it still able to be 'scientifically tested?'

bloodtide
2010-11-02, 06:11 PM
My point is more about people then science.

Most people, when confronted by something that they don't understand, simply shut down. To them something they don't understand does not exist. It's even scarier is how people shut down in danger. If you have ever seen any thing dangerous, you know some people just don't react right. Some people just stand there, and worse some even run towards the danger.


The problem in the game is when people can't turn off their 'science brain' and just have fun. To them, science is life.

We all agree science is real and exists in real life. But a game is a game. It does not matter what the laws of physics say, it's just a game. It's for fun.

Prime32
2010-11-02, 06:13 PM
Here is an excellent example of applying science to a fantasy world: http://www.mimir.net/essays/planarphysics.html

Fire atoms are, as stated before, jagged, fairly light, and middle sized. Of all the elements, fire atoms are the most able to break the bonds holding other atoms together, because of their sharp nature. This is why simply touching fire is often enough to damage things, as the fire atoms sever the atomic bonds. Fire atoms also have weak bonds with each other. Not only do their jagged surfaces present small area for bonding, their own neighbours tend to break up bonds quickly. Fire atoms will not bond with water atoms, because the water atoms are so smooth that the fire cannot grip them. Fire atoms are usually coloured red, and is transparent. It usually gives off more light than most atoms, naturally tending to have more positive spin than other atoms.

Earth atoms are blocky, dense, and solid. They are the smallest atoms in volume, although their density makes them the heaviest. Because earth is so blocky, it piles up in large stable heaps, and the bonds between atoms are strong, because they happen over all touching surfaces, of which earth has more than any other atoms. Earth atoms do not bond well with air atoms. Air atoms have little surface area to bond to, and the cohesion groups of earth atoms tend to prevent air atoms from curling around them and gaining a good grip. Most earth atoms are not transparent. There is no space between the atoms for light to get through. Earth atoms can be many different colours, however. Most earth atoms do not emit light. They are the most stable atom, and are thus the hardest to alter or damage.

Water atoms are smooth, rounded particles, often spherical. They are about the same size as fire atoms. Because of their smooth surfaces, they tend to have the weakest connections with other atoms of all the elements, except fire. They refuse to bond to fire atoms, for reasons already discussed. Water atoms tend to act like lubrication to other atoms. Most water atoms are bluish or greenish, and have about the same degree of transparency that fire atoms have.

Air atoms are long, fine, string-like particles. They are the lightest, and the largest in terms of length, of all atoms. They have fairly good cohesion with each other, since they can wind themselves up into large tangles. This also allows them to bond with fire and water atoms, by fitting in the crevices of fire atoms, and following the curves of water atoms. They do not bond well with earth atoms, as previously mentioned. Most air atoms are transparent to the point of invisibility, the opposite of earth atoms.

hiryuu
2010-11-02, 06:17 PM
how do I say this...its not that you can't ever rationally come to conclusions about magical effects, its that science has to be measurable, and requires, for a hypothesis to be tested, to be able to get the same results with the same variables.

So lets take magic spells. if I throw eldritch fire at you, but it doesn't happen the same way each time, and is either A random, B a funtion of how much I focus, or C some combo of the two, how do you measure focus, or how magic works, or what a spell will do in any given instance?

Seems like you are equating rationality with science.

If, when you press a button on the rod of wonder, it does something different each/most times with no pattern, is it still able to be 'scientifically tested?'

If your soul fire is random, that's something we can determine about it (and keep you out of town for). If it's a function of how much you focus, not only could we potentially figure that out, WE CAN MAKE TOYS (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1880784,00.html) based on it. If it's a combination of the two, we could potentially uncover what causes it's based on.

And a Rod of Wonder? If it's the D&D version, we can very easily. You press the button, something happens. We can determine that where you are or where you're pointing doesn't do anything to the result, that there's a limited amount of results, and the likelihood of each, eventually coming to a bell curve of results. Of course, there will be attempts to figure out how to skew those results, that happens with everything that seems random, and we may even be able to determine the algorithm by which it operates.

What I want to see is someone describe a non-deterministic world and magic.
Hard Mode: Describe it in such a way that mages can still exist.
Ultra Mode: Describe it in such a way that mages can still be Int-based casters.

dsmiles
2010-11-02, 06:22 PM
how do I say this...its not that you can't ever rationally come to conclusions about magical effects, its that science has to be measurable, and requires, for a hypothesis to be tested, to be able to get the same results with the same variables.

So lets take magic spells. if I throw eldritch fire at you, but it doesn't happen the same way each time, and is either A random, B a function of how much I focus, or C some combo of the two, how do you measure focus, or how magic works, or what a spell will do in any given instance?

Seems like you are equating rationality with science.

If, when you press a button on the rod of wonder, it does something different each/most times with no pattern, is it still able to be 'scientifically tested?'

I, personally, don't break it down like that. Earlier, we spoke on the physics of dim door while falling. "Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing comes out," was my opinion. Granted, if the player stated that his/her intent was to fall into a horizontally placed portal, and exit from a vertically placed portal, he would either fall and get some road rash, or make a balance check to remain upright, and end up with a nearly free bull rush/overrun attempt. That, and spell effects actually do things. Fireball ignites flammable liquids with a low enough flash point (naphtha). Alchemists' Fire, which ignites on contact with air (basically white phosphorous), will ignite the AoE of a grease spell. Lightning bolt and similar spells force a positive modifier to the target's save based on the amount of conductive material on his/her person that is also in contact with the ground, then goes to ground through said person (a suit of full plate would leave the individual nearly unharmed, as the metal is in contact with both the lightning and the ground, and has a lower resistance than human skin). Those are the physics I use. Spells that create consistently measurable phenomena.

Godless_Paladin
2010-11-02, 06:25 PM
If, when you press a button on the rod of wonder, it does something different each/most times with no pattern, is it still able to be 'scientifically tested?'

Yes. Of course it can be scientifically tested. That's why I used it as an example. You can test a Rod of Wonder and arrive at all kinds of useful conclusions by following the Hypothesis / Testing / Conclusion process of the Scientific Method. Starting with how to activate it (or what conditions will NOT allow it to activate), and following with general properties about the kinds of effects it creates.

The fact that you don't know exactly what will happen when you press the button on the rod of wonder is immaterial. Science isn't required to come up with definitive answers. That's why we call them "theories" instead of "theorems."



What I want to see is someone describe a non-deterministic world and magic.
Hard Mode: Describe it in such a way that mages can still exist.
Ultra Mode: Describe it in such a way that mages can still be Int-based casters.

Likewise. But when I asked Kyoryu to provide an example he just complained about rancor instead of answering. Classy.


We all agree science is real and exists in real life. But a game is a game. It does not matter what the laws of physics say, it's just a game. It's for fun.

Science is not "the laws of physics." The laws of physics are the results of the scientific method applied to the real world setting. In a setting where people can toss fireballs by chanting over bat guano, science still applies... but the laws of physics that result from it are different.


To them something they don't understand does not exist.

See, this is exactly what we're talking about when we say that there is a very fundamental and even tragic misunderstanding of what science is here.

Science is all about approaching things you don't understand. If you understood everything, there'd be no need for science.

"Of course science knows it doesn't know everything. If it did, it'd stop."

Assuming that you know in a definitive sense how the natural world works is characteristic of the unscientific mind, not the other way around.


Most people, when confronted by something that they don't understand, simply shut down. And most people are not scientists for this very reason.

A scientific mind reacts completely differently to the unknown. To the scientific mind, the unknown contains hidden wonders begging to be explored. The mind does not shut down, it gears the hell up and gets down to the business of exploring the unknown.

Susano-wo
2010-11-02, 06:39 PM
RE sicence's ability to measure things: I don't know. it doesn't feel right to me, but I can't really come up with arguments to support it more than I hae, so I'll have to concede the point unless I can come up with a better way to phrase things, or figure out where I'm getting this 'no, science can't do that, reaction' from, if its not factual
though re the rod of wonder, I was trying to specify a different version that wasn't so predictable, in contrast to the game rules.

Also, I was never trying to make the point that there is nothing measurable about magic(tm), but that depending on how magic works, it might defy measurement, in as last many of its properties/functions/outworkings

and finally, I think perhaps I am equating science to physics, which might be my problem.

lastly, Dsmiles, I think I agree with you. I like to have natural responses to spells, such as fire spells igniting things, and the vertical/horrizontal dim dorr circumstance. Its fun. but a certain point you have to tell physics to sit down and shut up, because it is nigh impossible to completely reconcile magic with normal physical laws under a game system, and not necessarily desirable to do it in fiction

Urpriest
2010-11-02, 06:41 PM
Here is an excellent example of applying science to a fantasy world: http://www.mimir.net/essays/planarphysics.html

The odd thing is, this is actually very similar to how Descartes believed physics worked. Fun historical fact.

Anyway, while normally I would argue that any world could be investigated scientifically, I understand the argument here:

The idea is that the Rod of Wonder does not actually have 100 (or whatever) different effects with fixed probabilities. This is simply a convenient way of representing its effects in-game. It just so happens that in any given session it will give these results in this pattern. Offscreen, on the other hand, where the rules become fuzzier, it won't. Magic can work this way as well, even Int-based magic: a wizard could improvise spells from recognized fragments of other spells, using their amazing powers of memorization and pattern recognition to essentially recreate spells every day during spell preparation. Given the RAW idiosyncrasies of wizardly notation this is even reasonable. (Note that the mere fact that no two wizards can agree on notation does not mean that magic is unscientific, the same is after all true of Quantum Field Theory, much to my current frustration).

Think about it like this: no one would argue that a Fighter in 4e with the encounter power Come and Get It knows that he can call enemies to him if they are within precisely fifteen feet and he has rested for at least five minutes. This is an abstraction, and it intends to depict the fact that it just so happens that the fighter gets into roughly similar combat situations on a regular basis. Testing this out would simply fail, because it's not part of the world, it's part of the game, and when you stop playing the game and start having your character do tricks to try to figure out the rules the rules become irrelevant because you have wandered from the plot and begun engaging in fluff that the DM is perfectly allowed to simply summarize without referencing the rules. Magic could be like that: just things that the character happens to be able to do at that time in that place.

Now I think 3.5 D&D is better suited to a world where magic isn't like that, where spells are discrete entities with predictable results and magic item tables really are properties of the items rather than just a subset of their behavior over one particular campaign. But it's not logically inconsistent to run it the other way.

Godless_Paladin
2010-11-02, 06:45 PM
The idea is that the Rod of Wonder does not actually have 100 (or whatever) different effects with fixed probabilities. That's exactly why I used it as an example to refute the argument that you couldn't apply science to unpredictable things.


The fact that I can't actually tell precisely what will happen when I press the button, not even to the point of probabilistic calculations, is wholly and completely irrelevant to whether or not I can apply the Scientific Method to it to glean useful information about the Rod of Wonder.

dsmiles
2010-11-02, 06:47 PM
lastly, Dsmiles, I think I agree with you. I like to have natural responses to spells, such as fire spells igniting things, and the vertical/horrizontal dim dorr circumstance. Its fun. but a certain point you have to tell physics to sit down and shut up, because it is nigh impossible to completely reconcile magic with normal physical laws under a game system, and not necessarily desirable to do it in fiction

I absolutely concur. I don't do this for every spell, just the ones I know should have some sort of natural effect that follows. But my application is consistent. All fire-creating spells behave this way, all lightning-based spells behave that way, etc. I firmly believe that consistency is the key in making magic a little more believable/immersive for me.

Godless_Paladin
2010-11-02, 06:59 PM
Questions the scientific method could help you answer about a Rod of Wonder:

-How is the Rod of Wonder activated?
-Can the Rod of Wonder work in an antimagic field?
-Can I break a Rod of Wonder with X tools?
-Can the Rod of Wonder cause the same effect twice?
-Are the Rod of Wonder's effects limited to a single school of magic?
-What kind of magical aura does the Rod of Wonder have?
-What kind of range of effects does a Rod of Wonder tend to produce? (For example, a Rod of Wonder is not commonly producing effects like Time Stop, Weird, or Cloister). In other words, you can analyze trends and form a degree of rational expectations.
-Much more.

Of course, even one example is enough to completely refute the argument on the other side (that you cannot analyze a Rod of Wonder with the scientific method).

The thing is, if a Rod of Wonder showed up in the real world, and no one knew what the hell it was, you know who you'd want to give it to? Scientists. And they wouldn't just break down and cry and abandon science. Science is constantly revising and questioning itself. If something does not fit with the established expectations, they rewrite the expectations.

hiryuu
2010-11-02, 07:07 PM
The idea is that the Rod of Wonder does not actually have 100 (or whatever) different effects with fixed probabilities. This is simply a convenient way of representing its effects in-game. It just so happens that in any given session it will give these results in this pattern. Offscreen, on the other hand, where the rules become fuzzier, it won't.

I understand this, that's why I framed my response to be in a specific context. However, with this other hypothetical rod, we could indicate that it performs random results, that's something we know about it, and that certain levels of concentration, orientation, position, time of day, and other variables have no bearing on it. Of course, no one in their right mind would keep it around as it would then be just as likely to produce a four course meal as it is to turn your eyeballs into a swarm of ticks.


-How is the Rod of Wonder activated?
-Can the Rod of Wonder work in an antimagic field?
-Can I break a Rod of Wonder with X tools?
-Can the Rod of Wonder cause the same effect twice?
-Are the Rod of Wonder's effects limited to a single school of magic?
-What kind of range of effects does a Rod of Wonder tend to produce? (For example, a Rod of Wonder is not commonly producing effects like Time Stop, Weird, or Cloister)

And this.


Magic can work this way as well, even Int-based magic: a wizard could improvise spells from recognized fragments of other spells, using their amazing powers of memorization and pattern recognition to essentially recreate spells every day during spell preparation.

So what you're saying is that magic and spells have rules, and wizards can exploit those rules through experimentation and application of knowledge to produce a desired effect. This is entirely my point.

Fax Celestis
2010-11-02, 07:09 PM
So what you're saying is that magic and spells have rules, and wizards can exploit those rules through experimentation and application of knowledge to produce a desired effect.
See also...

So what you're saying is that science and experiments have rules, and scientists can exploit those rules through experimentation and application of knowledge to produce a desired effect.

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 07:12 PM
Likewise. But when I asked Kyoryu to provide an example he just complained about rancor instead of answering. Classy.


Well, you didn't actually ask me. You complained about me not describing my "hypothetical world" with a whole bunch of snark. Yes, that was rancor, and did not advance the conversation in any way. OTOH, here's an example of a question:

"Give me an example of what you're talking about, so I might understand where you're coming from, since I really don't see how what you're describing is possible."

And, to answer that:

Let's say that the next time an NPC mage casts Web on the party, I decide that it, instead, will summon a bunch of butterflies. This will happen exactly once.

While this may be able to be observed, how would you come up with a falsifiable scientific theory, or even hypothesis, based upon this?

I suspect that you won't really like this example, as it requires DM fiat. I think Susano-wo hit on the crux of the argument - does magic *have to* be bound by systemic rules? I personally wouldn't run a game where it *wasn't*, but I don't necessarily believe that it *must be*.

On the other hand, if there is a rules-driven system for magic, it *can* be scientifically dervied, even for random effects like the Rod of Wonder. There's no question about that, and I absolutely agree that the properties and behavior of a Rod of Wonder *can* be determined scientifically.

valadil
2010-11-02, 07:13 PM
Do you think our modern understanding of the universe could ruin the magic of a fantasy setting? Has it in your game?

It could, if and only if players are allowed to metagame in extreme ways. The chemist who "accidentally" stumbles upon a mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter isn't damaging the game by using science. They're damaging it by injecting science from player to character.

bloodtide
2010-11-02, 07:13 PM
See, this is exactly what we're talking about when we say that there is a very fundamental and even tragic misunderstanding of what science is here.

Science is all about approaching things you don't understand. If you understood everything, there'd be no need for science.


While this is true of Science, it's not true for people.

Ask a scientist about telepathy and they will quickly go on a rant that it does not exist. Yet, there does look to be 'something' there. The idea that our brain might send and receive electromagnetic radiation, is not impossible. Yes, buy the current understanding of science it can't be done....but that could change any time.

Go back in time 20, 30, 50 or 100 years or more. Tons of stuff was considered impossible. Yet a lot of that stuff are things we do everyday.


People just get locked into what science says as if it was the Final Word. They don't get the idea that 'what we know' changes all the time. Ask the average scientist to just think of a way that you could cast a fireball, and you will just get the blank state and the 'it's impossible' line. Only a handful of scientist(and people in general) can think out side the box.

Godless_Paladin
2010-11-02, 07:15 PM
While this may be able to be observed, how would you come up with a falsifiable scientific theory, or even hypothesis, based upon this? "Sometimes a Web spell will produce a cloud of butterflies."

Check it out. I did it!

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 07:19 PM
"Sometimes a Web spell will produce a cloud of butterflies."

Check it out. I did it!

And yet, it will have zero predictive value, as we know (through metagame knowledge) that it will *never* do that again.

I can also make Web do other random things (again, each bizarre thing happening only once). At which point, the theory becomes "The Web spell usually makes a web. Except when it doesn't. When it doesn't, we have no idea of what happens."

I'd argue that's not even a scientific theory at all, as it's not falsifiable.

Even in this case, you could argue that one could approach magic in a scientific fashion. This is true. However, without the ability to come up with falsifiable theories, the scientific method is somewhat cut short.

This is a somewhat extreme argument, granted, as it involves a DM that is actively subverting any scientific process.

And, again, I'd *never* run a game like that.

Ormur
2010-11-02, 07:20 PM
Actually I'd go the other way and say that a lack of science can ruin fantasy, in some instances. It always bugs me when things in fantasy settings that aren't implied to be the result of magic or the different fundamental laws of that particular universe nevertheless don't make sense, and I'm a liberal arts major.

It's fine if things aren't explained because POV isn't omniscient or scientifically minded. What I'm talking about is all of mundane things in D&D that don't make sense and that there really shouldn't be a forest where Mirkwood in LotR is.

I prefer constructed worlds where things work like they do in the real world except for X,Y,Z, and then we're either given an explanation for why those are different or presented with a mystery that might be revealed later.

Even worlds where there are four elements, aether exists or is flat is okay if that's treated logically.

I actually think it's fun (or funny) when something like scientific method is applied to fantastic elements in fantasy.


I once attempted to put together a magic system based on thermodynamics, industrial control systems and the Transport Equation.
I broke a magical effect into 5 components:

Energy source
Energy transference
Control
Energy tranformation
Delivery/Targeting

Some interesting things I came up with:

Level based magic would interpret levels as use of different sources.
Control must have a seperate energy source than the magic
Entropy plays havoc with energy transference and tranformation
Only 10% of the energy would be delivered to the magic effect. Meaning 90% of the engery drawn from it's source was lost. Control is what helped boost this percentage - at it's own seperate energy cost.
Scrolls become formulated and read more like engineering schematics.
Finally - Radiative heat transfer goes well with Fireball.

This was all just a theorectical excercise that never came into any game play. Really no one else I played with at the time would have been that interested in it.

I'd love to see that. I've often wanted a magic system that explicitly worked by bending or breaking the laws of physics in predetermined ways.

dsmiles
2010-11-02, 07:22 PM
I'd love to see that. I've often wanted a magic system that explicitly worked by bending or breaking the laws of physics in predetermined ways.

You mean like in Mage: the Awakening?

Urpriest
2010-11-02, 07:22 PM
Questions the scientific method could help you answer about a Rod of Wonder:

-How is the Rod of Wonder activated?
-Can the Rod of Wonder work in an antimagic field?
-Can I break a Rod of Wonder with X tools?
-Can the Rod of Wonder cause the same effect twice?
-Are the Rod of Wonder's effects limited to a single school of magic?
-What kind of magical aura does the Rod of Wonder have?
-What kind of range of effects does a Rod of Wonder tend to produce? (For example, a Rod of Wonder is not commonly producing effects like Time Stop, Weird, or Cloister). In other words, you can analyze trends and form a degree of rational expectations.
-Much more.

Of course, even one example is enough to completely and utterly refute the argument on the other side.

The thing is, if a Rod of Wonder showed up in the real world, and no one knew what the hell it was, you know who you'd want to give it to? Scientists. And they wouldn't just break down and cry.

Ok, you've now figured out many traits of one Rod of Wonder. Congratulations. However, if Rod of Wonder is not in fact a category that exists in the world but merely the game statistics for one particular object, you haven't learned all that much. Your scientific progress is limited because anyone else doing the same experiments on the same object might get different results.

For D&D magic to be truly ascientific you'd need things like, for example, antimagic fields to be only fields that suppress magic in situations in which the players happen to find themselves, or the schools of magic being just the categories that magic the PCs run into happen to have. You'd have to refluff knowledge skills (since science is just the generalized method of acquiring knowledge), which could get pretty hairy.

Even with all this, you'd still run into the problem that the PCs experience would be law-abiding, so while science would not be projectable to the wider world it would still apply to all relevant experience, which is good enough if you're sufficiently Positivist about it. So you'd need an added caveat: whenever a PC tries to investigate magic systematically at all, you go to "cinematic mode". Say you want to find these things out about the rod of wonder. If it isn't a combat situation and you're just aiming to find out how it works, then these might give you incorrect results. Maybe it will work in an antimagic field. Maybe a different button will activate it, or you won't even be able to. Maybe you map out some regularity out of those explained above, only to find the next time you look at it that the regularity is gone.

This kind of thing requires twisting the world to the limits of cinematicity. In a truly cinematic, narrative-powered world, science could fail simply due to author fiat. Look at any sci-fi novel in which technology stays the same for thousands of years and you'll see it happen. Nevertheless, this is not what D&D is best at, and D&D is much better used to model a world with lawlike, investigable magic.

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 07:22 PM
Actually I'd go the other way and say that a lack of science can ruin fantasy, in some instances. It always bugs me when things in fantasy settings that aren't implied to be the result of magic or the different fundamental laws of that particular universe nevertheless don't make sense, and I'm a liberal arts major.


Actually, I agree with this statement a lot. I think magic works better when it's at least internally consistent - and internal consistency suggests consistent behavior and leads to the ability for the scientific method to be fully and rigorously applied.

Godless_Paladin
2010-11-02, 07:23 PM
And yet, it will have zero predictive value, as we know (through metagame knowledge) that it will *never* do that again. Okay. Here's an aspect of that conclusion that does have predictive value:

"Sometimes the Web spell will go awry and have unpredictable consequences other than those desired by the caster."

Knowing that the effect is not a sure thing is indeed a valuable piece of information.

Through exhaustive testing, you could also map out a projected rate of failure.


While this is true of Science, it's not true for people.

Ask a scientist about telepathy and they will quickly go on a rant that it does not exist. Yet, there does look to be 'something' there. The idea that our brain might send and receive electromagnetic radiation, is not impossible. Yes, buy the current understanding of science it can't be done....but that could change any time.

Go back in time 20, 30, 50 or 100 years or more. Tons of stuff was considered impossible. Yet a lot of that stuff are things we do everyday.

People just get locked into what science says as if it was the Final Word. They don't get the idea that 'what we know' changes all the time. Ask the average scientist to just think of a way that you could cast a fireball, and you will just get the blank state and the 'it's impossible' line. Only a handful of scientist(and people in general) can think out side the box.

Somehow I get the impression that you don't actually talk to a lot of scientists, Bloodtide.

Urpriest
2010-11-02, 07:33 PM
While this is true of Science, it's not true for people.

Ask a scientist about telepathy and they will quickly go on a rant that it does not exist. Yet, there does look to be 'something' there. The idea that our brain might send and receive electromagnetic radiation, is not impossible. Yes, buy the current understanding of science it can't be done....but that could change any time.

Go back in time 20, 30, 50 or 100 years or more. Tons of stuff was considered impossible. Yet a lot of that stuff are things we do everyday.


People just get locked into what science says as if it was the Final Word. They don't get the idea that 'what we know' changes all the time. Ask the average scientist to just think of a way that you could cast a fireball, and you will just get the blank state and the 'it's impossible' line. Only a handful of scientist(and people in general) can think out side the box.

Again, I'm troubled by this attitude. Do you know many scientists? There is a vast difference between a scientist and a consumer of science. When a scientist says something is impossible, they mean that as you have phrased it that thing doesn't exist. They aren't going to call something impossible simply because current physical law rules it out, they're going to say it's impossible because it has actually been observed to be impossible.

Take telepathy. Let's say you define telepathy as "the thing that Guru X and his various buddies and colleagues can do". Well, neither Guru X nor any of his myriad buddies, disciples, etc, have won the JREF prize, despite numerous attempts. So we've ruled out this definition of telepathy. It's not because the laws are fixed, it's because the experiments show that the events you have predicted to occur have not.

By contrast, a science-venerating consumer of science (a nonscientist, in short) might well argue that telepathy is impossible because the laws of science say it is. This is because such a person is stupid and does not understand how science works.

I'm legitimately troubled that you seem not to grasp this, though it may just be that you lack the urgency I feel for use of precise language in this area.

Godless_Paladin
2010-11-02, 07:35 PM
Do you know many scientists? Oh! Oh! I do! Pick me! :smallsmile:

I've yet to meet any that act like Bloodtide describes, though.


By contrast, a science-venerating consumer of science (a nonscientist, in short) might well argue that telepathy is impossible because the laws of science say it is. This is because such a person is stupid and does not understand how science works.

Well, that could be a bad thing to say as a general principle. People will use words like "impossible" or other all-including generalizations in common speech without actually meaning that, say, literally everyone knows something when they say "everyone knows that."

But if they actually, genuinely believe that, then yeah.
This is because such a person is stupid and does not understand how science works.

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 07:36 PM
Okay. Here's an aspect of that conclusion that does have predictive value:

"Sometimes the Web spell will go awry and have consequences other than those desired by the caster."

Except then it might never fail again. DM fiat.

Also, how would you test to falsify this? Lack of falsifiability is why several things that are commonly thought of as "theories" aren't. I won't give examples, for fear of forum rules.


Knowing that the effect is not a sure thing is indeed a valuable piece of information.

Granted.


Through exhaustive testing, you could also map out a projected rate of failure.

Not really, since the failure rate is entirely determined by DM fiat in this example.

At any rate, that's a pretty weak definition of something still being a scientific theory. If you're willing to say that that's still science, then sure, okay, it's science. I'm not willing to call unfalsifiable theories scientific.

At any rate, it seems like that's pretty much going to be the sticking point here, and I doubt we'll get much further than this, so how about a gentleman's agreement to agree to disagree?

Ormur
2010-11-02, 07:41 PM
While this is true of Science, it's not true for people.

Ask a scientist about telepathy and they will quickly go on a rant that it does not exist. Yet, there does look to be 'something' there. The idea that our brain might send and receive electromagnetic radiation, is not impossible. Yes, buy the current understanding of science it can't be done....but that could change any time.

Go back in time 20, 30, 50 or 100 years or more. Tons of stuff was considered impossible. Yet a lot of that stuff are things we do everyday.


People just get locked into what science says as if it was the Final Word. They don't get the idea that 'what we know' changes all the time. Ask the average scientist to just think of a way that you could cast a fireball, and you will just get the blank state and the 'it's impossible' line. Only a handful of scientist(and people in general) can think out side the box.

Science has to put up some mechanism for excluding the frankly kooky stuff so it can focus on the actual unsolved mysteries of the world.

There are just so many crackpot ideas that twist and turn science to it's ends that scientists are understandably wary of chasing after them. Most people that believe in telepathy are perhaps satisfied with anecdotal evidence and then go on to complain scientists are close minded (literally).

I'm pretty certain there have been some comparative studies to test telepathy and the lack of peer reviewed articles and headlines doesn't seem so support it's existence. It may not be theoretically impossible, and as you say theory changes, but with lack of any supporting evidence a scientist that were to research telepathy with the preconception that it was possible would run the risk of compromising his experiments and methods.

It would be another thing entirely if scientists discovered evidence of telepathy and then tried to find out whether that was accurate and what could explain it. Science deals mostly with things we know we don't know the reason for. A certain conservative attitude is necessary to maintain integrity.

Godless_Paladin
2010-11-02, 07:42 PM
Not really, since the failure rate is entirely determined by DM fiat in this example.

What was it Einstein said about scientists getting to know the mind of God? :smallwink:


Also, how would you test to falsify this? Lack of falsifiability is why several things that are commonly thought of as "theories" aren't. I won't give examples, for fear of forum rules. I can make the claim that I can repeatedly replicate a Web effect by using my Wizardly methods. And then I can. It would be falsified if I couldn't ever cast Web again because the DM fiat-ed it away. See Hiryuu's comments about "a world where int-based mages exist."

If it only messed up once, and never happened again (a possibility you presented), that doesn't really affect the theory much at all. There are holes in the theory of gravity bigger than that.

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 07:42 PM
While this is true of Science, it's not true for people.

Obligatory: http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

Cealocanth
2010-11-02, 07:43 PM
My campaign is very highly scientific. There's a scientific explanation for almost everything. I, for one, find that the science to explain fantasy makes it a lot more believeable and can enhance the reasoning behind everything.


So you got a floating city, right? I'd prefer to know that this floating city could actually exist by using scientific laws instead of "it just floats. deal with it."

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 07:48 PM
What was it Einstein said about scientists getting to know the mind of God? :smallwink:

So you've got entities inside a simulated world using telepathy to determine the thoughts of an entity in the world containing their simulated world?

My brain 'sploded.

i go hohm nao ma brayn not werk thnx mush fer dat

Godless_Paladin
2010-11-02, 07:52 PM
So you've got entities inside a simulated world using telepathy to determine the thoughts of an entity in the world containing their simulated world? ...what? How the heck did you get that from what I said? :smallconfused:

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 07:55 PM
...what? How the heck did you get that from what I said?

"knowing the mind of God." Since the context was PCs employing the scientific method, I assumed you meant, combined with the telepathy comment, that you were proposing that PCs could somehow get inside the thoughts of the DM.

Which is just such a mind-blowing concept that it fried my brain.

If I misread that, then I guess my mind is just much more messed up than I thought, for coming up with a concept like that from something unrelated.

Godless_Paladin
2010-11-02, 07:56 PM
"knowing the mind of God." Since the context was PCs employing the scientific method, I assumed you meant, combined with the telepathy comment, that you were proposing that PCs could somehow get inside the thoughts of the DM. That assumption makes no sense at all.

No, I meant to imply that it doesn't actually matter if DM fiat is running the laws of the universe. Scientists can find patterns in this behavior.

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 08:02 PM
That assumption makes no sense at all.

No, I meant to imply that it doesn't actually matter if DM fiat is running the laws of the universe. Scientists can find patterns in this behavior.

Ever see Roshambot (http://chappie.stanford.edu/~perry/roshambo/index.html)? For something that's supposedly easy to play randomly, it can do a pretty awesome job of out-guessing people.

Assuming it's not just faking it, of course.

hiryuu
2010-11-02, 08:11 PM
Ever see Roshambot (http://chappie.stanford.edu/~perry/roshambo/index.html)? For something that's supposedly easy to play randomly, it can do a pretty awesome job of out-guessing people.

Assuming it's not just faking it, of course.

That you continue to provide your own counter examples is hilarious.

I also still can't figure out what the hell Feynman making fun of psychiatry has to do with any of this.

Urpriest
2010-11-02, 08:16 PM
That you continue to provide your own counter examples is hilarious.

I also still can't figure out what the hell Feynman making fun of psychiatry has to do with any of this.

It's also Feynman making fun of New Age stuff, which is potentially more relevant to the poster who claims that scientists reject telepathy merely because they are stodgy and unimaginative. It's not the best way to make the point, however.

Fax Celestis
2010-11-02, 08:28 PM
Not really, since the failure rate is entirely determined by DM fiat in this example.

...then your DM is breaking reality.

The Big Dice
2010-11-02, 08:29 PM
Science depends on repeatable results from the same experiment with as few variables as possible.

But do all people who use magic use the same methods to get the same results? A Bard casting a Cure Light Wounds spell isn't using the same methods as a Cleric casting the spell. Nor is a Druid casting Obscuring Mist using the same methods as a Sorceror casting the spell.

The result may be the same in game mechanics terms, but the route taken to reach the goal of producing a spell effect can be very different from class to class.

So you can't really call it science. It's more an art form than an engineering thing.

Urpriest
2010-11-02, 08:35 PM
Science depends on repeatable results from the same experiment with as few variables as possible.

But do all people who use magic use the same methods to get the same results? A Bard casting a Cure Light Wounds spell isn't using the same methods as a Cleric casting the spell. Nor is a Druid casting Obscuring Mist using the same methods as a Sorceror casting the spell.

The result may be the same in game mechanics terms, but the route taken to reach the goal of producing a spell effect can be very different from class to class.

So you can't really call it science. It's more an art form than an engineering thing.

I disagree with this. If it's the same level for both classes then observing it being cast takes the same Spellcraft check, and thus most likely the spells involve the same components (bards add a verbal component of singing, true, but that doesn't mean the other components aren't similar). It's twisting the implied fluff to say that the spells are utterly distinct in presentation.

And engineering, as opposed to science, is characterized by precisely these sorts of differences from case to case. It's part of why companies hire so many engineers, they can't just use the results from another engineer.

DragonOfUndeath
2010-11-02, 08:43 PM
Science depends on repeatable results from the same experiment with as few variables as possible.

But do all people who use magic use the same methods to get the same results? A Bard casting a Cure Light Wounds spell isn't using the same methods as a Cleric casting the spell. Nor is a Druid casting Obscuring Mist using the same methods as a Sorceror casting the spell.

The result may be the same in game mechanics terms, but the route taken to reach the goal of producing a spell effect can be very different from class to class.

So you can't really call it science. It's more an art form than an engineering thing.

a Cleric casting CLW and a Bard casting CLW use different methiods and power sources to get the same result. making a Solar powered car and a Coal powered car gets the same result with different routes used to get the car to work. it is still an engineering thing not an art form.

a Wizard preparing spells for the day would build up the magic from the instructions in the spellbook (a VERY focused and complicated procedure especially when the spell takes up several pages). the Wizard doesnt just throw in this and that but follows RULES to get the desired effect. if those rules arent followed the spell fails. therefore Magic (atleast with prepared spells) follows rules and is scientific. if it didnt follow rules then Fighters could cast Wish at level1 and Wizards could go through their entire lives without casting a single spell successfully. just because the rules for Magic arent fully explained in the DMG and PhB doesnt mean that IC Wizards dont spend their entire lives doing experiments trying to figure out how magic works and discover loopholes to cast spells faster or more lethal or more simply (Meta-Magic etc.).

hiryuu
2010-11-02, 08:50 PM
Let's fix some of this.


Science depends on repeatable results observations from the same experiment with as few uncontrolled variables as possible.

But do all people who use magic use the same methods to get the same results? A Two Bards casting a Cure Light Wounds spell isn't using the same methods as a two Clerics casting the spell. Nor are two is a Druids casting Obscuring Mist using the same methods as two a Sorcerors casting the spell.

The result may be the same in game mechanics terms, but the route taken to reach the goal of producing a spell effect can be very different from class to class.

So you can't really call it science. It's more an art form than an engineering thing.

Artanis
2010-11-02, 08:55 PM
Except then it might never fail again. DM fiat.

Just because you keep changing the rules doesn't mean the rules don't exist.

Coidzor
2010-11-02, 09:19 PM
Just because you keep changing the rules doesn't mean the rules don't exist.

Also, you can control for the disposition, temperament, and sense of humor of the DM.

Godless_Paladin
2010-11-02, 09:29 PM
Also, you can control for the disposition, temperament, and sense of humor of the DM.

Right. That's what I said.

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 10:44 PM
...then your DM is breaking reality.

Exactly. But they can do that.


That you continue to provide your own counter examples is hilarious.

I'm sorry, were we engaged in mortal combat of some sort? I thought we were reasonably mature individuals having a conversation.


I also still can't figure out what the hell Feynman making fun of psychiatry has to do with any of this.

More about bad science that is looking to prove itself, rather than actively looking to disprove its own theories - which, to me, is the essence of science.

hiryuu
2010-11-02, 11:07 PM
I'm sorry, were we engaged in mortal combat of some sort? I thought we were reasonably mature individuals having a conversation.

Ugh, I think I confused you for someone else, sorry about that. Things are getting a little sticky in here.

I'll say, however, that I don't like the implication in your wording. At all. I think we should just get back to the discussion at hand.


Ever see Roshambot (http://chappie.stanford.edu/~perry/r...o/index.html)? For something that's supposedly easy to play randomly, it can do a pretty awesome job of out-guessing people.

Assuming it's not just faking it, of course.

This is a counter-example because Godless Paladin's argument is that you can out-guess what the GM is doing, and it seems like some programmers here have created a logic system for Rock-Paper-Scissors that can out-guess people to a pretty good degree. I've seen these sorts of things before, and they're pretty interesting. My favorite is the card picker, since the increased level of variables makes some people think the computer is a freaking psychic.

The point is that unless the GM is randomly assigning effects, magic in D&D follows fairly predictable lines, but that's getting into the whole "game rules make the world" can of worms that we've been trying to avoid, and dragging the GM into it means we've got to drag the Rod of Wonder chart back into it.

...as a side note, this is one reason I didn't like the Harry Potter books at all, and why, while they are decent enough stories, just don't deliver for me. Rowling never figured out how her magic worked, she never sat down and built a theory of magic, which is sad, because the series is supposed to be about teaching children how to work magic. They say spells are bad, but hardly ever why they're bad. There are children who invent spells and artifacts, but they never sit around and talk about the mechanics of the spells themselves, which is what they should be doing. Ever talked to an electrical engineering student? Ask them how a radio works and they'll show you how to build one from the ground up, as Fred and George should not only be able to do, but should take pride in doing. Watch old episodes of Bill Nye or Mister Wizard for the way those boys should have been portrayed. It's a lost opportunity and terribly poor storytelling to say "it's magic" and be done with it.

Electrohydra
2010-11-02, 11:40 PM
I think to many people confuse science itself (a method of learning) and scientific discoveries (facts about the world). While science is always possible, no scientific fact about the real world should be more important than a fact about the fantasy world. If the two conflict (Say, the law of conservation of energy and almost any spell actually working), then the fantasy law is true. Real-world laws should only be used to fill in gaps not covered by the fantasy laws.

I think it is people assuming that all real-world laws are also true for fantasy world that can ruin the fantasy. For example, I once had a party stuck because they could not imagine that in the world they played in the earth was flat and the sun turned around it and not vice-versa, despite it being stated to them 3 times by NPCs (and knowledgeable ones also, like, a priest of the SUN god speaking of the sun...)

kyoryu
2010-11-02, 11:42 PM
Ugh, I think I confused you for someone else, sorry about that. Things are getting a little sticky in here.

I'll say, however, that I don't like the implication in your wording. At all. I think we should just get back to the discussion at hand.

Sorry about that - not sure what implication you're picking up. I've tried to bring down the heat level at least once, and I don't think I've really escalated it. If I've done anything that seems like an escalation, my apologies.


This is a counter-example because ...

Fully aware. The idea of predicting apparently unpredictable behavior is exactly why I pointed out the link. Yes, I realize that that doesn't actually support my point. However, it was relevant, and I thought interesting, so I brought it up.

I'm trying to have a discussion here, not win a battle.


The point is that unless the GM is randomly assigning effects, magic in D&D follows fairly predictable lines, but that's getting into the whole "game rules make the world" can of worms that we've been trying to avoid, and dragging the GM into it means we've got to drag the Rod of Wonder chart back into it.

Agreed. If a magic system works on a series of rules, those rules can be deduced by someone within the world. The presence of an actor unbound by those rules is what allows the rules to transcend the limits of typical science.

Further, using the Web example, the best theory you can really come up with is "casting Web usually does this. Sometimes it doesn't, and when it doesn't, we don't know what it will do." As an in-world theory, that's the best we can do, because the DM has the ability to cause effects that have previously not existed in the world, and therefore cannot be predicted.

That's a bad theory, because it cannot be falsified. There is no set of evidence or observations possible that can disprove this theory. If casting Web doesn't actually make a Web for 1,000 trials, well, maybe it will next time - the theory hasn't been disproven at all. If it summons Skeletor, well, theory still isn't broken.

Of course, this would be incredibly bad DMing, and I wouldn't run a game like that. The point is, that it *could* be done, not that it *should* be done.


...as a side note, this is one reason I didn't like the Harry Potter books at all, and why, while they are decent enough stories, just don't deliver for me.

Yes, you like magic to have a strong, internally consistent model. I *generally* agree. However, I don't presume that my preference constitutes a rule that magic *must* have a strong, internally consistent model.

Tyndmyr
2010-11-03, 12:27 AM
Well, even in a world where things are not 100% reliable, you still have statistics. If repeating the motions for web under identical circumstances results in a web 90% of the time, you have a pretty good casual link, especially if the statistics are consistent.

All sets of rules can be learned and gamed. It's just that the more complicated the behavior, the more complicated the exploiting behavior will be. Even randomness is a pattern, really.

Roog
2010-11-03, 02:29 AM
Let's say that the next time an NPC mage casts Web on the party, I decide that it, instead, will summon a bunch of butterflies. This will happen exactly once.

While this may be able to be observed, how would you come up with a falsifiable scientific theory, or even hypothesis, based upon this?


Why would the NPC cast Web unless he has some idea of what outcome he could expect?

Why would a PC cast web unless he has some idea of what outcome he could expect?

Why not cast VYJTYGHNNTYFH instead?

Or even, How did the NPC even know that he could attempt to cast a spell?


I would hypothesize that: Web has a significant likelihood of hindering the movement of things in the immediate ares of its target, and does not otherwise cause significant harm to anyone it effects.

And the NPC would agree with me.

Ravens_cry
2010-11-03, 07:34 AM
I rather like this. In fact, in more advanced settings at least, I see this as what wizards and the more studious mages do. It explains the fundamental difference between sorcerers and wizards and why they can potentially learn so many spells. A sorcerer and their type get by on sheer talent and a knack for the arts arcane. A wizard actually understands the underlying principles involved. They look at a spell and they see the commonalities of the weave logic, jotting it down in their spell book in whatever form of notation they use. Right now, they have a wide variety of highly individual notation system and this is why a wizard has some little trouble (a check) when copying another wizards spell book, it is basically a matter of translation.
But in a world where wizards banded together, developed standards, oh and you thought Tippyverse was high magic!

Magic can be a science if the results of magic is predictable. And it usually is in D&D. Just because it doesn't follow our rules doesn't mean it doesn't follow any.

Gravitron5000
2010-11-03, 08:32 AM
And engineering, as opposed to science, is characterized by precisely these sorts of differences from case to case. It's part of why companies hire so many engineers, they can't just use the results from another engineer.

Um, actually they can and do use the results from another engineer. Generally companies hire many engineers because they have a lot of engineering work that they want done. There may be many ways to approach an engineering problem, but as long as you document your solution, any engineer with experience in the same field should be able to understand and replicate what you've done. Heck, even if the solution is poorly documented, an engineer should still be able to figure out what was done and replicate it, given time.

dsmiles
2010-11-03, 08:33 AM
Um, actually they can and do use the results from another engineer. Generally companies hire many engineers because they have a lot of engineering work that they want done. There may be many ways to approach an engineering problem, but as long as you document your solution, any engineer with experience in the same field should be able to understand and replicate what you've done. Heck, even if the solution is poorly documented, an engineer should still be able to figure out what was done and replicate it, given time.

Reverse engineering something is fun. :smallbiggrin:

panaikhan
2010-11-03, 08:57 AM
If I can just comment on what seemed to start this argument.

Dimention Door.
This spell, apparently creates a 'doorway', that the caster has to travel through in order to get to the destination (note emphasis)

Teleport.
This spell takes the caster from wherever they are, whatever they are doing, and deposits them at the destination. They don't have to be moving at all.

I would say Dimention Door preserves velocity / momentum (as it is required to travel through the effect), but Teleport does not.

Fax Celestis
2010-11-03, 09:08 AM
Exactly. But they can do that.

And if your DM is doing so, how can you expect to have any sort of verisimilitude in your games?

One of the fundamental reasons for using a game that is as rules-heavy as D&D is so that you don't have to GUESS when stuff like this comes up. Barring extraordinary circumstances, you know how something is going to work when you use it.

If the DM is breaking those rules, then that is an extraordinary circumstance. If he's doing it just to mess with you, he's a bad DM. If he's doing it for an explainable, in-universe reason he's a good DM.

"Being a bad DM" has nothing to do with whether or not magic works or doesn't work from an in-universe perspective. In-universe, there is no DM, so relegating him some overdeity status just because he likes to make your favorite spell fail for no explicable reason just so his poorly wrought encounter will last more than two rounds is unfair.

Spells have to function the same way every time, otherwise you would have to make a Spellcraft check in order to cast them. They have listed Verbal, Somatic, Material, and Focus components that never change without metamagic. They have listed spell levels for differing classes that never change without metamagic. And they have specific, measurable, predictable effects that never change without metamagic.

Radar
2010-11-03, 09:16 AM
On the epistomological discussion: there are three different situations to consider, which lead to incomprehensible magic.
1. There are no internally consistent and invariable rules.
2. We are unable to reveal and comprehend those rules.
3. Some entity overrides the rules, as it sees fit.

In situation 1 we are left with something, that we won't ever be able to fully grasp. In a mild version, where there are some ground rules, that are just broken infrequently enough, that the world more or less works, rules-breaking phenomena couldn't be applied to anything. There would be magic, but there would be no wizards.
Situation 3 boils down to situation 1, unless we are able to communicate with said entity and understand each other. Either said entity establishes some rules for using it's power, or acts on a casy by case basis. Either way it's a world where there are no wizards, since people just ask some entity to do them a favor.

Situation 2 is a bit more complicated. It is not about not knowing the rules yet, it's about being absolutely unable to do so.
a) Keep in mind, that all our knowledge is build upon experiments made in a limited time and in a limited space. We assume, those rules will works the same everywhere else and at all times, yet we might just have insufficient date to truly understand the universe. There are reasons for developing local quantum field theories.
b) We express our understanding of rules governing the universe through mathematical equations and gain better approximations through iterative process of doing experiments, formulating theories and devising new experiments using the new theories.
First: mathematics might not be the proper language to express the rules governing the universe. What if we are physicaly unable to formulate proper language? After all capacity of our minds is limited.
Second: mentioned iterative process might not converge. Consider Ptolemean model of what we call our solar system. It could be made arbitrarily accurate by adding more epicycles, yet it's a dead end as it doesn't give any chance of predicting movements of other similar systems. What if our pursuit of yet more elementary particles is the same?

A good take on the situation 2 can be found in "The Dark Side of the Sun" by Terry Pratchett and "Solaris" by Stanislaw Lem (book version - both movie adaptations have nothing on the original).

To end the rant with something positive: the fact, that the world is cognisable, is the greatest mystery of all. I do hope, that scientific method is aplicable to our universe. Actually I do physics for fun and profit, so yeah. :smalltongue:

Ravens_cry
2010-11-03, 10:22 AM
Our universe apparently cognizable enough that we can use it. The friction of two fibre bundles done the right way under the right conditions, creates a exothermic reaction which we can use to for a variety of purposes, from making edibles more digestible and pathogen free to separating metallic elements from mineral compounds.
Magic is just our word for what is very much a part of the laws of the universe it is contained in.

Delwugor
2010-11-03, 12:39 PM
Science depends on repeatable results from the same experiment with as few variables as possible.

But do all people who use magic use the same methods to get the same results? A Bard casting a Cure Light Wounds spell isn't using the same methods as a Cleric casting the spell. Nor is a Druid casting Obscuring Mist using the same methods as a Sorceror casting the spell.

The result may be the same in game mechanics terms, but the route taken to reach the goal of producing a spell effect can be very different from class to class.

So you can't really call it science. It's more an art form than an engineering thing.
A motor versus an engine to generate power
Nuclear versus coal to generate electricity
Elevator versus stairs to get to the 5th floor
Old folding map versus a GPS for directions to a location

All of these use sound scientific and engineering principles in different ways to achieve the same basic result.

Delwugor
2010-11-03, 12:54 PM
I would say Dimention Door preserves velocity / momentum (as it is required to travel through the effect), but Teleport does not.
If a motionless person weighing 150lbs is Teleported and ends up motionless at 150 then momentum is conserved.
Also Conservation of Momentum only holds for a closed/isolated system. The spell itself would be an outside force acting on the person and so his momentum could change.

Susano-wo
2010-11-03, 01:12 PM
I don't think s/he's saying that tleeport couldn't conserve motion, just that s/he's rule that it does not, since it works by instantly chaning your position in space, rather than providing an aperture that folds space

(also,teleport does not necessarily have to affect a motionless person. even assuming that you have to pause your movement to cast the spell, as you can be falling, or the target could be running)

ooh, and regarding the featherfall comment a while back (should have prepper featherfall) I'd say if the person wants to blow a 4th lvl spell slot do gain similar utility to a 2nd level spell, go for it. Of course, I get excited about creative usage of abilities.)

Coidzor
2010-11-03, 01:34 PM
Our universe apparently cognizable enough that we can use it. The friction of two fibre bundles done the right way under the right conditions, creates a exothermic reaction which we can use to for a variety of purposes, from making edibles more digestible and pathogen free to separating metallic elements from mineral compounds.
Magic is just our word for what is very much a part of the laws of the universe it is contained in.

Huh. I always viewed applied magic as basically a debug mode on the physical forces at work.


If a motionless person weighing 150lbs is Teleported and ends up motionless at 150 then momentum is conserved.
Also Conservation of Momentum only holds for a closed/isolated system. The spell itself would be an outside force acting on the person and so his momentum could change.

Indeed, I think you'd have to have this sort of cancellation of acting forces by the outside force of the spell for spells like plane shift at the very least, because otherwise you'd go flying off at the speed of whatever planet you were on(only applicable if there are, y'know, planets about to be on) whenever you plane shifted to Celestia or Sigil.

...Which would be quite interesting to see the effect of a large quantity of magical items impacting at planetary velocities. From somewhere other than ground zero...

Radar
2010-11-03, 02:17 PM
(...)
Indeed, I think you'd have to have this sort of cancellation of acting forces by the outside force of the spell for spells like plane shift at the very least, because otherwise you'd go flying off at the speed of whatever planet you were on(only applicable if there are, y'know, planets about to be on) whenever you plane shifted to Celestia or Sigil.

...Which would be quite interesting to see the effect of a large quantity of magical items impacting at planetary velocities. From somewhere other than ground zero...
Something like this: Dimension Door has a short range, so momentum doesn't create any issues and can be left "as is" (conserved). Teleport spells have range large enough, that it becomes an issue, so they have to adjust your speed to your new location for those spells to be safe.

@Ravens_cry
Yes, magic can be just a manifestation of physics different to ours and sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The thing is, there are possible universes, where this does not hold true. They might not make a good game setting, but are possible.
Even if there are rules, sentients living in a given universe might not be able to devise a method of revealing those rules. What works in our universe, is not an absolute truth.

Ravens_cry
2010-11-03, 02:17 PM
Huh. I always viewed applied magic as basically a debug mode on the physical forces at work.

That's one way of looking at it, and I can see how the more vainglorious mages would like to see it that way. It's still part of the rules though, even if it is more partitioned then usual.

Zeofar
2010-11-08, 11:11 PM
Wait, what? Only if you consider Gilgamesh, the Illiad, Journey to the West, et. al. "relatively new". :smallamused:



These examples are not "fantasy," but cultural literature; they are the tales of the day that were worth telling. What you are referring to is not fantasy as a genre, but fantasy as a cultural phenomenon.

Fhaolan
2010-11-09, 12:55 AM
Of course, there's no guarentee that the dimdoor is stationary if the caster is already at high speeds. Perhaps the door itself is simply maintaining the speed the caster was falling at at the time of casting. That could open up some interesting math. :smallsmile:

Yes, I'm making fun. It's one of those things that if you look too closely at teleportation and other such things, it tends to fall apart pretty rapidly. Teleport to the other side of the world, assuming a spinning spheroid such as our own, what speed are you traveling with respect to which frame of reference?

hiryuu
2010-11-09, 01:02 AM
Of course, there's no guarentee that the dimdoor is stationary if the caster is already at high speeds. Perhaps the door itself is simply maintaining the speed the caster was falling at at the time of casting. That could open up some interesting math. :smallsmile:

Yes, I'm making fun. It's one of those things that if you look too closely at teleportation and other such things, it tends to fall apart pretty rapidly. Teleport to the other side of the world, assuming a spinning spheroid such as our own, what speed are you traveling with respect to which frame of reference?

This does make a few assumptions; one is that the world is a spinning spheroid (Greyhawk isn't, for example: it's a stationary plate orbited by its sun). Another depends on the way teleportation actually works. In default D&D, teleportation spells of any sort access the astral plane. Dimension Door creates a personal doorway from one section of the terrain to another through the astral. Teleport spells actually pull the caster and targets into the astral for a brief period before re-insertion where the caster specified.

There isn't anything saying the spell doesn't automatically correct for vagaries of spinning spheres, and it's safe to simply assume that it does. If one could figure out precisely how the spell was doing that, it might open up either avenues for time travel or for methods for controlling momentum and friction of small bodies.

Ravens_cry
2010-11-09, 01:25 AM
Either that or the different versions on different worlds works differently. One on a flat world could work differently then one developed on a world that is round and orbiting a star. RAW, I know this is hogwash, but it makes something fun to consider if one ever did a crossover campaign.

Uncertainty
2010-11-09, 02:44 AM
What I want to see is someone describe a non-deterministic world and magic.
Hard Mode: Describe it in such a way that mages can still exist.
Ultra Mode: Describe it in such a way that mages can still be Int-based casters.

I am interested... How would you scientifically investigate a world where all magic followed an extreme version of the Wild Magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WildMagic) trope?

For example, how about a world where magic is constantly changing or re-writing it's own laws or properties (Where a fireball spell may make fireballs one week, and silly putty the next)? Or a world where magic does different things for different people, depending on how much it "likes" them (Borrowing from the whole 'magic is alive' thing described on that tropes page)?


By the way, I really am not interested in having a debate here... I am just honestly curious about how you could approach something like this.

hiryuu
2010-11-09, 04:49 AM
I am interested... How would you scientifically investigate a world where all magic followed an extreme version of the Wild Magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WildMagic) trope?

My question is basically this. Because we have to use terms to describe something, it's very difficult to describe something that's non-deterministic.


For example, how about a world where magic is constantly changing or re-writing it's own laws or properties (Where a fireball spell may make fireballs one week, and silly putty the next)?

I'd wonder how we got spells in the first place, and I think this was covered earlier under the "no one in their right mind would ever use it" reply, and mages are pretty much outright impossible, but this is a type of thing we could describe simply by its actions. We could potentially set up experiments to determine if it's changing them randomly or because of aspects of the environment, for example, by precisely controlling the environment in which we're using magic.

This might be a lot of fun. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cd36WJ79z4)


Or a world where magic does different things for different people, depending on how much it "likes" them (Borrowing from the whole 'magic is alive' thing described on that tropes page)?

This is, oddly enough, similar to how shamans work in the primary setting I run. A mistake I see people making is that science requires that an experiment be repeated, which isn't entirely true. It's required that the observation created by that experiment be repeated. You can vary controls, as long as your observational results stay within the accepted variables. Part of the experimental process is trying to eliminate as many possibilities as you can as efficiently as you can, and if you can do that by tweaking the experiment, then so be it. Let's take Galileo's supposed acceleration experiment, for example. What if we used different balls of different materials of even greater varying mass? It's different now, a bit more complex, but the observation is the same, and that's what's important. We can get similar observational results by having a higher number of witnesses to an experiment, as well, especially if they're educated (that's why they experiments need to be repeatable, since scientists want to be able to do the experiment on their own time, vary controls, and test results again rather than assemble in a giant gallery any time they want to see it done, but this isn't always possible, such as when the equipment needed is controlled by a specific company, but that's what peer reviewed data is for).

We can determine that the magic likes person x. It makes it useless to the general public, but very useful to that person. In that setting, there's been time to figure out what about certain people spirits like, and a lot of technology involves building or designing something that works like a spirit jungle gym/convention center which "tricks" it into doing what you want.

If magic is alive, then it becomes a race to see who masters the art of magical psychology first.

Uncertainty
2010-11-09, 08:16 AM
I'd wonder how we got spells in the first place, and I think this was covered earlier under the "no one in their right mind would ever use it" reply, and mages are pretty much outright impossible, but this is a type of thing we could describe simply by its actions. We could potentially set up experiments to determine if it's changing them randomly or because of aspects of the environment, for example, by precisely controlling the environment in which we're using magic.

This might be a lot of fun.

I'm not so sure about its uselessness... Depending on how it's played, magic could easily become a "dangerous, unreliable, but very powerful when it works" type thing. It certainly does make archetypal wizards unplayable though, yeah.

It might be fun to experiment with, but probably deadly too.


This is, oddly enough, similar to how shamans work in the primary setting I run. A mistake I see people making is that science requires that an experiment be repeated, which isn't entirely true. It's required that the observation created by that experiment be repeated. You can vary controls, as long as your observational results stay within the accepted variables. Part of the experimental process is trying to eliminate as many possibilities as you can as efficiently as you can, and if you can do that by tweaking the experiment, then so be it. Let's take Galileo's supposed acceleration experiment, for example. What if we used different balls of different materials of even greater varying mass? It's different now, a bit more complex, but the observation is the same, and that's what's important. We can get similar observational results by having a higher number of witnesses to an experiment, as well, especially if they're educated (that's why they experiments need to be repeatable, since scientists want to be able to do the experiment on their own time, vary controls, and test results again rather than assemble in a giant gallery any time they want to see it done, but this isn't always possible, such as when the equipment needed is controlled by a specific company, but that's what peer reviewed data is for).

We can determine that the magic likes person x. It makes it useless to the general public, but very useful to that person. In that setting, there's been time to figure out what about certain people spirits like, and a lot of technology involves building or designing something that works like a spirit jungle gym/convention center which "tricks" it into doing what you want.

If magic is alive, then it becomes a race to see who masters the art of magical psychology first.

I suddenly have this weird image in my head of magic refusing to perform or messing with people when they try to make empirical observations of it, just out of spite/mischief (a lot like that web thing someone else was discussing earlier). The idea that magic is just "messing around" with people would probably make it difficult to create any kind of truly controlled environment, though the concept of 'tricking' it into doing what you like is a fun one.

I wonder, do the spirits in your setting ever wise up to the fact that they are being used in this way? Or are they completely oblivious/don't mind it at all/get something out of the whole thing?

Democratus
2010-11-09, 09:26 AM
These examples are not "fantasy," but cultural literature; they are the tales of the day that were worth telling. What you are referring to is not fantasy as a genre, but fantasy as a cultural phenomenon.

Incorrect. They were tales for entertainment that were known at the time to be merely entertainment. There was an entire genre of fantasy storytelling that was propagated by bards through the ages. Contemporary sources bear this out. People in china didn't actually believe that there was a flying Monkey King carrying a thousand-foot-tall pillar in his hair.

People often like to think of folk in the ancient world as being superstisious to the point of gullibility - believing everything in the old stories as fact as if they didn't even have tales told purely for fun. Ours is not a uniquely sophisticated culture. We don't have a monopoly on tales of fantasy and magic which everyone knows are only fiction.

MightyTim
2010-11-09, 10:38 AM
I am interested... How would you scientifically investigate a world where all magic followed an extreme version of the Wild Magic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WildMagic) trope?

For example, how about a world where magic is constantly changing or re-writing it's own laws or properties (Where a fireball spell may make fireballs one week, and silly putty the next)? Or a world where magic does different things for different people, depending on how much it "likes" them (Borrowing from the whole 'magic is alive' thing described on that tropes page)?


By the way, I really am not interested in having a debate here... I am just honestly curious about how you could approach something like this.

You can do anything with differential equations! :smallbiggrin:
In the real world (as far as we know), pretty much any physical law can be modeled as a First Order, linear differential equation. Luckily for us, these are pretty much the only types of differential equations that can be reliably solved in a general solution. This is why science allows us to make predictions reliably.

A world with magic, in this case, Wild Magic, could still potentially be boiled down to simple relationships in the form of differential equations, but if the equations were not linear and first order, the result would end up being very chaotic (not to be confused with the D&D alignment). In a chaotic system the outcome is extremely dependent on the initial conditions; even very small changes in the initial conditions result in extremely large changes in the outcome. If said Wild Magic laws were dependent on things such as: how many times the spell had been cast before, how recently it had been cast previously, the position of the caster, etc... we very quickly get into a situation where you just can't know all the initial conditions with enough certainty to be able to deduce what the outcome is going to be.

hiryuu
2010-11-09, 11:29 AM
"dangerous, unreliable, but very powerful when it works"

I shouldn't have to go over why this means we wouldn't use it at all the same way we don't just start piling up rocks and hope they fall into the proper positions to make a house. Or why, if those same rocks are as likely to explode as they are to be composed of foam for no apparent reason, we wouldn't load them into catapults.

Edit: Terminally ill people might use this. They'll use anything. Of course, it's as likely to fix them as it is to turn them into a pile of slime full of ticks, so there won't be many sick people.


I suddenly have this weird image in my head of magic refusing to perform or messing with people when they try to make empirical observations of it, just out of spite/mischief (a lot like that web thing someone else was discussing earlier). The idea that magic is just "messing around" with people would probably make it difficult to create any kind of truly controlled environment, though the concept of 'tricking' it into doing what you like is a fun one.

I wonder, do the spirits in your setting ever wise up to the fact that they are being used in this way? Or are they completely oblivious/don't mind it at all/get something out of the whole thing?

"Alive" doesn't mean "sentient." Sentient spirits require bargaining and deals. Lower spirits, like mobs or zobani, work like animals or even insects in their behavior patterns. Spirits that represent tools, like houses or other things, tend to like working for people, since that's their entire purpose. A house likes to have people living in it, mail likes being delivered and gets frustrated if it gets lost, plates like being eaten on, etc. It's when you use something for its intended purpose or for a contradictory purpose that they have problems (guns, for example, are tools made by people, and thus like to help people in any way they can, made for the purpose of killing people, and thus tend to be insane). There are other forms of magic, but this is the most prominent because it's the one with the most application.

We can certainly study and manipulate things that are "messing around" with us. Otherwise the entire field of child psychology is moot (it might be, but that's a whole other discussion), and animal behavior studies are pointless (look up the things ravens or apes will do when people study them).

Uncertainty
2010-11-09, 01:36 PM
I shouldn't have to go over why this means we wouldn't use it at all the same way we don't just start piling up rocks and hope they fall into the proper positions to make a house. Or why, if those same rocks are as likely to explode as they are to be composed of foam for no apparent reason, we wouldn't load them into catapults.

Edit: Terminally ill people might use this. They'll use anything. Of course, it's as likely to fix them as it is to turn them into a pile of slime full of ticks, so there won't be many sick people.

Well, it depends on how desperate a person (Or kingdom, etc.) is, and on just how unreliable the magic is.


We can certainly study and manipulate things that are "messing around" with us. Otherwise the entire field of child psychology is moot (it might be, but that's a whole other discussion), and animal behavior studies are pointless (look up the things ravens or apes will do when people study them).

The wild magic trope as it was described makes working with magic out to be a pretty dangerous thing to do... That is to say, working with a child or a bird is a little different than working with a sentient force that is liable to turn you insane or induce some sort of horrible accident because it gets bored. That's not a problem with scientific approach itself, however.

hiryuu
2010-11-09, 01:52 PM
The wild magic trope as it was described makes working with magic out to be a pretty dangerous thing to do... That is to say, working with a child or a bird is a little different than working with a sentient force that is liable to turn you insane or induce some sort of horrible accident because it gets bored. That's not a problem with scientific approach itself, however.

You're right, it is different. But that's not the point. The point is that there are ways to work with it, and because it gets bored, we could even determine what makes it bored and not do that. A large part of working with animals is that they will jump you or wander off or not work well if they get bored (and a bored tiger...), and you have to figure out how to keep them entertained while you're working (this could be an interesting magic setup; a mage would have to be able to both entertain "magic" and try to convince it what to do). As the "magic is alive" section is described, the point still stands, and in fact, in most of the fiction examples provided, that's what the people who use magic are doing. In fact, that's what that whole "think happy thoughts very, very hard" line in the primary article is getting at.

Besides, working with radioactive isotopes, live electricity, and chemicals is also a pretty dangerous thing to do, but it's still done, and I daresay we're better off knowing it. If there are things in the world people don't understand, they will try to understand them. If it can't be understood at all, people will move away from it or try to destroy it, for precisely the same reason we don't build cities on top of active volcanoes (that'd be a cool disaster, wouldn't it? Magi-Pompeii).

The Big Dice
2010-11-09, 03:07 PM
I suddenly have this weird image in my head of magic refusing to perform or messing with people when they try to make empirical observations of it, just out of spite/mischief (a lot like that web thing someone else was discussing earlier). The idea that magic is just "messing around" with people would probably make it difficult to create any kind of truly controlled environment, though the concept of 'tricking' it into doing what you like is a fun one.

I wonder, do the spirits in your setting ever wise up to the fact that they are being used in this way? Or are they completely oblivious/don't mind it at all/get something out of the whole thing?

D&D is in a small subset of RPGs where magic works automatically. That's one of the problems with it. The majority of games that I'm aware of treat magic in much the same way as any other skill is treated. That is, there's a chance you can fail when casting a spell.

Some games, like GURPS, take that a step further. Not only can you fail, but you can critically fail, with wildly unpredictable results. You can also critically succeed on a spell casting attempt in GURPS, which is less spectacular to the outside observer, but usually means there's no energy cost for the spell and the effect is automatically maximized.

Legend of the Five Rings has an entire cosmology and multiple philosophies surrounding magic and the use thereof. In that game, all magic is the result of petitioning and praying to kami. Which are natural spirits that inhabit most objects and locations, as well as defining and being defined by the elements they represent.

In other words, people have no magical ability of their own and instead rely on convincing spirits to create spell effects for them. And the kami can be treated as NPCs of a sort. There are spells to communicate with them and manipulate them directly, so it is possible for them to remove their favour from the annoying humans.

Zeofar
2010-11-09, 03:09 PM
Incorrect. They were tales for entertainment that were known at the time to be merely entertainment. There was an entire genre of fantasy storytelling that was propagated by bards through the ages. Contemporary sources bear this out. People in china didn't actually believe that there was a flying Monkey King carrying a thousand-foot-tall pillar in his hair.

People often like to think of folk in the ancient world as being superstisious to the point of gullibility - believing everything in the old stories as fact as if they didn't even have tales told purely for fun. Ours is not a uniquely sophisticated culture. We don't have a monopoly on tales of fantasy and magic which everyone knows are only fiction.

I don't think any of my posts presumed that ancient cultures believed such stories; I think you're referring to Urpriest's post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9681653&postcount=8) or something.

hiryuu
2010-11-09, 03:12 PM
D&D is in a small subset of RPGs where magic works automatically. That's one of the problems with it. The majority of games that I'm aware of treat magic in much the same way as any other skill is treated. That is, there's a chance you can fail when casting a spell.

That's always been my problem too, and I like magic systems that treat it like any other skill, to be learned, practiced, and worked with... and that can be potentially dangerous to work with.


Some games, like GURPS, take that a step further. Not only can you fail, but you can critically fail, with wildly unpredictable results. You can also critically succeed on a spell casting attempt in GURPS, which is less spectacular to the outside observer, but usually means there's no energy cost for the spell and the effect is automatically maximized.

GURPS also does that cool tier system thing where you learn more complicated spells by learning simpler ones first, and the more complicated spell builds on the lessons learned from the originals.


Legend of the Five Rings has an entire cosmology and multiple philosophies surrounding magic and the use thereof. In that game, all magic is the result of petitioning and praying to kami. Which are natural spirits that inhabit most objects and locations, as well as defining and being defined by the elements they represent.

In other words, people have no magical ability of their own and instead rely on convincing spirits to create spell effects for them. And the kami can be treated as NPCs of a sort. There are spells to communicate with them and manipulate them directly, so it is possible for them to remove their favour from the annoying humans.

<3 L5R. Actually, <3 any animistic system. Your house is watching you poop.

jseah
2010-11-09, 04:44 PM
Ultra Mode: Describe it in such a way that mages can still be Int-based casters.
I'm currently writing a magic system similar to that. Except that it is totally deterministic. (which is an add-on physics to a purely newtonian, and thus deterministic, world)
EDIT: it has been pointed out that this is the reverse of the intent of the quoted post. In that case, you can take the below as a shameless plug. =P

It's not meant to be played or used in any way. Mainly because I'm shooting for "Ultra Mode" and not just that it takes a high Int character to use magic, it takes a high Int PLAYER to use it and a GM with a scientific calculator and tons of time to run.

The system has a complete magical physics with the exception of teleportation not working out properly (can't figure out an explanation preventing the world from "leaking" into the extra dimension)
However, there is a cop out at the insistence of a co-author that people have souls. I allowed those to be unique and able to create information out of nowhere.

It takes a calculator and 20 mins from me to design a basic fireball.
And that's after such a laundry list of simplifications that physics / chaos theory would kill me for making (eg. rotational inertia calculations assume things are perfect rigid spheres)

I could get into multi-variate calculus and linear differential equations, but then my magic system would be useless since it would take a university degree in a math-using field to work out what any spell did.
And if the differentials start to include 2nd order effects and long range things which I've summarized as "magic weather", the equations get so horrible I can't do them.

Just to make things simple, I approximate everything as quadratic equations or simpler. And I bend over backwards to avoid having to solve them.
FYI, I'm a biologist now (I used to be a physics/chemistry person) so forgive me for that. =P

--------------------------------------------

That said, what if one described magic as a system that was used explicitly to break the rules.

One of the stranger stories I've started writing but will never finish involves a book in which you write an effect you want to happen and it just does.

Up to and including being able to compute non-linear problems (it can tell you whether X algorithm will halt), disabling itself (not reversible unless asked otherwise, which means bending casuality) and rewriting logic (2+2=5, and everything that entails for the universe; which is more or less total chaos)

Of course, with some simple tests, the scientific method could usefully predict that it will give you an apple when you ask for it.

However, with the "change the universe's rules" wishes, those are a bit harder to examine. For all you know, when you wish 2+2=5, you remember wishing that, but suddenly 2+2 clearly is 5, math still somehow works out, the world still works so you've no idea why you ever thought 2+2=4. Since obviously 2+3 is 4. Right? XD

hiryuu
2010-11-09, 05:09 PM
I'm currently writing a magic system similar to that. Except that it is totally deterministic. (which is an add-on physics to a purely newtonian, and thus deterministic, world)

Which is the opposite of the request...

But this sounds interesting, too. We've got, as I said before, a laser technician, a theoretical physicist, and a vehicular engineer in our group (and me, the fantasy author). It helps to have explanations ready for such a team.

jseah
2010-11-09, 05:31 PM
What about the "magic changing universal rules" thing?

A magic system that involves making a subtle change to how the universe works, then brainwashing everyone into believing that change was normal couldn't be examined scientifically.

If you're interested in the system, you can drop me a PM and I'll link you to the Scribd document it's on. (that's not the latest version, but I'm still actively writing it)
Be warned that the system started with by me defining "a magic particle", so even in the state it is in, I'm not even making spells yet.
IE. it's a system built from bottom up. Not from top down. I have just about reached the point where I can start making simple spells.



Applying the scientific method to magic:
In a stereotypical (+relatively simple and powerful) magic system, you end up with the strange pattern of a developing magic world hitting a Knowledge Singularity before the Industrial Revolution.

This is because magic is often depicted as being able to generate complex effects with little effort.
Take for example the D&D spell Find the Path. It's essentially solving an NP complete problem in zero time. You could represent a complex mathematical problem as a complex maze (with shifting walls to represent differential equations or whatever you need to) and the spell will give you the answer.

So magic can process and create information.

Magic can also do things. That's what it's for. In some/most systems, that "doing" is nearly instant. The next bits only apply to these systems.

A sufficiently analytical wizard with a few years to spare could quite easily design a system of spells where you put in magical energy and out comes an answer to a problem.
If that problem is a method to generate magical energy for more problem solving, viola! Knowledge Singularity.

hiryuu
2010-11-09, 05:53 PM
If magic changes universal rules at a whim, then makes people think those changes are normal, then it can still be studied, the information would just change, wouldn't it? Unless it wipes the slate clean, then you have a good reason for why everyone is still stuck in the middle ages all the damn time.


Applying the scientific method to magic:
In a stereotypical (+relatively simple and powerful) magic system, you end up with the strange pattern of a developing magic world hitting a Knowledge Singularity before the Industrial Revolution.

This is because magic is often depicted as being able to generate complex effects with little effort.
Take for example the D&D spell Find the Path. It's essentially solving an NP complete problem in zero time. You could represent a complex mathematical problem as a complex maze (with shifting walls to represent differential equations or whatever you need to) and the spell will give you the answer.

So magic can process and create information.

Magic can also do things. That's what it's for. In some/most systems, that "doing" is nearly instant. The next bits only apply to these systems.

A sufficiently analytical wizard with a few years to spare could quite easily design a system of spells where you put in magical energy and out comes an answer to a problem.
If that problem is a method to generate magical energy for more problem solving, viola! Knowledge Singularity.

This is a problem with D&D magic. For example, D&D does have a method for inserting a problem and getting an answer. Look at Legend Lore. There's your baseline right there.

jseah
2010-11-09, 06:06 PM
You can try studying that kind of magic, but you can't get very far.

All you end up with is "it gives me funny memories".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Knowledge Singularities are not just a problem with D&D magic.

Any system that involves magic doing something complex (eg. sweeping the floor without the spell being designed for that specific broom) potentially has this problem if that action can be broken down into it's parts.
(ie. a sweeping spell can be subdivided into the "this is a broom" part and the "use telekinesis in sweeping motion" part and the "work out best path covering room of arbitrary size and shape" part and the...)

In general, any system that thinks of things in terms of "objects" is complex enough to cause problems.

hiryuu
2010-11-09, 06:31 PM
Knowledge Singularities are not just a problem with D&D magic.

Any system that involves magic doing something complex (eg. sweeping the floor without the spell being designed for that specific broom) potentially has this problem if that action can be broken down into it's parts.
(ie. a sweeping spell can be subdivided into the "this is a broom" part and the "use telekinesis in sweeping motion" part and the "work out best path covering room of arbitrary size and shape" part and the...)

In general, any system that thinks of things in terms of "objects" is complex enough to cause problems.

And so does a robot, yet we can create analog robots that do this without even approaching needing to tell them what a floor or a broom is, and we're in no "danger" of hitting such a singularity ourselves through it. Why can't a given system of magic be made of analogous components like this, as well? Indeed, dependent on the system, it might even be blind to what the object is for or even what it is. Said broom spell might look for a broom, or it may look for a long stick-like object, or it might not even check these things at all and be a programmable telekinetic effect (which could produce infinite energy, or it might even produce a limited amount of energy before expiring).

For one example: Bargaining with the broom to sweep your floor for you.
Another: A programmable telekinesis spell that doesn't care what sort of object you attach it to.
Another: A system by which a variety of non-reducible components are assembled to create the effect.

And who's to say the system is capable of receiving input as to how it defines an object but is still capable of generating a precise output as to its nature? And even if it is, why would it only take "a couple of years?" Arguably, our world is even more deterministic than this and we still have places where we can't access all our knowledge and still have all our energy problems.

jseah
2010-11-09, 06:41 PM
A few years mainly applies to D&D. Other systems might vary but in general, a universe with magic as commonly depicted has an easier time hitting a Knowledge Singularity than we do in RL.

Basically, since magic as described in many fantasy novels tends to do wonky things like sweeping your floor without you going through the trouble of defining a broom, how to sweep a floor and what to do when you use the spell in a palace instead of your house.
The amount of work humans in the real world spend making a sweeping robot is accomplished by a middling mage who finds sweeping his floor more troublesome than making a spell to do it.
EDIT: or the concept of being able to communicate the required information for such a spell in a handful of pages.

Because we as humans can see something as "simple", thus our magic does these "simple" things when they're really rather complicated.

All that just results in magic being able to process information insanely fast, potentially leading to a semi-effortless discovery/usage of computing and advanced mathematics by only a few geniuses.

hiryuu
2010-11-09, 07:05 PM
*snip*

And as I said, it's a problem with D&D's magic assumptions. You're making too many assumptions based on a series of unrelated systems here. How the system works is going to be unique to each GM, each author, and each world.

As for picking up a broom and sweeping with it as opposed to the complexities of magic: that's probably why, in most fantasy worlds, a majority of people are doing just that. Kind of like how a majority of people in the real world aren't building floor-sweeping robots, but give an engineer sufficient boredom time, and that's what you'll get (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roomba), but I doubt Roombas are going to lead to a knowledge singularity.

jseah
2010-11-09, 07:20 PM
We had to build a sweeping 'bot for ourselves, using bored engineers as you put it.
Lots of hard work in organizing the information.
The Roomba in your link has three generations, the first couldn't determine the size of a room.
It's software included a "circle-dance" bug which had to be edited out.

It was also designed by a company that had already designed other search 'bots, thus having some of their work done for them.
Most magic systems don't do that. Spells are invented on the scale of months or even on the spot, and with a bit of practice, work basically perfectly.

Of course, I'm drawing my experiences from a few system games, a few movies and books. I'm sure there are systems in which magic is parallels engineering in difficulty, where mages have to define every last motion in a spell and squash every bug, and take ten years to make a good sweeping/floor-scrubbing/bin-emptying spell. I just haven't read any fantasy novels with one like that.

Ormur
2010-11-09, 09:49 PM
It could be modelled using something similar to the seeds used for epic magic. The seeds would just be a lot more specific and would have to be assembled specially for each spell. A boom sweeping spell would have seeds for recognising a broom, grasping it, sweeping it and others for recognising what to sweep. The trick would be to define every seed and make up rules for combining them so it wouldn't be possible to attain a singularity (at least without centuries of work and planning). It wouldn't necessarily have to obey physics as we understand them, it could even be based on something simpler like Aristotelian logic and metaphysics

Coidzor
2010-11-09, 09:57 PM
What are we even talking about in here anymore?

Whether a knowledge singularity should already have happened by RAW in systems like D&D 3.5? :smallconfused:

Or just how to build a functioning computing system using published material for 3.5?

jseah
2010-11-10, 03:10 AM
Ormur:
My system aims to do that, and then provide the option to include the singularity.

The downside to organizing all your spells in little bits (besides the work involved in making them) is that more complex spells can run into a few pages of game rules.


Coidzor:
In 3.5, Knowledge Singularities and Computing systems come for free with the myriad ways of getting automatic spells (traps, Energy Transformation Field, Spell Clocks) applied to divinations.