Mixing Fantasy and Sci-Fi

[Craft (Cheese)]

Having recently acquired he Numerian book and without interrupting the debate at all (hopefully), I can honestly say that Numerian laser weaponry and space ships are not something that just anyone can get, both because of the Technic League's oppressive control of all things technological or xenobiological and the difficulty in actually acquiring them in the first place since you both need to find a piece of the starship that's still intact enough to be salvaged as well as a way inside, survive the dangers within, and than get back out without somebody else taking the easy route in just waiting outside to mug you for your new baubles.

Doesn't hurt that so far they haven't (apparently) figured out a way to replicate the stuff they're using and only seem to have managed recharging and repairing (to a degree) it.

I've read through Numeria, Land of Fallen Stars myself, and it's pretty good stuff. I honestly think I have a new favorite region of Golarion. I still do have legitimate fears though that they're going to do something like make a Laser Gunslinger archetype that starts out with a free laser weapon. Or a Technic League Wizard archetype with a collection of technological baubles as class features that act like spells but work in anti-magic fields.

[GungHo]

Thing is, I've been seeing signs of discontent on the Paizo forums (albeit not much mind you) about sci-fi peanut butter getting mixed into their fantasy chocolate but not really any explanations about...well...why they are unhappy.

That's strange since the peanut butter has been there all along. Numeria has always had a big spaceship in it, along with androids, roboscorpions, and all the other crap. I guess they're worried about it not respecting borders and getting out past the setting's Brotherhood of Steel expy?

[Frozen_Feet]

You can easily mix both, and early D&D and AD&D were doing that all around. (1st edition DMG even had conversion rules to make cross-overs with Gamma World, a sci-fi game.) Partly this is because D&D took inspiration from pulp fiction and horror just as well as fantasy, and stuff like Lovecraft's already were rife with sci-fi concepts.

A glaring example: why is seeing in the dark called infravision in D&D? Because someone wanted to do in the wizard and brought in a scientific explanation for it - seeing the infrared spectrum. The monster manuals are also rife with references to biology, paleontology and other sciences - witness a whole section devoted to (relatively accurate) portrayal of dinosaurs, including their Latin names.

The reason people don't notice this is because they have very limited (and wrong) conception of sci-fi. Basically, to most people sci-fi is synonymous with space opera, completely forgetting all other genres of sci-fi (alternate history, paleontological reconstruction and fiction, speculative societies etc.)

[TheThan]

You guys need to check out Iron Kingdoms by Privateer Press.

Its an RPG based in the Warmachine and Hordes miniatures table top games (well that’s actually backwards, war machine and hordes are based on Iron Kingdoms). The game seamlessly integrates science and magic into one setting.

They do this in two ways. The first way is that they put a limit on the amount of pure technology there is in the setting, that limit is steam engines and effective guns, think 19th century technology.

They also merged magic and technology together. Exemplified in the warjack, mechanical automatons used to wage war. These machines are powered by steam engines, but utilize a device called a cortex. These cortexs are devices infused and powered by magic and give the warjack a primitive mind, allowing it to follow simple commands. Additionally there are special spellcasters called warcasters that are capable of merging their mind with cotexes and can mentally control warjacks, making them more effective in combat.

They’ve adapted this concept and created “mechanika” which are mechanical devices powered by magic. These devices replicate pure magical items found in typical RPGs (the few purely magical items in this setting are VERY dangerous). So instead of a magic longsword, you have a mechanika sword. The mechanika sword can have similar properties; however you can upgrade it to give it new ones. Something you typically can’t do in a pure magic setting.

So what we have is a setting where magic and technology live side by side and interact with each other, blurring the line between technology and magic.

[Cronocke]

It doesn't have to be accurate. But I think Science Fiction is fundamentally about a different mentality than fantasy. Fantasy is about imagination. Science Fiction is about conjecture. Imagining a world changed by new developments. Those developments can be realistic or not, but from there, the world should develop along lines that make at least some sense. And I think trying to incorporate at least potentially possible science is a part of it as well.

It's the difference between Space Opera and Science Fiction.

Premise: we have lasers and FTL drives.
Space Opera: let's use those for space piracy, treasure hunting on Mars and sword fights against alien cyborgs on Jupiter!
Science Fiction: now that the galaxy opened up, how would society on earth change to reflect that? What kind of people would join an interstellar colonialization effort? How do military doctrines change? Which expertise and resources become valuable and which lose value?

Both of those are science fiction. You're talking about scale, here. Space operas are about people, and what you call "science fiction" is about societies and cultures. Firefly/Serenity is a space opera at heart, despite being fairly hard in terms of its speculation - space piracy, treasure hunting on other planets and moons (generally inside someone else's train or fortress), and big silly fist fights are all over the place.

I would also point out that both have a great deal to do with imagination. You're imagining what a world would look like with technology that is unachievable by current methods, allowing things that are not currently known to be possible. Practically speaking, what is the difference between "I have teleporters" and "I can teleport us with a spell"? Neither is scientifically likely given our current understanding of physics.

As for fantasy mixed with or disguised as science fiction: Star Wars. Mass Effect. The Marvel movies. Doctor Who. Shadowrun. Warhammer 40k. The Elder Scrolls.

You should probably add Star Trek to that list - Vulcans, Betazoids, and other races have psychic powers that do not mesh with our understanding of science or even our conjecture of future science. And really, every bit of science fiction put to television or movie screens fails to be what you seem to consider "pure" science fiction, with maybe the possible exception of Firefly and Serenity. Which is a space opera...

To me, there are two basic ways to approach magic in a game, especially when the knowledge of physical science is about where it is on Earth today (or better).

1) Magic is completely ineffable; you never know quite what you're going to get with magic, even if you've been practicing it for years.

2) Magic is a science, slightly off-kilter from the science we know, but with repeatable effects from given actions.

The problem with 1 is that it's a lot harder to put into rules... ineffable magic must always be able to go outside its own rules a bit. The 2nd version, however, runs the risk of becoming incredibly common and mechanical, losing some aspect of the "magic" of magic. The 2nd version is what leads to things like the Tippyverse... magic is commodified and reproducible and starts to severely mess with the standard assumptions of the world (as another example, look to Brust's Dragaera, where easy resurrections have wildly changed society.

I'm a fan of the way magic was treated in a little-known computer RPG called Arcanum. Magic and technology both set out to do similar things - treat injuries, cure diseases, move objects, and so on. Both were repeatable, generally speaking. But magic achieved its goals by distorting the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and so on, while technology relied on those very laws to function. Thus, powerful magic could cause machines to break, and complex machines could cause spells to fizzle out, due to the grander scope winning out. The two coexisted in the setting because magic was capable of greater miracles, but technology was something any layperson could use with minimal training or talent.

I don't mind pure speculative fiction, and I don't mind pure fantasy. But they share the same concepts and the same roots - "What would the world be like if X?" If X is magic, it's fantasy. If X is new subatomic particles and giant robots, it's science fiction. If X is psychic powers and FTL... we have this discussion.

[Fiery Diamond]

That's really just another form of Fantasy to me. It can work well (Shadowrun) or be a miss (Star Wars), but that kind of fantasy is really done all over. Has usually little to do with SciFi, though.

This is untrue. Hard science fiction is not the only thing that science fiction is. There's actually remarkably little good hard sci-fi. Most sci-fi TV shows or sci-fi movies: not hard sci-fi. Good hard sci-fi is difficult to find, mostly because a large quantity of hard sci-fi is fairly boring to someone who doesn't actually have an academic interest in science & technology or sociology.

Science Fantasy is a form of science fiction; it's a subset of both science fiction and fantasy. Saying, "no, it's fantasy not sci-fi" is disingenuous or ignorant.

I dislike it and refuse to acknowledge a mixture of being sci-fi. It's just fantasy in space with a futuristic theme. Sci-fi is based on science, it's incompatible with fantasy.
Sci-fi should be entirely materialistic IMO, there can be people who practice religions or believe in ghosts, but no spirits or ghosts. If it's not potentially explainable with science then it has no place in sci-fi, and that categorically excludes fantasy.

False. There is a term for this: "hard science fiction." Claiming it isn't sci-fi because it's not hard sci-fi is... well, it makes you wrong.

It doesn't have to be accurate. But I think Science Fiction is fundamentally about a different mentality than fantasy. Fantasy is about imagination. Science Fiction is about conjecture. Imagining a world changed by new developments. Those developments can be realistic or not, but from there, the world should develop along lines that make at least some sense. And I think trying to incorporate at least potentially possible science is a part of it as well.

It's the difference between Space Opera and Science Fiction.

Premise: we have lasers and FTL drives.
Space Opera: let's use those for space piracy, treasure hunting on Mars and sword fights against alien cyborgs on Jupiter!
Science Fiction: now that the galaxy opened up, how would society on earth change to reflect that? What kind of people would join an interstellar colonialization effort? How do military doctrines change? Which expertise and resources become valuable and which lose value?

As for fantasy mixed with or disguised as science fiction: Star Wars. Mass Effect. The Marvel movies. Doctor Who. Shadowrun. Warhammer 40k. The Elder Scrolls.

My older brother, a big fan of hard sci-fi, would agree with you about your definition of science fiction here. The trouble is, it just as possible to create a story which takes MAGIC and does the same approach as your approach for science fiction. What would you call that? Speculative fantasy? My point is that surface elements have been and always will be the way in which the general populace categorizes fiction, and insisting on different definitions doesn't actually help with anything - it's better to have additional, more precise terms than to argue against the generally accepted definitions of the general terms.

Not disputing that Star Wars is a space opera, just saying that it's a subcategory of the broad umbrella that is sci-fi.

Science fiction does not automatically mean everyone has energy weapons and space travel, nor does fantasy automatically mean a strictly medieval society and technology. I love the mixture of science fiction and fantasy, in different degrees. It is all fiction, so there is no reason to limit what can be accomplished or explained. I suppose "hard" science fiction does not mix well with fairy-tale style medieval or classical fantasy, but these are the extremes.

You could develop a world with both advanced technology, space travel, and magic (as Fading Suns, or even WH40k, parts of the cosmic Marvel Universe). You could develop a medieval or classical world with magic that has remnants of advanced civilization or some anachronistic technology (Dying Earth, D&D is pretty much this already, or can support this easily). Then you've got pulp swashbuckling sci-fi/fantasy like Barsoom. Manly men and sexy women fighting with swords and rifles on flying ships, psychic powers, genetic engineering, astral projection (I guess?), alien beings and cool names. And how about your gonzo super-science/post apocalyptic world, like "Thundarr the Barbarian". Science fiction or fantasy?


Remember that AC Clarke saying? "Any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic." Magic can have almost any explanation you want, even if the characters in the society don't understand the science behind how it works. As long as the setting is internally consistent and logically thought-out, there is no reason not to use any elements of either type of fiction. You may call a setting that has magic or things which operate in ways unexplainable by current scientific understanding "science fantasy" or "space fantasy" rather than "science fiction", but it's really just a matter of degrees. Even the hardest of hard sci-fi takes some idea and extrapolates it beyond the realm of reality in ways science can not yet accomplish, creating a fictional world.

You say some good things. I've been writing as I read the thread. Glad someone else is mentioning that hard sci-fi is an actual term.

Both of those are science fiction. You're talking about scale, here. Space operas are about people, and what you call "science fiction" is about societies and cultures. Firefly/Serenity is a space opera at heart, despite being fairly hard in terms of its speculation - space piracy, treasure hunting on other planets and moons (generally inside someone else's train or fortress), and big silly fist fights are all over the place.

I would also point out that both have a great deal to do with imagination. You're imagining what a world would look like with technology that is unachievable by current methods, allowing things that are not currently known to be possible. Practically speaking, what is the difference between "I have teleporters" and "I can teleport us with a spell"? Neither is scientifically likely given our current understanding of physics.



You should probably add Star Trek to that list - Vulcans, Betazoids, and other races have psychic powers that do not mesh with our understanding of science or even our conjecture of future science. And really, every bit of science fiction put to television or movie screens fails to be what you seem to consider "pure" science fiction, with maybe the possible exception of Firefly and Serenity. Which is a space opera...



I'm a fan of the way magic was treated in a little-known computer RPG called Arcanum. Magic and technology both set out to do similar things - treat injuries, cure diseases, move objects, and so on. Both were repeatable, generally speaking. But magic achieved its goals by distorting the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and so on, while technology relied on those very laws to function. Thus, powerful magic could cause machines to break, and complex machines could cause spells to fizzle out, due to the grander scope winning out. The two coexisted in the setting because magic was capable of greater miracles, but technology was something any layperson could use with minimal training or talent.

I don't mind pure speculative fiction, and I don't mind pure fantasy. But they share the same concepts and the same roots - "What would the world be like if X?" If X is magic, it's fantasy. If X is new subatomic particles and giant robots, it's science fiction. If X is psychic powers and FTL... we have this discussion.

You also say good stuff.

[Mastikator]

[snip]
False. There is a term for this: "hard science fiction." Claiming it isn't sci-fi because it's not hard sci-fi is... well, it makes you wrong.
[snip]

Hard vs soft sci-fi isn't about how much space magic you're willing to accept but how much science you're willing to speculate on.
Fantasy is in a completely different category because it's based on different assumptions, science only deals with the natural world, a non-fantasy sci-fi can only make speculations on the natural world and the technology that can be invented with that scientific knowledge.

A laser weapon is not fantasy, you can in reality construct a laser that can disintegrate a human being, you could in a sci-fi world construct a hand held laser that can disintegrate part of a human being. You can in theory construct an Alcubierre drive and in sci-fi construct a space ship that transports a human to an exoplanet in less than astronomic time. You could in a sci-fi world construct a space elevator out of nanomaterials. These are all varying degrees of hard vs soft sci-fi and none of them involve any space magic.

But when Counselor Deanna Troi from ST TNG can "sense the emotion" of an individual in a different space ship that she has never had any physical contact with, then that is straight up magic, it's not on the scale of hard vs soft science fiction, no amount of "softness" would explain her magic telepathic ability to sense the emotions (and sometimes even hear their inner dialog) because its not something to do with the natural world.

Soft sci-fi does not give you space wizards, soft sci-fi gives you light sabers and stargates.

[Lord Raziere]

yes but soft science does allow you to construct a nanorobotic cloud which you send out to monitor their brains, then transmit the signal across the cloud and back to your head as a coherent idea that they're angry.

I'm really surprised that nanorobotic clouds aren't used for the excuse to do magicky things like that more often, I mean sure they probably can't make a fireball, but the cloud can form into a sphere, project a hologram that looks like a fireball then leap upon somebody and tearing them apart particle by particle while looking like fire. we need more things like Nanomancers, but y'know without being married to Numenera, that rpg has good ideas but the execution is so BORING.

[EccentricCircle]

I have some vague plans for a future campaign where a Wizard perfecting a new flying spell has stumbled across one of your surveillance satellites, and you have to retrieve it from his castle without any of the medieval people realising that their world is being observed. Does that count?

[Joe the Rat]

Psychic powers is a funny one to bring up. There's a segment of D&D players that have a fairly strong dislike for Psionics because it's "too sci fi" for their concept of fantasy. Besides, everyone knows psychic powers work via sensing and interacting with the subspace imprint of the bioelectric information patterns generated by sentient organics.

Also, I'm going to leave this here to provide a take on the hard - soft continuum as compiled by a consensus of people with far too much time and interest in making these sorts of distinctions.

[Lord Raziere]

Psychic powers is a funny one to bring up. There's a segment of D&D players that have a fairly strong dislike for Psionics because it's "too sci fi" for their concept of fantasy. Besides, everyone knows psychic powers work via sensing and interacting with the subspace imprint of the bioelectric information patterns generated by sentient organics.

Yeah, I never got that. what is sci-fi about it? because psions do basically what a wizard does. but with different words, less dawn-prep and more straightforward energy being applied to a technique sort of thing. its revising the universe with your mind, just like a wizard does with their mind, but in a slightly different way. they even share the same stat of Intelligence and everything.

heck, its not even possible in the real world, and there is no really no way of making it possible, unless we discover something that really upturns physics as we know it, but at that point we might as well be discovering magic anyways, because the rules would be so different from we've been lead to believe- that we CAN'T remake reality with our minds- that discovering things like magic or psionics would lead to questioning how everything in our universe works all over again- for one thing we can rule out the nice comforting assumption that the universe doesn't respond to our thoughts and thus not having to worry about whether or not the universe outside our own brains is something separate from ourselves, something objective-or at least consistent- that we can rely upon.

so yeah, some explanation as to why psionics is considered "too sci-fi" by those people would be helpful

[Joe the Rat]

so yeah, some explanation as to why psionics is considered "too sci-fi" by those people would be helpful

One perspective: Style. Psionics uses nomenclature that reads more like "sci-fi" (Sciences, Disciplines, n-pathy and n-kinesis, "Psionics" rather than the more mystic-friendly "Psychic" or "Mentalism"). The tendency for these to be used as a pseudoscientific stand-in for magic in technology-based spec fic settings doesn't help. Plus there is the idea of mind powers being tied to unlocking potential, a natural progression of sentient lifeforms, or due to mutation or (ack) evolutionary levels (somewhere between filthy humanoid and energy being). This does ignore the tendency for these same powers to appear in fantasy literature as innate abilities of highly magical beings, or granted by artifacts (Sauron's 3rd Age power suite reads more like an evil telepath than a dark wizard). But they are given a more mystic/mysterious presentation (and source) rather than clinical, defined, brain-driven jiggery-pokery.

[Mastikator]

yes but soft science does allow you to construct a nanorobotic cloud which you send out to monitor their brains, then transmit the signal across the cloud and back to your head as a coherent idea that they're angry.

I'm really surprised that nanorobotic clouds aren't used for the excuse to do magicky things like that more often, I mean sure they probably can't make a fireball, but the cloud can form into a sphere, project a hologram that looks like a fireball then leap upon somebody and tearing them apart particle by particle while looking like fire. we need more things like Nanomancers, but y'know without being married to Numenera, that rpg has good ideas but the execution is so BORING.

I would not have a problem with Mr Spock doing telepathics, or Jedis doing telekinetics if they said that it was nanobots.
But that's not what they do, it's never a controlled grey ooze, it's always "the mysterious force of the universe oooooohhohooho scary mysticism", and they put this next to actual sci-fi (sometimes really good and interesting sci-fi) like nothing, like just because I could believe that a spaceship could happen I should also believe magic is just as realistic.
It's horse dung.


Edit-
I should say, I do appreciate the effort to use a sci-fi method to explain a phenomena, but we should be careful with introducing entities like mind-controlling object-moving nanobots. You can't just have those kinds of nanobots without considering what the implications would be, it would be like introducing the internet to a society that has never had anything like that, it completely changes that society on many levels. That's really what sci-fi is about (as already mentioned). Sci-fi is about exploration and curiosity, fantasy is about adventure and heroism. They are very different things, the more you scrutinize them the more different they seem.

[Man on Fire]

While we are around psions - where do they come from in D&D? What was the inspiration for them? I must say lines between psionics and magic in fantasy can be blurry - I mean I would call what is said to be mysticism in Drenai Saga to be psionics. I heard there are psionic powers in Deryni series but never read that.

To me, there are two basic ways to approach magic in a game, especially when the knowledge of physical science is about where it is on Earth today (or better).

1) Magic is completely ineffable; you never know quite what you're going to get with magic, even if you've been practicing it for years.

2) Magic is a science, slightly off-kilter from the science we know, but with repeatable effects from given actions.

The problem with 1 is that it's a lot harder to put into rules... ineffable magic must always be able to go outside its own rules a bit. The 2nd version, however, runs the risk of becoming incredibly common and mechanical, losing some aspect of the "magic" of magic. The 2nd version is what leads to things like the Tippyverse... magic is commodified and reproducible and starts to severely mess with the standard assumptions of the world (as another example, look to Brust's Dragaera, where easy resurrections have wildly changed society.

I think there is a possible compromise. There can be magic that is acknowledged as magic, even if it's methods of study are completely scientific and rational. Original Earthsea Trilogy is a lot like that, so are 60's Doctor Strange Stories and Fullmetal Alchemist (because Alchemy there basically is magic) - magic has something mistical and mysterious to it, nobody claims it's alien technology or quantum physics, nobody is doing the wizard, magic wand doesn't turn out to be alien laser pistol, but magic is still is analyzed, used and understood by rational, scientific means and has clear rules.

[LibraryOgre]

I'm really surprised that nanorobotic clouds aren't used for the excuse to do magicky things like that more often, I mean sure they probably can't make a fireball, but the cloud can form into a sphere, project a hologram that looks like a fireball then leap upon somebody and tearing them apart particle by particle while looking like fire. we need more things like Nanomancers, but y'know without being married to Numenera, that rpg has good ideas but the execution is so BORING.

This is actually one of my beefs with William Gibson. He is supposed to have disliked Shadowrun because it included magic, while Neuromancer includes an illusionist who is able to make people see things because of "implants" that act in no specific way.

As for Troi, I think the [tech] explanation for Betazoids is that they are able to sense thoughts and emotions by reading the electromagnetic discharges from creature's thought processers. There's a lot of holes in that idea, but I believe that's the tech explanation.

While we are around psions - where do they come from in D&D? What was the inspiration for them? I must say lines between psionics and magic in fantasy can be blurry - I mean I would call what is said to be mysticism in Drenai Saga to be psionics. I heard there are psionic powers in Deryni series but never read that.

Varies, but usually just a variation of "internal power"... though I kind of like the idea that it's an external power source, and people are just limited in how much they can pull at one time.

I think there is a possible compromise. There can be magic that is acknowledged as magic, even if it's methods of study are completely scientific and rational. Original Earthsea Trilogy is a lot like that, so are 60's Doctor Strange Stories and Fullmetal Alchemist (because Alchemy there basically is magic) - magic has something mistical and mysterious to it, nobody claims it's alien technology or quantum physics, nobody is doing the wizard, magic wand doesn't turn out to be alien laser pistol, but magic is still is analyzed, used and understood by rational, scientific means and has clear rules.

Which really puts it in the second category... just because all the rules aren't known doesn't mean its not a science. Far more important is the reproducibility... if I do X and Y I will always get Z. If I don't get Z, it's because of W.

[Man on Fire]

Which really puts it in the second category... just because all the rules aren't known doesn't mean its not a science. Far more important is the reproducibility... if I do X and Y I will always get Z. If I don't get Z, it's because of W.

Well, as I said, I'm okay with magic being treated as science, just not with "haha, there is no magic it was just advanced science you fools".

[Lord Raziere]

One perspective: Style. Psionics uses nomenclature that reads more like "sci-fi" (Sciences, Disciplines, n-pathy and n-kinesis, "Psionics" rather than the more mystic-friendly "Psychic" or "Mentalism"). The tendency for these to be used as a pseudoscientific stand-in for magic in technology-based spec fic settings doesn't help. Plus there is the idea of mind powers being tied to unlocking potential, a natural progression of sentient lifeforms, or due to mutation or (ack) evolutionary levels (somewhere between filthy humanoid and energy being). This does ignore the tendency for these same powers to appear in fantasy literature as innate abilities of highly magical beings, or granted by artifacts (Sauron's 3rd Age power suite reads more like an evil telepath than a dark wizard). But they are given a more mystic/mysterious presentation (and source) rather than clinical, defined, brain-driven jiggery-pokery.

.....that is stupid.

"oh it too sci-fi cause WORDS! Me no like these words over other words! Even if same thing!"



a rose by any other name....is still a rose. magic is magic even if you call it psionics. this is literally excluding something that has been around since what? second edition? over insistent terminology. that kind of thinking will just never fly with me.

[TheThan]

While we are around psions - where do they come from in D&D? What was the inspiration for them? I must say lines between psionics and magic in fantasy can be blurry - I mean I would call what is said to be mysticism in Drenai Saga to be psionics. I heard there are psionic powers in Deryni series but never read that.

I thought psionics came from the future, a group of mentally powerful individual sent back in time to stop the Illithids from preparing the world (in a bad way) for the Yugoloth invasion. Naturally their children and children’s children have inherited their mental powers and continue the secret war against the mind flayers and their Far realm allies.

Oh you mean who thought up the idea. Not a clue.

[Arbane]

While we are around psions - where do they come from in D&D? What was the inspiration for them? I must say lines between psionics and magic in fantasy can be blurry - I mean I would call what is said to be mysticism in Drenai Saga to be psionics. I heard there are psionic powers in Deryni series but never read that.

Inspiration? Probably Lensman or some other Golden Age/Silver Age sci-fi with psychics in it. D&D has never been shy about yoinking any and all ideas they thought might make a fun character or an interesting monster. (AD&D has psionics rules, so they go back a way. I don't know about OD&D.)

[Rainbownaga]

Anyone read Asimov? His books have psychic powers everywhere, but they have a scientific explanation (robots, genetic mutations and psychological training) and the early books were written at a time when it was considered a scientific possibility (the us gov was officially researching it during the cold war)

or consider the heat rays from war of the worlds. At the time they were impossible.

Both are sci-fi as far as I'm concerned because they are described in naturalistic terms. But it is fuzzy.

[Grinner]

a rose by any other name....is still a rose. magic is magic even if you call it psionics. this is literally excluding something that has been around since what? second edition? over insistent terminology. that kind of thinking will just never fly with me.

Then answer this!

What is magic?

[Lord Raziere]

Then answer this!

What is magic?

for the purposes of this discussion? the ability to change the world with only your mind without using any principles associated with physics as we know it.

please, do not try that trick with me, it is tiring and I do not care for it.

[Grinner]

please, do not try that trick with me, it is tiring and I do not care for it.

I do think it's an interesting question, though. It always seems so clear-cut till you really think about it.

[Lord Raziere]

I do think it's an interesting question, though. It always seems so clear-cut till you really think about it.

It is clear cut.

technology is only physical tools with real presence. nanorobots, while normally too small to be seen count.

magic is not. it may enchant an item sure, but the real power is not physical at all, the tool is only holding the magic.

you may try to say that electricity counts as magic under this definition, but it does not. the electron, protons are particles as well, they are still physical, and can be broken down further into quarks, meaning they have physical structure. magic is not some electric current, because it doesn't even have the structure of a subatomic particle. the magic can enchant the electric current itself after all- why not? or y'know, enchant fire to be everlasting, even though fire is not what we normally think of as a physical thing- it is a reaction. yet it is possible for magic to be contained in fire to make it a walking talking thing made entirely of flame, the same thing can be done for lightning to make a being of manifest electricity.

however, no matter how advanced the science, electricity does not talk by itself. the closest you can get is a nanorobotic cloud making a hologram that makes it LOOK LIKE its walking talking lightning, and that makes all the difference. if you touch real living lightning you get shocked, if you touch a nanorobotic cloud looks like it- you feel nothing, or if you do feel anything, its certainly not an automatic shock, getting set on fire in the case of living flame.

and sure there is a lot examples of magic making the non-physical physical or whatever- but the fact remains is that the physical is not the base, it is not where it starts, it starts from something so abstract that ideas themselves can be given form from it as angels and demons, while science and technology start from the physical and work their way into the more abstract from the physical. they are completely opposite in their progression, and while you may talk about "but sufficiently advanced technology" or "sufficiently analyzed magic" the fact remains that the two disciplines have completely different starts and ends, and only look like each other when they END, when they reach so far and encompass the same range of abstract to physical. when really they're opposites.

magic and psionics- are both abstract. they both start abstract. its all ideas in the head and willpower and such. everything else is an outgrowth, a progression towards the physical, and therefore they're the same no matter what names you put on it.

[TheThan]

I do think it's an interesting question, though. It always seems so clear-cut till you really think about it.

that's sort of the problem with magic.
It's too vague and open ended to be easily quantifiable.

Its why they created "schools" of magic for wizards:
abjuration
conjuration
divination
enchantment
evocation
illusion
necromancy
transmutation

Then there are the types of magic that don't fall under the wizard's (class) purview: cleric magic, bardic magic, druid magic, shamanism, Runecraft, pact magic, shadow magic, truenaming, sword magic etc. the list goes on and on.

Where exactly does "magic" begin and end?
An easier question might be

"What can magic do? and what can't it do?"

[Grinner]

*snip*

Though I would phrase it differently, I largely agree with what you say. Also, I will not do the routine of debating the semantics of magic. However, I will point out that when dealing with uncertain subjects, particularly in the context of fiction, one can never be too sure.

For example, I've been working on a setting where psionics is only vaguely understood by the general populace, but there is in fact a definite physical mechanism behind it. I'm quite proud of it, really.

[LibraryOgre]

It is clear cut.

technology is only physical tools with real presence. nanorobots, while normally too small to be seen count.

magic is not. it may enchant an item sure, but the real power is not physical at all, the tool is only holding the magic.

Whereas I tend to specify physical technology, simply because repeatable magic is a technology... if you can cast CLW regularly, then you've got a technology.

[Cikomyr]

For me, the best of magics are unreliable, fickle, subtle yet powerful.

I like it because you can handwave it's action following certain thematical logics as to steer your game into the proper direction. When you have this... surnatural force having an impact on the entire world in small or great ways, then you can handwave stuff as part of magic.

Not "explain", but "handwave". Magic cannot be explained; it can be.. inferred.


Technology is any sort of process that you understand. I agree that someone casting CLW on a regular basis is more of a technological feat than actual magic. This is why I like Warhammer Fantasy; where the magic is dangerous and capricious. But at the same time, it permeates everything and can manifest is strange, marvelous or horrific ways.

I don't understand why Fantasy and Sci-fi would be incompatible. You just have to understand what each entails. Also, Sci-Fi settings usually have the assumption that "we understand most things, we can explain everything that happens" whereas "a wizard did it" is a nice Fantasy answer.

Sci-fi has the assumption of knowledge, while Fantasy only works within mystery. Having both playing a major part of a story is delicate, but still very possible. Dune, Warhammer 40K and even a bit of Stargate all mixed Fantasy and Sci-Fi very well.

[Grinner]

For me, the best of magics are unreliable, fickle, subtle yet powerful.

I like it because you can handwave it's action following certain thematical logics as to steer your game into the proper direction. When you have this... surnatural force having an impact on the entire world in small or great ways, then you can handwave stuff as part of magic.

Not "explain", but "handwave". Magic cannot be explained; it can be.. inferred.

I take the opposite view. Magic should be quite explicable, and when explained, it should make your head explode.

When magic is arbitrary or, worse, extraneous*, it ceases to matter. When it ceases to matter, people take no interest in it. They find no wonder in it; it's just the distant hand of fate at work.

I think that "mysterious" is often the better adjective to reach for.

*Which brings me to another point. Everything has a place, so what's the place of magic?

[Cikomyr]

I take the opposite view. Magic should be quite explicable, and when explained, it should make your head explode.

When magic is arbitrary or, worse, extraneous*, it ceases to matter. When it ceases to matter, people take no interest in it. They find no wonder in it; it's just the distant hand of fate at work.

I think that "mysterious" is often the better adjective to reach for.

*Which brings me to another point. Everything has a place, so what's the place of magic?

My magic is not "arbitrary", but it can be.. fickle and random. Like the sea of old.

I like your interpretation of what would happen to the one who can explain it. I mean, I do like my magic to have some Rules and Logic. For example, I can see the belief of peoples shape magical node points in the world; like a place or an artifact, or even a time.

I like the idea of a "Wizard" needing to use about 90% "tricks", and only 10% "real magic". Why? Because of two reasons:

- Magic is dangerous to use, so try to use as little as possible for fear of losing control
- Tricks help reinforce people's beliefs in you being a wizard. That belief helps you control magic better.

There's a reason a wizard wears a wizard hard. There's a reason he's in robes, and chants his spells. He may not perfectly understand it, but experience and wisdom is what really helps him unlock his power. Not pure intelligence.