How does one mix Magic and Technology WITHOUT Magitek or Punk?

[Geordnet]

Maybe I just haven't been around enough, but it seems to me that any setting with magic in a post-Medieval level of technology will invariably be some form of punk (steampunk, cyberpunk, etc.) and/or involve magitek. Which aren't bad things in and of themselves, but they change the effective tech level of the setting.

It just seems to me that something is lost in that change. Either it's high tech pretending to be low tech, or the functional difference is so small there's little point to it. Instead of "X with Y", it's "Y dressed up as X", or vise-verse.

There are a few exceptions. Call of Cthulu seems to avoid this well (although I'm not familiar enough to say for certain); perhaps Horror is just well-suited to such subversions. Settings with preexisting cultural/technological dichotomies (such as in a Western or the Age of Sail) would probably be able to integrate magic easily too.

But what if I wanted to add magic to, for instance, Early Modern Europe, but still have it feel like Europe in the 16th-19th centuries?

[Lord Haart]

In before: Arcanum. Although that's more like 19th century (i'm culturally biased, though, and thinking in terms of russian progress, which is traditionally powered by well-bred slowpokes) with magic that doesn't quite mix with technology.

[JusticeZero]

Magic is a technology by definition. Just start with a mindset that the magic rules are in your physics textbook and ignore machinery as a dead end curiosity of no value. The people in fancy robes with staves and beards, however, are archaic and ridiculous nerds. All this knowledge is in your public library.

[caden_varn]

Really depends how potent and common you want magic to be. If the magic is sufficiently powerful and common, technology becomes fairly irrelevant. One of the major features of the time period you are talking about compared to now is the time and effort required to travel - if teleportation, or even magical communication, is commonplace, it makes a major difference.
So you really have to limit magic - either make it very rare, or make its capabilities at most on a par with what the technology of the day can do.
The thing with magic is it can be capable of as much or as little as the designer wants it to be - you need to think through the consequences of the magic you let into the setting to ensure it does not allow major advantages over the technology of the time.

[JusticeZero]

'Look Jorge! With the aid of ten months wages of polished glass lenses, I can poorly duplicate the effects of a cantrip that is in the workbooks of most educated primary schoolers!'

Your entire technology base is in that right there. Furthermore, it is not the epic 4+th spells that really affect things, it is how much can be done by a level 1 nonadventurer.

[faustin]

Amethyst rpg: as in Shadowun, the magic has returned and transformed the entire world; as in arcanum, magic and technology don´t mix well, and neither of them has a clear advantage over the other ( dedicate mages can accumulate with the years a lot of personal power, but scientist can create tech devices which can be used by anyone), so races and individuals take sides in the conflict.

[Grinner]

It all depends on how you define magic, first. It's usually defined as an effect brought about by an act of will (often augmented by intense symbolism), but then the definition diverges based upon the whims of the author.

In D&D, arcane magic bears little difference from science. It should come as no surprise, then, that magitek is the logical conclusion of that paradigm. However, sometimes an artificial distinction is made between magic and science which prevents magitek from developing (i.e. Shadowrun).

Then there's other paradigms where magic is inextricably tied to the magician. Either it can't function without a willpower actively directing it, or the magic itself is alive and can't be subjugated. In the latter case, it tends to be a spirit with which the magician makes a pact.

[Lorsa]

Most modern settings (which will have current-day technology in it) that I know of are some form of punk-settings. For many people it simply makes it more of an interesting setting rather than straight up normal world, magic or not.

The world of darkness have both technology and magic, and it is a punk setting as well. I am sure it would be possible to construct a technology-magic setting that is all shiny and nice though, perhaps a challenge for yourself?

[fusilier]

I would second what caden_varn said. If magic is common and all pervasive, then it will have some sort of an impact on society. So if you want society to feel like a historical society, you need to limit magic. I prefer to make it occult (i.e. hidden); not commonly known, or so subtle that it's not clear if it really was magic (usually a bit of both). So there may be powerful magic, but it's kept well hidden in secret societies, and weak magic that might be known publicly, but is so subtle that a sceptic could decry it as merely a "trick".

[Quellian-dyrae]

One way to do it is to say that magic is easier to advance on a personal level, but has to be developed personally and can't really be mass-produced or used on a large scale (obviously, things like permanent spells and items either don't exist or require some constant energy source, like a ley line or something). Technology is much harder to "level up" so to speak, but once it advances, it can be replicated and mass produced by anyone with the resources to do so.

Likewise, the resources to power magic, though renewable, come in vastly smaller packages than the resources for technology. Even a powerful mage only has so much energy and recovers it at a fixed rate (and to really make it work, recovery should diminish as expenditure increases, so you can do your basic stuff fairly routinely, but the big spells or massive repeat castings are tightly limited), compared to the vast and basically constant production capabilities of modern (or post-modern) civilizations.

Want to create a lavish feast of delectable food for dozens of diners with a standard action? Magic. Want to keep a nation fed? Technology.

[Geordnet]

Magic is a technology by definition. Just start with a mindset that the magic rules are in your physics textbook and ignore machinery as a dead end curiosity of no value.

This is what I want to avoid at all costs. What you describe is science. It is science applied to imaginary rules, and trying to pretend it is not science, but that is absolutely what it is.

This can be fun, but it's not what I'm looking for. If I wanted something analyzed and understood, I'd just look at my real-life physics textbooks. Maybe google some hypothetical physics as well. Or, I'd read some hard sci-fi.

What I mean by "magic" is "that which is explicitly not understood". The whole point is that you don't know how it works. If the answer to the question "how does magic work" is anything other than "by magic", it sort of takes the magic out of wondering about it.

Of course, I understand that achieving this ideal is more or less impossible, but as it stands Harry Houdini is a more magical person than Mordenkaien, so there's lots of room for improvement.

Amethyst rpg: as in Shadowun, the magic has returned and transformed the entire world; as in arcanum, magic and technology don´t mix well, and neither of them has a clear advantage over the other ( dedicate mages can accumulate with the years a lot of personal power, but scientist can create tech devices which can be used by anyone), so races and individuals take sides in the conflict.

Both are prime examples of what I'm trying to avoid though. And the "science" you mention is just more magic, pretending to be something it's not.

I am sure it would be possible to construct a technology-magic setting that is all shiny and nice though, perhaps a challenge for yourself?

By "not punk", I don't mean "shiny and nice". I mean that I want something that's closer to the "realistic" end of the balance between Rule of Cool and Realism.

Really depends how potent and common you want magic to be. If the magic is sufficiently powerful and common, technology becomes fairly irrelevant. One of the major features of the time period you are talking about compared to now is the time and effort required to travel - if teleportation, or even magical communication, is commonplace, it makes a major difference.

Right, sufficiently advanced magic just becomes another form of technology. That's what I'm trying to avoid.

So you really have to limit magic - either make it very rare, or make its capabilities at most on a par with what the technology of the day can do.
The thing with magic is it can be capable of as much or as little as the designer wants it to be - you need to think through the consequences of the magic you let into the setting to ensure it does not allow major advantages over the technology of the time.

I would second what caden_varn said. If magic is common and all pervasive, then it will have some sort of an impact on society. So if you want society to feel like a historical society, you need to limit magic. I prefer to make it occult (i.e. hidden); not commonly known, or so subtle that it's not clear if it really was magic (usually a bit of both). So there may be powerful magic, but it's kept well hidden in secret societies, and weak magic that might be known publicly, but is so subtle that a sceptic could decry it as merely a "trick".

Ah, now this is what I'm looking for. A subtler, "low-magic" approach. That would work nicely.

Keeping with the "Early Modern Europe" example, how would this approach be applied there?



EDIT:

Spoiler

Show

One way to do it is to say that magic is easier to advance on a personal level, but has to be developed personally and can't really be mass-produced or used on a large scale (obviously, things like permanent spells and items either don't exist or require some constant energy source, like a ley line or something).

That's an interesting approach, and is definitely worth looking into. It still seems to be a bit closer to the "technology" side, though, since if magic isn't innate (or if 'the gift' isn't very rare) then it's simple to institutionalize the teaching of it.

[headwarpage]

I figure you have ~3 options:
1) Hidden magic. Magic is practiced by a few individuals, but not generally known to the populace at large. Think of the Dresden Files, or any other setting where the world goes about its business unaware of the existence of magic.
2) Rare magic. Magic is only available to a select few, so the rest of the population has to use technology. Often seen when magic is an inborn gift, or otherwise limited by factors that people can't control. Anyway, most people can't use magic, and they don't have ready access to people who can, so there's a strong incentive for them to develop technology, and technology advances largely independent of magic.
3) Costly magic. Magic is so costly/difficult that there's a clear incentive to look for technological alternatives. Whether it requires a literal deal with the devil, sacrifice of life energy, celibacy, your firstborn child, or simply 30+ years of dedicated study, you have to make a major personal sacrifice to use magic. Anybody can do it, but the cost is almost unbearably high. So magic can do some fancy things, but there's a strong incentive to look for a nonmagical option.

I'm sure I forgot something. What's the fourth (and fifth, sixth, etc.) option?

[warty goblin]

Get rid of the idea of magic as intrinsic to people entirely. Make it extrinsic, the intervention of supernatural, often divine beings. Nobody *does* magic, something intercedes on their behalf to provide protection or blessing and strength. You may cover yourself in protective charms, amulets and runes, but ultimately those are merely offering and invocations of a being with genuine power.

Now nobody can mass manufacture cars that run on magic. Somebody might have a vehicle that's powered by magic, because it is a specific gift to them. You can't just nip down and buy a magic sword, it has to be earned as a reward from something outside of the human realm.

And of course the supernatural is fickle. Sometimes it just can't be assed to do jack for you, sometimes there's something else more important going on. And it doesn't like whiny little buggers either; favor is earned through action and devotion, not sitting around moaning. It is both a dangerous enemy, and a dangerous ally.

[hiryuu]

This is what I want to avoid at all costs. What you describe is science. It is science applied to imaginary rules, and trying to pretend it is not science, but that is absolutely what it is.

This can be fun, but it's not what I'm looking for. If I wanted something analyzed and understood, I'd just look at my real-life physics textbooks. Maybe google some hypothetical physics as well. Or, I'd read some hard sci-fi.

What I mean by "magic" is "that which is explicitly not understood". The whole point is that you don't know how it works. If the answer to the question "how does magic work" is anything other than "by magic", it sort of takes the magic out of wondering about it.

If no one can describe it, then no one can use it. Period. Science is a method of describing how something works. Science is not the process of telling you that "X doesn't work," it's the process of figuring out how X works. If "magic" is inherently unpredictable, rules for it can't be defined, and it is effectively useless.

I'll say this again: science is a method of description, not an energy force.

Science describes things using a distinct methodology. It can be applied to almost anything that affects the world. It is concerned with observing the effects of a phenomena on the environment and then extrapolating what that effect means. It is a process of discovery and understanding what those discoveries mean.

If you find that boring, you have never met a scientist. Listen to Carl Sagan or Neil Degrasse Tyson talk for THIRTY SECONDS and you will learn that being able to describe something makes it more amazing and fantastic. Seriously. Listen to them. The way scientists talk is seriously how wizards should talk. They should be amazed by everything and filled with a sense of awe and wonderment about the tiniest things.

Of course, I understand that achieving this ideal is more or less impossible, but as it stands Harry Houdini is a more magical person than Mordenkaien, so there's lots of room for improvement.

Houdini was a freakin' wizard.

Both are prime examples of what I'm trying to avoid though. And the "science" you mention is just more magic, pretending to be something it's not.

The only difference between science and magic is cultural.

By "not punk", I don't mean "shiny and nice". I mean that I want something that's closer to the "realistic" end of the balance between Rule of Cool and Realism.

Realistically, any process in which you ask a question and then try to achieve answers to that question using evidenciary materials collected by you or another person... IS SCIENCE.

Science is the process of creating controlled situations in which phenomena are recreated and then described. If you are capable of casting spells, you are capable of creating controlled situations.

At which point, congratulations! You're doing science! You might not call it science, but that's what it is.

Right, sufficiently advanced magic just becomes another form of technology. That's what I'm trying to avoid.

Hold on. I have a thing for this.

Ah, now this is what I'm looking for. A subtler, "low-magic" approach. That would work nicely.

Keeping with the "Early Modern Europe" example, how would this approach be applied there?

It doesn't matter if it's commonly available or not: a particle accelerator is technology, but who has access to or understands one of those? And how applicable is it to daily life? It could be the same thing for magic - how useful is it to the common person?

Check out the stuff the Islamic alchemists were doing. These guys were trying to work out how the world around them worked, but some of their experiments were extremely bizarre and esoteric, and probably useless for most people. Also check out Heron of Alexandria. The guy was a boss. For stuff about wizards that might help you out, check out Cunning Folk. They do kind of what you're asking.

Ars Magica also has a really good approach to this, with a very esoteric magic system and the entire goal of the setting is to fiddle with the, well, fiddly bits without knowing how they work.

[navar100]

You could just reflavor flavor text. In 3E, Artificer could be reflavored into magical technology. In Pathfinder, you have the Alchemist as a magical "scientist" or "chemist".

[Grinner]

hiryuu's tirade reminded me of something. The chief difference between your stock D&D wizard and a proper occultist is that the D&D wizard functions in the abstract; he can simply command the powers that be with nothing more than an unintelligible whisper. There's no drama, and there's no pageantry. There's just the cause and the effect.

Meanwhile, the occultist is wrapped up in the mystique of his esoteric philosophies. He doesn't just cast Fireball or Sleep. He invokes invokes the thirteen Celestial Spheres while standing over the Seven Seals of Yutar the Magnificient. By comparison, the D&D wizard seems absolutely mundane.

I don't think there's a mechanic out there that can compensate for poor fluff.

I'm curious. Did you actually have it on hand?

[Hida Reju]

I think its not a case of magic and technology having problems mixing its that Magic breaks economy in a market.

Either its so expensive that its not worth using to recreate daily life effects. By requiring power sources or burning out the people using them or its so simple that it makes doing any technology meaningless because you can just get a mage to do the work in seconds what takes days of work to do.

A more real example, can magic build a permanent house?
If so how long does it take?
How much resources did it take to do it?
How often can it be performed?

The closer to "Instantly, for nothing, and often" you become the less often anything other than magic will be used.

Same goes for healing why become a doctor if healing can be done easy with magic?

The closers to instant/infinite/complete healing you get to the less people will care about finding out why biology works and how to do surgery.

So they key to having both is setting and mechanics.

You have to have a setting that supports it and mechanics that do not crush economy.

One without the other just does not work it will just feel forced or out of place.

[hiryuu]

hiryuu's tirade reminded me of something. The chief difference between your stock D&D wizard and a proper occultist is that the D&D wizard functions in the abstract; he can simply command the powers that be with nothing more than an unintelligible whisper. There's no drama, and there's no pageantry. There's just the cause and the effect.

Meanwhile, the occultist is wrapped up in the mystique of his esoteric philosophies. He doesn't just cast Fireball or Sleep. He invokes invokes the thirteen Celestial Spheres while standing over the Seven Seals of Yutar the Magnificient. By comparison, the D&D wizard seems absolutely mundane.

I tirade a lot when it comes to occultists/wizards. I run a setting where everyone is effectively a magic user and most of the setting conflict/PC action is in exploring your culture and magic's effect on it and involving yourself in the process of improving your magic by improving your understanding of your place in it and with it.

I'm curious. Did you actually have it on hand?

I do. I actually have a lot of angry literature crab >_>

[Friv]

This is what I want to avoid at all costs. What you describe is science. It is science applied to imaginary rules, and trying to pretend it is not science, but that is absolutely what it is.

The essential definition of magic is "science applied to imaginary rules", is the problem. If you cut out a boar's heart at the full moon, you can imbibe a section of the boar's power. It happens the same way every time. You figure out the conditions, and the result is a benefit. If you are capable of having a trained mage, there are rules, and if there are rules the system is explicable.

Magic leads to alchemy leads to science. It's all a single continuum, not two unconnected spheres. If your society has developed the scientific method, someone's going to apply it to science, and you'll get wizard universities and people gauging the effects of flame spells to figure out what blends of wood-ash produce the best results and so on. Which is what you don't want, so...

What I mean by "magic" is "that which is explicitly not understood". The whole point is that you don't know how it works. If the answer to the question "how does magic work" is anything other than "by magic", it sort of takes the magic out of wondering about it.

What you're actually looking for isn't magic, it's miracles.

Miracles can't be quantified or reproduced under laboratory conditions. They just happen. And if things just happen, they will remain outliers in a society built around magic, because you can't study to learn them, and you can't just build more if one breaks down. Getting ahold of a miraculous relic or a man who can speak to the winds and have them answer is a unique event, and one that will be either a valuable curiousity or a thing worth the price of a small kingdom.

In a setting that contains miracles, each miracle is something that science builds itself around. Individual societies, organizations, and battlefields will each develop technologies and devices that are based around the singular or small collection of useful oddities that they control. If one kingdom has a spring that turns maidens into gold, they will start quietly developing social mores based around early marriages and pairing off, to remove temptation; they might accept maidens as tributes in place of taxes, for the value of the massive amount of gold that they will become if executed. A temple has a flute that, if played by a man of faith, causes grapes to grow. They have created a robust wine industry around it, which funds their charitable activities. A man can understand cats. He can't make them understand him, and everyone mostly thinks that he's a crazy guy who lurks in the town square screaming at the local feral animals to leave him alone.

[Geordnet]

If "magic" is inherently unpredictable, rules for it can't be defined, and it is effectively useless.

For the players, perhaps. The GM can still govern the unpredictable with dice and a hefty dose of ad-hoc rulings.

Science describes things using a distinct methodology. It can be applied to almost anything that affects the world. It is concerned with observing the effects of a phenomena on the environment and then extrapolating what that effect means. It is a process of discovery and understanding what those discoveries mean.

You don't have to tell me. I've just been trying to find a good way to put it.

If you find that boring, you have never met a scientist.

Oh no, I love science.

But that's also the reason why I don't like to see it pretending to be something it's not. It's like makeup on a pretty girl, or steak sauce on a good steak. It's intended to make it better, but it's doing the opposite. If I wanted science, I'd go for real science.

Realistically, any process in which you ask a question and then try to achieve answers to that question using evidenciary materials collected by you or another person... IS SCIENCE.

Science is the process of creating controlled situations in which phenomena are recreated and then described. If you are capable of casting spells, you are capable of creating controlled situations.

At which point, congratulations! You're doing science! You might not call it science, but that's what it is.

Well then, logically we must preclude that possibility for magic to remain unscientific. If the player does not actually control the magic he uses, that would make it more difficult.

Perhaps then, magic is ornery? Perhaps it does not want to be studied, and the best way to fail at magic is to think too hard about it. There aren't even set gestures or incantations for spells; a wizard really can't do any more than mutter, wave his hands around, and hope for the best. The trait which is most essential for wizards, therefore, it not intelligence, nor intuition: it's luck. It's just an anomaly with no logical reason for it, and in fact trying to run tests about it is most likely going to make it stop. For the duration of the test, at least; further frustrating the would-be scientists.

Try applying science to that kind of magic.


EDIT:

You could just reflavor flavor text. In 3E, Artificer could be reflavored into magical technology. In Pathfinder, you have the Alchemist as a magical "scientist" or "chemist".

You're missing the point. The point is that "magic" seems to be nothing more than just a reflavoring, when it should be more than that.

What you're actually looking for isn't magic, it's miracles.

The difference being as arbitrary as any other definition of magic.

If a spring turns maidens into gold for no apparent reason, how can you tell me that isn't magic? That most definitely, positively, absolutely is magic.


What I which to isolate is that element of the unknown, the unexplained. When your uncle pulls a quarter from behind your ear; before you understood how it was done that was magic. Lightning was magic since before the dawn of human history, and in many ways is still so today. Even technology can be magic, if you don't know how it works. It's that fleeting sense of awe and wonder that I'm seeking.

[Grinner]

Well then, logically we must preclude that possibility for magic to remain unscientific. If the player does not actually control the magic he uses, that would make it more difficult.

Perhaps then, magic is ornery? Perhaps it does not want to be studied, and the best way to fail at magic is to think too hard about it. There aren't even set gestures or incantations for spells; a wizard really can't do any more than mutter, wave his hands around, and hope for the best. The trait which is most essential for wizards, therefore, it not intelligence, nor intuition: it's luck. It's just an anomaly with no logical reason for it, and in fact trying to run tests about it is most likely going to make it stop. For the duration of the test, at least; further frustrating the would-be scientists.

Try applying science to that kind of magic.

Umm...Isn't that the "living magic" several people have brought up already?

Then there's other paradigms where magic is inextricably tied to the magician. Either it can't function without a willpower actively directing it, or the magic itself is alive and can't be subjugated. In the latter case, it tends to be a spirit with which the magician makes a pact.

Get rid of the idea of magic as intrinsic to people entirely. Make it extrinsic, the intervention of supernatural, often divine beings. Nobody *does* magic, something intercedes on their behalf to provide protection or blessing and strength. You may cover yourself in protective charms, amulets and runes, but ultimately those are merely offering and invocations of a being with genuine power.

Now nobody can mass manufacture cars that run on magic. Somebody might have a vehicle that's powered by magic, because it is a specific gift to them. You can't just nip down and buy a magic sword, it has to be earned as a reward from something outside of the human realm.

And of course the supernatural is fickle. Sometimes it just can't be assed to do jack for you, sometimes there's something else more important going on. And it doesn't like whiny little buggers either; favor is earned through action and devotion, not sitting around moaning. It is both a dangerous enemy, and a dangerous ally.

What you're actually looking for isn't magic, it's miracles.

Miracles can't be quantified or reproduced under laboratory conditions. They just happen. And if things just happen, they will remain outliers in a society built around magic, because you can't study to learn them, and you can't just build more if one breaks down. Getting ahold of a miraculous relic or a man who can speak to the winds and have them answer is a unique event, and one that will be either a valuable curiousity or a thing worth the price of a small kingdom.

Also, it seems that I've forgotten to make my customary Unknown Armies plug. Anyway, the short of it is that most of the magic the layman is capable of employing isn't obvious. Avatars of the Warrior are capable of fighting better than other men, but they still aren't superhuman. Tilt rituals can alter probability dramatically, but their effects can be dismissed as good luck.

The really powerful stuff can only be employed by the most psychotic people. Their worldviews are so twisted that they understand one aspect of reality completely, and they can employ this understanding to dire effect. But even then, they don't blow their spells flagrantly. After all, no one wants to piss off the Sleepers...

What I which to isolate is that element of the unknown, the unexplained. When your uncle pulls a quarter from behind your ear; before you understood how it was done that was magic. Lightning was magic since before the dawn of human history, and in many ways is still so today. Even technology can be magic, if you don't know how it works. It's that fleeting sense of awe and wonder that I'm seeking.

I've already told you that no mechanic can substitute good fluff. You don't want to isolate the unknown; you want something original. You want an entirely new way of looking at the world.

You want Unknown Armies.

[Cerlis]

basically steampunk/magicteck cant really exist if magic can be used as a fuel source. Most Gnome (Warcraft) technology that utilizes magic does so by using mana as a power source. Also if the chaotic nature of magic warps and breaks technology (espessially if magic=chaos and technology =law) than it makes it also impossible.

And i think Legend of Korra and Justice League show how the presence of magic and the supernatural forces Normals to adapt, via technology


Also only bad games games i dont like have magic so common place you can go down the street and ask someone to cast a lvl 1 spell for you for free (or at all). Even in settings where there are hundreds of casters in a city it should still be difficult to master even level 1 spells.


Also Warlocks and sorcerer's (and every person on the forum who says "buy magic items") is proof that just because someone can cast level 1 or above spells, doesnt mean technology is useless. Good job casting Dancing lights. to bad we need to light the whole castles ALL night.

Candles are technology.

[PlusSixPelican]

Want to create a lavish feast of delectable food for dozens of diners with a standard action? Magic. Want to keep a nation fed? Technology.

Can I sig this?

Also, have them exist as (mildly) antithetical, so magic can't be reproduced technologically, and magic breaks technology in large doses (like an EMP). Likewise, technology is a useful tool in helping fight magical malfeasants. Play it up as a romanticisim v. enlightenment dealie (with magic on either side, although most pick romanticism to represent magic) and you have yourself a setting.

[Science Officer]

I think magic can be not-technology.

If you read up on real-world occult practices, as well as (and the two are often closely linked) a lot of your "New Age" philosophies (you know the ones, even if that's not the right term) operate under frameworks antithetical, or even hostile to scientific/technological world views.

These would reject empiricism, naturalism, an objective view of reality, oppose testing and falsifiability, and urge you to tap into your intuition, imagination, the collective unconscious, the whisperings of the lizard-demons from beyond the seventh veil, etc... Of course, in reality this produces little in the way of practical results. But we are imagining fictional worlds...
I'll call these perspectives "mystical" to separate them from the "magical" systems of many games.

So yes, one would be entirely correct to say that if a repeatable experiment produced repeatable results regardless of time, location, and experimenter, then that approach to understanding the phenomena would be a scientific/technological approach and the phenomena would be a natural one. Even if the experiment was to carve a pentagram into a wax seal and the result was to turn a stone into snake, that would simply be a result of the natural forces in that world. If the magic-users of a setting approached magic in such a way/the magic in a setting worked that way, one could rightly call them scientists, for they explored the forces that exist in their world in a scientific way.

But what if we were to leave the realm of empiricism behind? What if experiments are not universally applicable and reality is, in fact, highly subjective? Let us imagine a setting where mystics are drawn to understand the workings of the universe, not through experiment and practice, but by, well, any other means. Each working within their own or a shared philosophy, the mystics evoke works of wonder in the world around them. These would be a lot like what Friv described as miracles, except that they could be studied but not in a scientific way.

They could not be mass-produced or taught, and studied only by those with the right aptitude/mindset. "The Tao that can be taught is not the true Tao". Maybe all mystical philosophies work equally well, maybe some work better than others, maybe there is only one. It's up to you in creating the setting.

Anyways, I tried. Hope this helps.

[hiryuu]

Well then, logically we must preclude that possibility for magic to remain unscientific. If the player does not actually control the magic he uses, that would make it more difficult.

Perhaps then, magic is ornery? Perhaps it does not want to be studied, and the best way to fail at magic is to think too hard about it. There aren't even set gestures or incantations for spells; a wizard really can't do any more than mutter, wave his hands around, and hope for the best. The trait which is most essential for wizards, therefore, it not intelligence, nor intuition: it's luck. It's just an anomaly with no logical reason for it, and in fact trying to run tests about it is most likely going to make it stop. For the duration of the test, at least; further frustrating the would-be scientists.

Try applying science to that kind of magic.

That it actively defies testing is a testable feature.

Electricity is actually pretty ornery. Fire is so ornery that it took is tens of thousands of years to actually figure out how it worked at all (seriously. We've known about oxygen for a very brief amount of time - imagine not knowing that people are made of the same stuff other mammals are made of, or that people aren't even mammals at all... that's the status quo for most of our history). Like I said, look up Islamic alchemists and people like Heron of Alexandria.

For the record, here's a secret: inquiry isn't about repetition of experiments, but repetition of observations. If you can get several sources of independent information to agree on what happened, then you're doing science again. That is, you don't have to have someone cast fireball more than once, because it will leave behind scorched trees, people who can agree that guy shot fire, and you can even determine if he was using things you already know produce fire (even if they only produce it sometimes in certain situations). To have something that you can't investigate with a scientific process at all would require something that doesn't interact with any part of the world an observer can get to or be affected by... and at that point, what's the point?

If you want magic to be mysterious and still affect the lives of the characters, at sine point you're going to have to face the fact that on some fundamental level, it's operating by a set of rules. Even if that rule is "as a GM it does what I want." Saying "it works because it does" is also kind of jerkbag GMing, too, so be careful there.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that mystery and wonder and awe are all very personal things and deeply rooted in cultural and individual opinion. Honestly, I find a system that can't be described, interpreted, or investigated to be dull, pointless, uninteresting, and devoid of mystery.

[Geordnet]

Umm...Isn't that the "living magic" several people have brought up already?

Is it? I'm not familiar with the context.

I've already told you that no mechanic can substitute good fluff. You don't want to isolate the unknown; you want something original. You want an entirely new way of looking at the world.

Hm.. Probably so. There is indeed no substitute for creativity.

How about we get creative here then, and come up with such a novel way of thinking?

And i think Legend of Korra and Justice League show how the presence of magic and the supernatural forces Normals to adapt, via technology

That's intriguing by itself, but I'm more asking about how to include magic in a way that "normals" don't have to adapt.

Even in settings where there are hundreds of casters in a city it should still be difficult to master even level 1 spells.

The way I'm looking at it, there might be one or two magicians in a city. More often, none at all.


EDIT:

That it actively defies testing is a testable feature.

Not when you frustratingly cannot even find a subject wizard to participate in your meta-test.

and at that point, what's the point?

The point is that while you can conclude that this person throws fireballs, you have absolutely no idea how.

[Grinner]

You know, I was just thinking. Your stated purpose is that you want to implement magic in an early modern European setting in such a way that it won't crossbreed with the inventions of mankind. So, how about the actual magical practices of early modern Europe?

Being ceremonial in nature, you won't get the archetypal spell-slinger though...

[fusilier]

Ah, now this is what I'm looking for. A subtler, "low-magic" approach. That would work nicely.

Keeping with the "Early Modern Europe" example, how would this approach be applied there?

If it were *me*, I would look at relevant historical thoughts about magic. They existed through the time periods you described, but changed. In the 16th century, it would be a bit more similar to some form of fantasy magic. By the 19th century, it might take on different forms, some of which might have been thought to have a more scientific basis.

I don't really know enough to provide an overview of magic beliefs during those times, but I can provide an example from the earlier period that might fit: A charm. Perhaps something that's supposed to bring the wearer good luck, or protect them from harm. It's not all powerful, so the wearer can still be harmed, but maybe it lessens the chances of it. More importantly if the wearer believes that it does some good they will continue to carry it.

In the 19th century, there was certainly a belief in ritual/ceremonial magic (seances were popular), and there was also a lot of study into things that are probably more closely modeled by Psionics (Psychical Research), but might be seen as a kind of magic.

For the earlier period, especially if you are using D&D, see if you can get a copy of "A Mighty Fortress Campaign Sourcebook", that might help out. It provides enough generic information to be useful for any system; I've used it for GURPS campaigns.

Then you might want to check out some of the GURPS sourcebooks: Steampunk will be useful for the 19th century -- with most GURPS sourcebooks, a lot of the information is historical, and they provide suggestions for how to play the game with different levels of magic. Not sure about the late 17th to 18th century, there are some GURPS books that cover that period (Swashbucklers and Napoleon), but I don't recall there being much about magic in either of them.

[JusticeZero]

The point is that while you can conclude that this person throws fireballs, you have absolutely no idea how.

That's still a lot to work with in a scientific sense. You don't need to know the mechanism to study the preceding and antecedeng events, the circumstances, the effects, the replicability, and if some guy can lob fireballs more or less on demand, you can proceduralize it into something.

[Eldan]

That's still a lot to work with in a scientific sense. You don't need to know the mechanism to study the preceding and antecedeng events, the circumstances, the effects, the replicability, and if some guy can lob fireballs more or less on demand, you can proceduralize it into something.

Quite. As soon as you have a person who can throw fireballs repeatably, you can start studying it, ending up with science.

And no matter how much mysticism you add, science can study it.

Magic changes with the person attempting it? Statistical analysis to find the factors separating the people.
Magic changes over time? Gather more data until you find a pattern. There is always one.
Magic is random? We have statistics, stochastics and chaos theory for a reason.
Magic is alive? Living beings follow rules. You will, at some point, end up with a kind of diplomacy and rituals. Which can be studied and made more efficient.

Really, I can't think of anything off-hand science couldn't study.