Science in Sorcery: good or bad?

[Stephen]

I broke this out to a new thread from the "Stealing from Sorcerer for RoS magic" thread below, because I was interested in the discussion but didn't want to derail the primary topic, and also because I was intrigued by Rick McCann's explanations as to why the sorcery system of TROS was built the way it was, using scientific terminology and principles the players of the game would be familiar with.  So I'd like to talk about that a little more.

To summarize Rick's points from the other post (and Rick, please correct me if this is wrong), the terminology was used for the following reasons:

1)  To provide an underlying feel of logic and consistency to the system by relying on a proven model of logic and consistency: scientific reality.

2)  To create a common agreement between Seneschal and players as to what was and was not possible through magic, thus preventing game-stopping arguments about something for which no reality check exists.

3)  To provide an advantage to sorcerer-players who bring their own understanding of the scientific reality they're manipulating to the table, comparable to the advantage enjoyed by combat-players who know something of how martial arts and techniques are applied in real life.

The primary objections to this philosophy of magic design seem to be as follows:

1)  Aesthetic discordance.

The use of terms like "atoms", "cells" and "molecules", and the accurate, 20th-century knowledge of the structure of matter or biological processes that those terms imply, is at odds with the quasi-mediaeval level of science and technology in the rest of Weyrth.  While for some this is a feature emphasizing Weyrth's strange and fantastic nature, for others it is a bug that disrupts their suspension of disbelief in the imaginary world.

2)  Inconsistent application, leading to a perception of arbitrary imbalance.

In practice, most of the "science speak" is used in the Temporal Vagaries (despite the fact that Conquer and Vision offer equal opportunity to use modern psychology and psychiatry, and Summoning, Banishing and Imprisonment can create a whole new metaphysics of mana, life-force and entities), and it seems to be used there primarily in order to forbid certain "classic" magics like Fireball (energy from nothing is not possible), or Resurrection, or to encourage the formulation of multi-Vagary spells by requiring Vision for many kinds of healing, transformation or transmutation magic.

While this is reasonable - we do, after all, know more about physical matter and energy than about the mind or the fate of our souls - the appearance of imbalance, combined with the fact that the effects of that imbalance are primarily restrictive, can create frustration.

3)  Failure to provide either consistent resolution or significant advantage to metagame player skill.

Players still continue to argue over what is or is not possible with the system (as evidenced by the old "Can Movement 3 destroy the world?" threads), "scientific" backing notwithstanding.  For myself, this doesn't surprise me -- I've read enough arguments here over swords and fighting technique that I know having a "reality check" or consistent platform of knowledge is no guarantee of providing useful resolutions for disagreements, and swords and combat are simple compared to high-level theoretical discussions of magically-distorted physics.  In fact, the stronger the player's understanding of real physics, the less likely that understanding is to be of use, especially if the Seneschal doesn't know as much as the player does and can't argue on equal terms.

Now for myself, I don't think any of these objections are insurmountable -- I've certainly tinkered with alternatives myself, but they were all simply variants on Rick's central work and ideas.  What I'd like to hear is people's ideas and reactions on how to address these objections, short of simply saying "Throw it out and rewrite it from the ground up".

How would you go into more detail on the Mental Vagaries, for example, to take advantage of what we know now about brain chemistry, psychiatry and mental illness?

[Mike Holmes]

Wow, well written.

The only comment that I'd make at this point is to say that the argument that says that if a character could "see atoms" and the like, that he'd be able to use them is flawed on a very basic level. It assumes that, in the world in question, that there are atoms. In a world where magic works, it seems a small thing to also assume that there are other cosmological differences, perhaps ones that match earlier assumptions by people on Earth. I'm not saying that it has to parallel Earth, but if flame was said to come from flogiston, and that flogiston was not manipulable by magic, it would have accomplished the same thing, and had a much more fantasy feel, IMO.

More to the point, no matter how scientific you get with this stuff, you always come back to something that contradicts science, anyhow. OK, I can't create energy from nowhere? Then where do I get the energy with which to rub molecules together to create heat? If there's some source that allows this, then why can't that same source create flame?

Basically magic, to be supernatural, defies the laws of physics - that's a tautology, in fact. So using them as a basis makes magic non-supernatural. While that's fine for some games, it makes this one less fantasy-ish, which seems against design. Yes, this is the point at which it becomes aesthetic. So all this means is that it's not for me.

Again, if you like the aesthetic created, then magic as another science is fine. But I think that one can accomplish all of Rick's goals without going to the length of having to use scientific descriptions. That is, as an "excuse" it doesn't stand up. TROS is well designed, and shouldn't lead in most cases to the problems that are noted, anyhow.

To achieve a workable version of the system that doesn't have the scientific feel, all one has to do is delete those phrases from the description. That is, even without them, the system stands up fine. I think the key is just to understand that it's not about what a sorcerer can do, but why he's doing it. That is, if it seems even remotely possible, I'd allow it. They're already super-powerful, why worry about them becoming super-super-powerful?

Mike

[Dain]

Actually the whole science thing falls apart on a very simple level. Assume for the moment that the whole moving atoms around (sculpture), seeing anything that small in the first place (vision 3), etc,.. all makes some scientific sense to you...I know it may not, but assume just for argument sake that it does. Now, HOW...HOW...I ask you, do you accomplish MOVING those atoms and SEEING those atoms? What scientific based explanation makes THAT possible. Sure, moving those atoms around would accomplish your goal in a scientifically logical method...but how do you accomplish the actual moving...hmm? The answer in the end is PFM (let me give the G rated expansion for those unfamiliar with PFM...Pure Freakin Magic). No matter HOW scientific your process sounds in the end, it STILL takes PFM to MOVE those atoms and it still takes PFM to SEE those atoms. Even assuming you say "well I alter the lenses in my eyes to see that small"...ok, HOW do you do that...how do you alter your lenses at the cellular or molecular or atomic level to enhance them that way.........PFM.

Don't get me wrong here...although I'm not thrilled about the concepts behind the magic system here, I think it DOES work ok as designed and fits well with the system, and I think the designer deserves a ton of credit for integrating it...I just don't buy into the whole "it's fully science based, trust me" premice....its fully PFM based, where PFM is used to manipulate your environment in a scientific fashion.

Added Edit:
Seeing some of the "use energy to move atoms" comment, ok HOW do you do that...how do you reach out and affect energy, move it around and harness it...what allows you to affect it...PFM.

[Irmo]

Wow, well written.

More to the point, no matter how scientific you get with this stuff, you always come back to something that contradicts science, anyhow. OK, I can't create energy from nowhere? Then where do I get the energy with which to rub molecules together to create heat? If there's some source that allows this, then why can't that same source create flame?

Basically magic, to be supernatural, defies the laws of physics - that's a tautology, in fact. So using them as a basis makes magic non-supernatural. While that's fine for some games, it makes this one less fantasy-ish, which seems against design. Yes, this is the point at which it becomes aesthetic. So all this means is that it's not for me.

I don't quite agree with all of that at least the way it sounds to me. I don't see magic as necessarily breaking the laws of physics as long as magic is an energy on its own. Why can't it generate flame directly? What can? There are substances which will spark ablaze at contact with air, but for obvious reasons, you have to make them.... Normal people have to transfer kinetic, i.e. moving energy into heat which then ignites something flammable by striking a match, or turning the wheel of a lighter. Others use one stage more, by transfering the kinetic into electric energy, which then ignites something flammable, as is the case with piezoelectric lighters. Of course things remain fishy as to how that extra energy is manipulated by the "Gifted"

In any case, if you look at medieval ideas of magic, it very much had something of a science (I'll throw my Kiekhefer: Magic in the Middle Ages into the arena once more). I believe such occult sciences of geomancy etc. are very much befitting a fantasy world, especially one mimicking the era of lay scholarship.

[Irmo]

Oh, and Heisenberg and Schroedinger have a few words to say about seeing AND moving atoms..... No need for magic if you have quantum mechanics... at least if you're not a quantum physicist, it all looks the same ;)

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Oh if only there were an easy way to split out tangential threads...

If one's goal is to make boundaries for sorcery which both gamemaster and player can grasp and agree to, it would be no better nor worse for use in a game as the use of the scientific understandings from the early 1800's would be, or the ancient Greek scientific understanding of the world. In fact, one would be no worse off basing it upon the Judaic Qabbalah, or modern Ceremonial tradition (such as the Golden Dawn), or worldwide shamanic technique, as all would form an acceptable basis for that purpose.

From my understanding of what Rick wrote I don't think this was the design goal. The magic system is based on scientific principles so that the resulting system is as free of referee interpretation as possible. For any player who has designed a strategy in a key scene that revolves around their understanding of what a particular spell does, only to have the referee say "It doesn't work like that." and thus railroad the scene in a different direction, such a design goal would seem quite noble.

Basing the magic system on modern scientific principles has many advantages. All the players (not just the referee) understand those principles independent of the rule text. It provides a commonly understood vocabulary for describing spells and their effects. It allows players to extrapolate new effects as easily as the referee, ensuring that the referee's role is to confirm understanding rather than interpret intent and effect. It allows the players to reverse-engineer effects they have seen NPCs perform in order to infer the strengths and weaknesses of those NPCs.

The same is not the case for the alternatives you mention.

Allow me as someone involved in natural sciences to disagree. I sincerely doubt that all players understand the principles. The implications of tinkering with mother nature, be it on the fields of biology, chemistry or physics are legion, and even a full-fledged scientist considers himself lucky if he fully understands the ins and outs of his field of specialization.

Letting someone with a Weyrth level of understanding of the world around him tinker with cell growth or even atoms is a surefire way to have whatever he's trying to do blow up in his face. A mystic explanation is in my opinion far preferable. It allows players to accept "Well, that's the way it is" rather than have the M.D. cringe here, the biologist cringe there and the physicist toppling over at the latest trick of the sorcerer.

You might argue "What if they understand nature better?" The answer is easy: If they did, they wouldn't be doing sorcery. They would be doing nuclear physics, biotechnology or chemistry. It doesn't bear the risk of aging.

What is under comparison here is the relative understanding that the players bring to the table. With TRoS and it's "science-based" magic system the players bring a certain level of knowledge to the table without reference to the rule system. More knowledge can be easily obtained once again without reference to the rule system. With a magic system based on any of the suggestions made by Greyorm none of the players are likely to bring any knowledge to the table that has not been derived from the rule books. In addition the resulting system will require a high degree of interpretation from the referee. I'd say that TRoS' designer was looking to build a system that had a low degree of interpretation.

I agree wholeheartedly that the players are unlikely to bring a professional academic's level of understanding of science to the table. If anyone builds a magic system that requires such knowledge to play, or provides a distinct advantage to the player with such knowledge, well, I'm sure they'll make a forum for it here on The Forge. ; ^ )

Cheers,

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Any set of RPG mechanics that allows magic in any form cannot parallel our real world. It's not even a matter of whether you believe magic works in the real world. RPG rules ensure that magic works predictably, routinely, and repeatably. It is this that busts the parallel-Earth issue.

I disagree. The aging risk far from makes magic working routinely or predictably, and in historical periods comparable to the technical development of most of Weyrth, magic was very much considered an -even if occult- science.

It depends how you define "routinely" and "predictably".

In TRoS, the sorceror is able to create magical effects with a known outcome (whether they age or not while creating the effect is irrelevant). Thus magical effects are predictable in Weyrth. The sorceror is able to perform such an effect on a monthly or perhaps weekly basis without risk. Thus magic is routine to the sorceror in Weyrth. If such a magic system was dumped into medieval Europe we would not be living in the world we are today. For me, that bursts the parallel-Earth thought and pushes it into fantasy.

Cheers,

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Actually the whole science thing falls apart on a very simple level. Assume for the moment that the whole moving atoms around (sculpture), seeing anything that small in the first place (vision 3), etc,.. all makes some scientific sense to you...I know it may not, but assume just for argument sake that it does. Now, HOW...HOW...I ask you, do you accomplish MOVING those atoms and SEEING those atoms?

The science isn't there to explain how magic works. That's got to be an oxymoron. Rather, the science is there to provide structure for what magic does. Magic can't do anything. It has limits. These limits are science-based. Such limits are, perhaps, slightly less arbitrary than other systems that base the limits on -- say -- an understanding of the ancient Greek view of the elements of nature.

Cheers,

[Irmo]

I agree wholeheartedly that the players are unlikely to bring a professional academic's level of understanding of science to the table. If anyone builds a magic system that requires such knowledge to play, or provides a distinct advantage to the player with such knowledge, well, I'm sure they'll make a forum for it here on The Forge. ; ^ )

I think you missed my point. People bring knowledge of varying degrees to the table. And some DO bring a professional academic's level. And yes, the TROS system TECHNICALLY does require a professional academic's level. Either the system is based on real science or it is not. And if it's not, it doesn't really matter what kind of fantasy science it is based on -there is no need to apply a spray coating of 'real' science. If it is, however, you WILL need a professional academic's level of understanding, because otherwise, you have no idea what you're doing there.

It depends how you define "routinely" and "predictably".

In TRoS, the sorceror is able to create magical effects with a known outcome (whether they age or not while creating the effect is irrelevant). Thus magical effects are predictable in Weyrth. The sorceror is able to perform such an effect on a monthly or perhaps weekly basis without risk. Thus magic is routine to the sorceror in Weyrth. If such a magic system was dumped into medieval Europe we would not be living in the world we are today. For me, that bursts the parallel-Earth thought and pushes it into fantasy.

If you asked an ordinary citizen of the time, he would very likely tell you that precisely that is a given. As such, you'd need ubiquitous sorcerers for the difference that you actually can encounter such stuff working to be relevant.

[Irmo]

The science isn't there to explain how magic works. That's got to be an oxymoron. Rather, the science is there to provide structure for what magic does. Magic can't do anything. It has limits. These limits are science-based. Such limits are, perhaps, slightly less arbitrary than other systems that base the limits on -- say -- an understanding of the ancient Greek view of the elements of nature.

Cheers,

But that's precisely what the rules do. They base the limits on the fantasy the group has of real science.

No, the limits are NOT science based. They are based on some people's imagination as to what science-based limits look like.

[Stephen]

If such a magic system was dumped into medieval Europe we would not be living in the world we are today. For me, that bursts the parallel-Earth thought and pushes it into fantasy.

If you asked an ordinary citizen of the time, he would very likely tell you that precisely that is a given. As such, you'd need ubiquitous sorcerers for the difference that you actually can encounter such stuff working to be relevant.

While it is correct that the actual use of magic would be so minimal as to not necessarily have a significant effect -- sorcerers are rare, even in Gelure -- what disrupts my suspension of disbelief is that none of the knowledge sorcerers could discover (and have already discovered, from the implications of TROS sorcery's terminology) has made any impact.

Using only one Vagary alone -- the Vision Vagary -- a sorcerer could:
- Discover the best composition for paper in a printing press.
- Write Da Vinci's treatise on anatomy, only quicker, more accurately and more comprehensively.
- Divine the best formula for gunpowder.
- Analyze stress patterns in buildings and material to derive the principles of modern architecture.
- Analyze many different kinds of metal to derive 20th-century principles of metallurgy.
- Derive the beginnings of germ and viral theory, and discover how plagues are spread.
- Make inroads into developing true chemistry out of alchemy.

And all of these represent fields of knowledge that can be used by non-sorcerers -- and no matter how fearful one may be of the person who published this stuff, if the knowledge itself was of practical use, it would get used.

It would be interesting to identify some figures of antiquity -- Weyrth's counterparts to Galen, Hippocrates, Pythagoras or Archimedes -- and speculate just which of them might have been sorcerers.

Or ponder just what Uglub has all those Gifted working on in their hidden labs.

Or imagine what happens when, despite all the Gifted of Gelure, a major battle is lost when one of Farrenshire's few Gifted unveils the invention he's spent a lifetime labouring on:  Cannon.

[Irmo]

While it is correct that the actual use of magic would be so minimal as to not necessarily have a significant effect -- sorcerers are rare, even in Gelure -- what disrupts my suspension of disbelief is that none of the knowledge sorcerers could discover (and have already discovered, from the implications of TROS sorcery's terminology) has made any impact.

I wasn't talking about the specific system of magic, but about scientifically organized magic in general. If you read my posts in the original thread, I already pointed out that the knowledge gained with this type of magic would render magic itself superfluous. Why risk aging, when you can easily construct a tool which can do the same thing, in the same time, sans the risk?

[Stephen]

Why risk aging, when you can easily construct a tool which can do the same thing, in the same time, sans the risk?

Certainly a lot of what a scientifically-knowledgeable sorcerer does might be perceived as "magic", even if from his own point of view all he's done is cook up the right drugs.  Effective knowledge of how to keep wounds from going septic would make significant inroads into the typical mediaeval mortality rate all by itself.  (And Ron Edwards pointed out to me once that in a lot of the original pulp stories that inspired TROS, much of what the characters called "magic" was stuff we would recognize as drugs, hypnotism, exploitation of magnetic and electrical potentials, and other forms of deliberately obscured or misunderstood scientific techniques -- check out Lieber's "The Lords of Quarmall" or Howard's "The People of the Black Circle".)

But I think it's that "do the same thing in the same time" point which answers your question.  Even if magic can't do anything well-applied science can't do, it can still do it much faster in most instances.  And doing things using physics requires an energy source -- magic is its own energy source.

Perhaps there should be a supporting essay in the Sorcery chapter called "Magic that Isn't -- How Your Sorcerer can Look Like a Sorcerer To Everyone Around Him Without Going Through Birthday Cakes Like It's a Clearance Sale."   :)

[Irmo]

But I think it's that "do the same thing in the same time" point which answers your question.  Even if magic can't do anything well-applied science can't do, it can still do it much faster in most instances.  And doing things using physics requires an energy source -- magic is its own energy source.

I don't think that magic is much faster in most instances. For major effects, you need a ritual anyway, and given the knowledge you can gain with the right vagaries, you'll easily surpass modern science and achieve Star Trek like speed in healing, for example. The one thing hampering us today is that we still struggle to comprehend the immensely complicated system by which our bodys work -if you can actually watch it happen, things get much easier.

[Mike Holmes]

To reiterate my point, we all seem to agree, that at some point, magic does one of two things. Either it voids physics, or it is part of the physics of the world in question. One of these being the case, the world in question is different from ours in one of these ways. Either way, the question of how it is different is arbitrarily chosen. Meaning that saying that science applies X amount, or not at all are precisely equal decisions here.

Given that you can choose any point along the spectrum from fully scientific to not at all scientific, why have science in the equation? As I've said, it doesn't achieve the play balance, or ease of use sought, so how is it mechanically superior? If not mechanically superior, then it can only be an aesthetic consideration.

Mike