News:

Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

Science in Sorcery: good or bad?

Started by Stephen, July 20, 2004, 03:29:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dain

Quote from: Ian.PlumbThe 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.

Exactly what I was saying...but what I also was saying is that some die-hards here DON'T view it that way...they take the "science based" phrase to mean "in every aspect" and argue it to death based on that premise. I'm just saying that if it takes PFM to make ANYTHING actually happen in this system (and make no mistake about it...it does) then claiming something can't happen because it isn't science based is in itself ridiculous. If it takes PFM to produce any effect whatsoever, and if PFM in itself has NO logical explanation (and it does not), then there is no logical reason why PFM couldn't produce other real world effects (flame or whatever).

I mean, by the rules I could easily selectively destroy the world as a freshly rolled character. Sculpture3 (or Movement3...not sure which) and Vision3 with a volume 3 could be used to split all the atoms in 2000 pounds of pavement or whatever in some enemy city far far away. Done as a nice little ritual or whatever else it takes to take the already small TN down even further...goodbye enemies, no save. If I can do that, what's the harm in gathering ambient energy into a fireball...or moving all the non-oxygen and non-hydrogen molecules out of 300 gallons of air and producing a spark in there. If you try hard enough, you really CAN justify anything eventually...science works and is easily abused by someone creative enough...but why go to that effort? If your starting point is PFM, why can't you just say PFM does it in the first place (of course this is all theoretical argument sake anyhow...you have to have a spell design mechanic for game play, balance, TN's, etc,.... anyhow...numbers have to come from somewhere and be managed by some process...I'm just tired of the bleeding heart cries about "can't do because you don't know a scientific way to do it". That's just punishing people who haven't had enough education or aren't creative enough to think of a scientific way to accomplish the task. Nothing is impossible...it just takes sufficient education and thought.

All that being said...I still think the magic system works as is. No, I don't necessarily like it, but it works.

Irmo

Quote from: Dain
Exactly what I was saying...but what I also was saying is that some die-hards here DON'T view it that way...they take the "science based" phrase to mean "in every aspect" and argue it to death based on that premise. I'm just saying that if it takes PFM to make ANYTHING actually happen in this system (and make no mistake about it...it does) then claiming something can't happen because it isn't science based is in itself ridiculous. If it takes PFM to produce any effect whatsoever, and if PFM in itself has NO logical explanation (and it does not), then there is no logical reason why PFM couldn't produce other real world effects (flame or whatever).

The main issue is not whether science makes something impossible to happen, the issue is WHAT ELSE happens if a specific scientific rationale is used. Natural systems tend to be so complicated that on the way to get effect A, you have to actively prevent B, C, and D happening as well, and in doing so, risk evoking effect E. Thus, to achieve A, it is insufficient to have the intention to do it, you also need the knowledge about the side effects and might need additional vagaries to prevent them.

People tend to think in deterministic linear causal relations, from doing A follows B. But many natural systems are non-linear, and some even non-deterministic.

Think of it this way: You have an entire hall filled with dominos. You know that if you push domino A on your side of the hall, domino B on the other side will fall. But B might not be the only one to fall. And while PFM might enable you to push domino A and thus make domino B fall, doing so might make any number of other dominos fall as well. You know that some of them trigger explosive charges collapsing the entire hall above you. Unless you actually study how the dominos are aligned, you will not know which, and unless you actively do something to prevent them from falling, you will trigger their effects as well. While you might simply use trial and error until you get a tolerable result, such behavior has a tendency to blow up in your face. You never know if you get a second try.

(And that is still arguing on a deterministic and pretty much linear level. God forbid quantum mechanics, where dropping the domino NEXT to one with a trigger might make the hall blow up....)

Dain

I wasn't going anywhere near that far...not necessary...the situation is way more simple than that. No matter what effect you describe, it takes PFM to implement the science you describe. Chain reactions, cascading effects, etc,... existing or not, aren't where I was heading...just pointing out to the Science hounds that no matter what process they describe it still takes PFM to implement it.

As far as domino effects and such go, PFM contains that as well (describe it as magnetic bottle or what have you...don't care, not relevant). I.E. if the process is powered by PFM, it can be contained by PFM. All the caster really wants is to have his desired end result met....does he really need to know what quantum mechanics are going on or even care...no...he just wants his paycheck. There's a ton of people out there who can drive a car and don't know thing one about internal combustion, electrical systems, gear ratios, etc,...but they sure can drive the car anyhow.

Lot of rambling here, but basically my points are.
1. PFM exists in this system whether one wants to admit it or not...get over it.
2. If PFM exists, then any effect you desire is possible, rules be damned...get over it.
3. points 1 and 2 be damned because if you use science as a base, with sufficient thought you can produce any effects you want anyhow, rules be damned...get over it.
4. the magic system works as designed, even though many if not most don't care for the flavor...get over it.

*grin* ok, so I'm being a bit obnoxious here...sorry...power went out and I'm living on borrowed UPS time...so having to hurry to type this so I can shut down my computer before the UPS is drained and facing the prospect of being out of my computer the rest of the night kindof darkened my mood. Appologies.

Irmo

Quote from: Dain
As far as domino effects and such go, PFM contains that as well (describe it as magnetic bottle or what have you...don't care, not relevant). I.E. if the process is powered by PFM, it can be contained by PFM. All the caster really wants is to have his desired end result met....does he really need to know what quantum mechanics are going on or even care...no...he just wants his paycheck. There's a ton of people out there who can drive a car and don't know thing one about internal combustion, electrical systems, gear ratios, etc,...but they sure can drive the car anyhow.

The problem is that the system itself proves you wrong. If all that was needed was the effect, then you'd need no vision vagary for a lot of effect. The vagary is specifically rationalized to allow the sorcerer to see what he's manipulating. And your PFM only allows precisely that: to manipulate. It doesn't free you from knowing what you're doing.

Stephen

The question that seems to be emerging here is:

Given that no matter how scientific and logical the consequences of an act of PFM may be, that first act of PFM still breaks the rules of science, is it a suspension-of-disbelief-destroying inconsistency to apply scientific consistency to the effects of a PFM act, but not the cause of the act itself?

For myself, I don't think it needs to be.  In much of the best hard SF, after all, authors will permit themselves one or two deviations or trumps of known scientific fact (FTL drives, for example) and then riff as logically as they can on the consequences of that.  It's the "What would happen if we could (fill in the blank)?" situation.  And given that we are talking about a game which needs to have some form of consistent rules structure, I don't see that applying scientific consistency to magic's effects or structure is necessarily any more disruptive than noting that when a dragon breathes on you, your armour is ruined (it's PFM to suggest dragons could breathe actual fire, after all).

On the other hand, I can see Dain's point as well, in that the scientific rationale behind the system as it stands isn't used simply to require certain multi-Vagary effects (e.g. needing Vision for healing spells to see what you're doing) or to ensure logical scientific consequences of PFM (if you excavate an unstable tunnel it will collapse once the magic stops).  The problem is that the principles of science seem to be applied, in the system as it stands, to forbid specific effects for no reason other than aesthetic, atmospheric preference.

There's no systemic principle preventing the creation of plasma bolts using Movement 3 and Vision 3 to accelerate air molecules, but a Seneschal who doesn't understand plasma physics can point to the explicit text that says, "Fire can't burn on nothing" and disallow it.  Likewise, if dimensional barriers can be broken to allow entities from other universes to appear in this one (Summoning), which heavily implies you can manipulate the fabric of space, there's no scientific reason you can't manipulate time either, since space and time are (by most currently accepted theories) one continuum -- but a player who makes this case to a recalcitrant Seneschal can get hit with, "No time travel, no making things younger, it says so right there, end of story!"

So the problem seems to be not with attempting to use science and logic as a basis for magic's structure and consequences, but rather with putting what are essentially aesthetic restrictions on magic and claiming a scientific basis for those restrictions -- a basis which doesn't always hold up under actual scientific analysis, and which makes less sense because if science is used to limit magic, it should do so via effect, and not by arbitrary definition of cause (since PFM-as-cause is essentially arbitrary to begin with).
Even Gollum may yet have something to do. -- Gandalf

Dain

Hey Irmo,

Doesn't prove me wrong in the slightest. Just because I don't know the scientific details behind something doesn't mean it doesn't work. This isn't Whyle E. Coyotee where I run off the edge of a cliff and just hang there until I look down and figure out I'm in mid air...gravity works whether I understand it or not. Hand me a bottle of nitroglycerin and tell me it's a neat nik knack you picked up that changes color when you shake it...if I shake it it will still expload even though my understanding of it is to the contrary.

Now if you're saying that what I'm talking about contradicts the existing design system for creating a spell, you're exactly correct....I fully agree. I'm not suggesting a change to the system, nor that one is necessary...it works as designed and quite well I might add (even though I personally don't care for the flavor of it). All I'm implying is that PFM can do anything, by definition, so if a system incorporates it in any fashion then claiming ANYTHING certain thing is not possible is just kindof absurd. Throwing real world science into the mix pretty much opens all the doors even wider as there is no effect (save MAYBE time travel, faster than light travel, and teleportation) that I can think of off of the top of my head that I can't think of a legitimate science based method of reproducing.

At this point I think I'm dragging this thread way off topic...all I intended originally was to get the "all science in every aspect" hounds to chill out a bit...and it's now kindof dragging into a debate of "PFM can do anything without the science tweak so why bother with science in the first place" versus "no it can't, PFM without science is impossible"...which isn't really what I was shooting for and is really more of a flavor thing. There's nothing wrong with PFM implementing science, but there's nothing wrong with PFM just working "magically" either...ton of systems out there have mages not understanding the arcane runes, verbalizations, etc,....that they do every day to cast their spells...they don't know how it works and don't care (and don't need to care)...all they care about is that their fireball does go off and stop the charging hoard of monsters before they arive at his feet and kill him. Flavor call. PFM with science...we have that in the rule book and it works. PFM without science...we don't have that, and it would take a complete new magic system to implement it because that's obviously not compatible with the system in the book...and I am not suggesting anyone go that route anyway since the existing system can produce the same end results in almost every situation anyhow.

Well, like I said, I've unintentionally hijacked this thread enough...so I'm going to shut up now and let it get back on track unless someone really wants me to drone on some more and asks me to.

Appologies to the original threaders.

Added edit:
I personally find it vastly amusing that I am defending so strongly a magic system that I REALLY don't care for the flavor of...which is kindof a statement on the quality of the design...who'd have thought....

Irmo

Quote from: DainHey Irmo,

Doesn't prove me wrong in the slightest. Just because I don't know the scientific details behind something doesn't mean it doesn't work.

That's not the point. The point is if you have to actively visualize the process on a cellular or molecular or even subatomic level, you have to be aware of how cells and molecules and subatomic particles behave to visualize it. The vision vagary isn't just there to watch the pretty cells divide as the wound heals. It is there to give the sorcerer a means to control them, and that means he was to guide their behavior.

Quote
Throwing real world science into the mix pretty much opens all the doors even wider as there is no effect (save MAYBE time travel, faster than light travel, and teleportation) that I can think of off of the top of my head that I can't think of a legitimate science based method of reproducing.

That's the difference between you and me. I can. Especially when the goal is to create ONLY that effect, and no other. Tinkering with aging or even wound healing without causing cancer is far from trivial.

Dain

Now you're blaming me for the shortcomings of science itself...*grin*...going to have to pass the buck there...I didn't set up the intricacies of the laws of time, physics, etc,.... That's the other shortcoming of incorporating science...flaws, mistakes, and missing any one or more of the limitless variables involved in the real world can wreak havoc with best intentions. All just another good reason why PFM on its own is not such a bad idea...it's PFM...it's flawless. Why? Because it's magic and that's the way it works, not because of any science or reasoning...it just works that way, period, no explanation necessary. But TROS is a realistic system...can't have both worlds...it's realistic or it isn't. If it's realistic then all those eventualities you're worried about exist...deal with it. If you choose realism, then you lose the right to complain about realistic problems you'd have in the real world too...and if that's the flavor you want in your game it's up to the seneshcal to give players cancer after being healed too much. Personally, I get screwed over enough in the real world...not really thinking getting bent daily in my game world too would be all that enjoyable.

*grin*...now you've gone and done it...you've made me reply when I was all ready to shut up.

Irmo

Quote from: DainNow you're blaming me for the shortcomings of science itself...*grin*...going to have to pass the buck there...I didn't set up the intricacies of the laws of time, physics, etc,.... That's the other shortcoming of incorporating science...flaws, mistakes, and missing any one or more of the limitless variables involved in the real world can wreak havoc with best intentions. All just another good reason why PFM on its own is not such a bad idea...it's PFM...it's flawless. Why? Because it's magic and that's the way it works, not because of any science or reasoning...it just works that way, period, no explanation necessary. But TROS is a realistic system...can't have both worlds...it's realistic or it isn't. If it's realistic then all those eventualities you're worried about exist...deal with it. If you choose realism, then you lose the right to complain about realistic problems you'd have in the real world too...and if that's the flavor you want in your game it's up to the seneshcal to give players cancer after being healed too much. Personally, I get screwed over enough in the real world...not really thinking getting bent daily in my game world too would be all that enjoyable.

Nah, that's a misconception....realism is LIKE reality, it isn't the real world. In any case, I'd rather have sorcerers follow a pseudo-science which we can freely define, than real science.

Dain

Nothing wrong with that at all...flavor call. Personally I lean that way myself, except more in the extreme. I prefer PFM where unbeknownst to the character there actually is real science behind it, but it is real science that the character will at best suspect is there but never really understand. As for the dominos and catastrophic casting failures, my read is kindof stolen from others when I was a baby gamer..."magic is all trial and error using known or discovered runes/chemicals/verbalizations/etc/... and the spells we have today were experiments by sorcerers that DIDN'T expload because they accidentally got all the t's crossed and the i's dotted...and all the spells we don't have today may still be possible but every sorcerer attempting so far blew it and may have died in the attempt". In other words, fireball may be common today, but several centuries ago hundreds and hundreds of sorcerers imploded (and we even buried some of the few pieces we found of them) while trying to get the spell right. The formula we use today is the one developed by the first sorcerer who DIDN'T expload.