Mixing Fantasy and Sci-Fi

[Lord Raziere]

which is why things like Exalted and Mage make me want to play them even though I hate like, one of the big parts of the premises about them: very well written fluff.

Arbane:
trust me. the same people who talk about the limitless power of human mundanity and such are the same people who love Solars above all else, and compare them to both Conan and Batman. I have nothing against mundane awesome though, part of the reason I want a different magic system is to make sure magic ISN'T overpowered while still being fun. being Gandalf is probably only fun for maybe one character, while Vancian casting makes sure you eventually acquire a vast assortment of unrelated spells that dominate over everyone else in the game. I prefer being a 3.5 warlock as its both not bound by limited casting yet is more balanced than it, or a Beguiler which while bound to limited casting, can only cast illusion or enchantment spells which I find an interesting concept that I want to play because its NOT the all-reality warping powers of the wizard or whatever, its thematic in its own way.

so perhaps I should be specific about the magic I want:

-the magic should be thematic. no random assortment of spells. it should be focused towards a specific purpose, or put it another way, I only want to wield one school of magic, or only one element, stuff like that.

-magic should be able to be improvised, flexibly used in the situation to pull off certain stunts

-while I know I want my magic with unlimited use, I know this won't fly with everyone, so as a compromise I can work with a mana system, because I can plausibly see getting "tired" magic-wise.

as for the actual thread topic:

I like magitech. simple as that. to make such a setting, I'd probably include a certain magic user specifically devoted to integrating magic and technology together somehow, like an artificer- but y'know still bound in a thematic way. like their tech isn't just any old enchantment, its enchantments all based around hope, or water or copper and they have to figure out how to make their magic work with technology.

like say your magitech guy with water magic. you can't use fire magic or anything like that. yet you have to figure out ways to accomplish various things using water magic enchantments on the stuff you make to solve problems. thats how I'd integrate my own preference of magic with technology- make you have to be creative, because unlimited magic AND unlimited tech only lead to outright godhood no matter how you slice it.

[BeerMug Paladin]

How do you decide if something is justified using real science? As an example, I have a science fiction setting with the following timeline:

Spoiler: Compressed details

Show

2008: the world significantly departs from ours, with an event happening that reduces the effectiveness of most governments.

2010s: megacorporations begin to rise, technology begins to advance slightly faster than in our world. By 2018 there are commercial fully functional cybernetic arms.

2020s: nerve-based inputs for computers are developed. Augmented reality begins to become the norm.

2030s: nerve based outputs are developed, nerve based inputs become efficient, the internet begins to evolve into the 3d matrix.

2056: project eternity discovers a way to slow aging, but not significantly. Governments begin to reclaim power from megacorps.

2060s: colony on mars is established. Terra forming begins.

~2100: project eternity potentially doubles human lifespan.

2160s: terraforming of mars complete. Humanity is spread across the inner solar system.

2200: humanity begins to colonise the outer solar system.

2250s: warp drive is created.

2300+: space opera with no aliens present.

Doe the above timeline ever break from being justified by 'real' science (by which I assume you mean modern scientific knowledge)? If so, can you please tell me approximately where it becomes fantasy instead of science fiction. This is to understand the point better, so I'm sorry if it sounds insulting.

That sounds like there's an attempt to link it to the modern world using modern ideas for what might technically be possible. Although the details of what makes these things real in the setting is, in effect, magical (if they were not, they would exist in the real world), in a practical sense there's nothing radically unreal about most of what you said that would render the setting to be strictly based on magical just because rationales.

Generally, I'd probably say the warp drive is more of a fantasy element than a sci-fi element. Just because it's so outside our modern understanding of physics that it's hard to imagine how it's connected. But what I meant more is that what the fantasy tech does isn't an issue. What matters is how the fantasy tech is presented.

It's been a long time since I saw it, but I believe in Andromeda, space was navigated through the power of the human spirit or something. (If I am thinking of the right thing.) That's fantasy warp drive.

In Star Trek, space is navigated through warp bubbles and space-time folding. It's BS as real science, but the people in the setting who perform warp travel have their science-pants on.

In Star Wars, the space travel just sort of happens. It's kind of in a grey area just because they don't explain it one way or the other. Space travel just happens when the space button is pushed. (I'm referring to the movies to make my point about this)

You don't sound insulting. These are just my thoughts, and I hardly expect people to universally agree with me.

To be clear, I don't think this creates a distinct line between what qualifies as fantasy and what is science fiction. I just think the approach between the two differs in this distinct way. Science fiction is just about taking some time off to geek out over the cool technical details.

[hamishspence]

In Star Wars, the space travel just sort of happens. It's kind of in a grey area just because they don't explain it one way or the other. Space travel just happens when the space button is pushed. (I'm referring to the movies to make my point about this)

They do call it "travelling through hyperspace" in the movies.

[Mastikator]

They do call it "travelling through hyperspace" in the movies.

That's just technobabble nonsense, they might as well have been saying "teleporting through the astral plane". They should've not talked about it at all and just leave it up to the audience to suspend disbelief.

[Cronocke]

That's just technobabble nonsense, they might as well have been saying "teleporting through the astral plane". They should've not talked about it at all and just leave it up to the audience to suspend disbelief.

They don't devote any time to explaining precisely what "warp" is in Star Trek either, it's just a convenient way of moving faster than light.

[Prince Raven]

They don't devote any time to explaining precisely what "warp" is in Star Trek either, it's just a convenient way of moving faster than light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive

[hamishspence]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersp...ience_fiction)

[Cronocke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive

None of which is explained in episodes of the show.

[LibraryOgre]

None of which is explained in episodes of the show.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Warp_factor

With annotations, but I agree... they generally don't lay out the explicit warp mechanics except insofar as required for the tech-problem-of-the-week, and sometimes ignore their existing technobabble for the next tech problem of the week. But Geeks are Geeks, and will try to reconcile everything, anyway.

[VoxRationis]

They do call it "travelling through hyperspace" in the movies.

Also, it doesn't "just happen;" it apparently requires a hefty amount of prep work and navigational calculation: "[Hyperspace travel] isn't like dusting crops, boy!"
That said, I would list Star Wars as fantasy. There's a substantial supernatural element and the technology is handwaved at best. Often it's not used properly; I have posited that many sci-fi settings would beat Star Wars, even if they have inferior technology, because they know how to use it properly (i.e., not fighting ship-to-ship at ranges better suited for pre-rifling cannon).

[Aedilred]

Generally, I'd probably say the warp drive is more of a fantasy element than a sci-fi element. Just because it's so outside our modern understanding of physics that it's hard to imagine how it's connected. But what I meant more is that what the fantasy tech does isn't an issue. What matters is how the fantasy tech is presented.
...
To be clear, I don't think this creates a distinct line between what qualifies as fantasy and what is science fiction. I just think the approach between the two differs in this distinct way. Science fiction is just about taking some time off to geek out over the cool technical details.

I've always found it kind of ironic that Warhmamer 40,000, which makes no apologies about being fantasy in space, has in principle one of the more plausible warp drive/FTL technologies I've encountered. The drive allows the ship to move through a dimension not normally perceptible (the warp) which is temporally out of sync with the perceptible universe. There is a small population of mutants who can "see" in warp space; otherwise you have to do a lot of calculations in advance, and even then you can only make relatively short journeys before you have to stop and recalculate.

Of course, once you look at it in any detail beyond that, it's basically just magic, and the alternate dimension is the "sea of souls". But the general idea is something I could see being used even in Proper Sci-Fi.

[Cikomyr]

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Warp_factor

With annotations, but I agree... they generally don't lay out the explicit warp mechanics except insofar as required for the tech-problem-of-the-week, and sometimes ignore their existing technobabble for the next tech problem of the week. But Geeks are Geeks, and will try to reconcile everything, anyway.

The difference between fantasy and sci-fi nature of storytelling, I think, is pretty clear when you consider how FTL travel goes between Star Trek, Star Wars, Warhammer, Dune, etc..

It's obviously all mumbo-jumbo. But there are story implication to the thematic of each mumbo jumbo.

How do Trekkies got around speculating so much about Warp Travel and its inner working? Because, at times, its properties have been used for stuff other than FTL travel. It has actually be stated in multiple episode that the crew tried to use the Reality-warping properties of a Warp Field to achieve stuff, like moving an Asteroid out of a dangerous orbit.

Compare to Hyperdrive in Star Wars, which has no other practice than FTL travel. It's never explicated, it's merely a plot convenience meant for the plot to happen; which is fine in a good fantasy story. you can't pull off weird stunts with Hyperdrive; it's meant to do one, and only one thing: go from A to B. When you start factoring in the Interdictor Cruisers and the "gravity wells" into the storymaking, it's a clear step made into the realm of Sci-fi, which is again fine.

Warhammer 40K's is a bit different. It's a very interesting mix of Sci-Fi and Fantasy (But then again, Warhammer 40K hits on all notes quite well). The non-transitive application of Warp Engines might make it a "fantasy" staple, but the Warp dimension itself has multiple, multiple application to the universe outside of its core FTL application. It's a weapon, it's a den of monsters, it's a labyrinth for lost souls.


Dune is probably the most interesting application of Sci-fized Fantasy. I mean.. the Spice itself is just one Plot Convenience Coupon. It allow for all the strange stuff in the universe, and that's it. How it does it, how people did before the Spice, how it was discovered.. all of it is completely irrelevant to the story. However, the idea that men hooked on Spice might be able to see distance space and fold it to facilitate travel... and that this ability is also somehow related to a capacity to see into the future, and navigate the present through the potential timelines...

That's very solid sci-fi applied on fantasy elements.

[Grinner]

The difference between fantasy and sci-fi nature of storytelling, I think, is pretty clear when you consider how FTL travel goes between Star Trek, Star Wars, Warhammer, Dune, etc..

It's obviously all mumbo-jumbo. But there are story implication to the thematic of each mumbo jumbo.

...

That's very solid sci-fi applied on fantasy elements.

To play off this, I recall Isaac Asimov once said there are essentially three kinds of science fiction. They can be summarized as:

• How a particular technology works.
• What we did with it.
• How it impacted life as we know it.

Fantasy, interestingly enough, can be interpreted as following a similar pattern. Since it tends to operate on the Rule of Cool, Type 2 stories are often emphasized. In my experience, only Brandon Sanderson worries about explaining magic in the excruciating detail common to Type 1 stories, though I'm sure other authors do the the same. As the Tippyverse demonstrates, Type 3 stories tend to be less common as well, since the assumptions made in following the Rule of Cool will cause the setting to deteriorate when taken to their logical extremes.

Star Wars is resoundingly a Type 2 story and thus is easily categorized as being fantasy. That it follows many tropes common to fantasy, including the Hero's Journey, does not help.

Edit: But you know what? Let's be honest with ourselves here. There's a reason why fantasy and science fiction are often shelved together; at the end of the day, it's all just fiction.

[Aedilred]

Edit: But you know what? Let's be honest with ourselves here. There's a reason why fantasy and science fiction are often shelved together; at the end of the day, it's all just fiction.

I have in recent years come to believe that it would be better if - as far as shelving goes - fictional genres were ignored and they were all just shelved together under "Fiction". Partly this is out of frustration at wandering around trying to work out if a given book I want is in "Sci-fi/Fantasy" or "Dark Fantasy" or "Horror" or "Fiction", the placement of which often seems arbitrary, but I do also just think it would be an improvement in general and help to erode the snobbish perception around "genre fiction" that can see a kind of ghettoisation.

Obviously, for more general categorisation purposes, webstores and so on, genres are still a useful tool, but when you're not dealing with where to put a single physical copy you can afford to have more robust and comprehensive procedures in place.

[Cronocke]

I have in recent years come to believe that it would be better if - as far as shelving goes - fictional genres were ignored and they were all just shelved together under "Fiction". Partly this is out of frustration at wandering around trying to work out if a given book I want is in "Sci-fi/Fantasy" or "Dark Fantasy" or "Horror" or "Fiction", the placement of which often seems arbitrary, but I do also just think it would be an improvement in general and help to erode the snobbish perception around "genre fiction" that can see a kind of ghettoisation.

Obviously, for more general categorisation purposes, webstores and so on, genres are still a useful tool, but when you're not dealing with where to put a single physical copy you can afford to have more robust and comprehensive procedures in place.

I would still separate it a bit - "Speculative Fiction" and "Contemporary Fiction" - but otherwise I agree, that would be very nice.

[Arbane]

I would still separate it a bit - "Speculative Fiction" and "Contemporary Fiction" - but otherwise I agree, that would be very nice.

What about historical fiction?

But yeah, I agree in general.

[Mr.Sandman]

I have in recent years come to believe that it would be better if - as far as shelving goes - fictional genres were ignored and they were all just shelved together under "Fiction". Partly this is out of frustration at wandering around trying to work out if a given book I want is in "Sci-fi/Fantasy" or "Dark Fantasy" or "Horror" or "Fiction", the placement of which often seems arbitrary, but I do also just think it would be an improvement in general and help to erode the snobbish perception around "genre fiction" that can see a kind of ghettoisation.

Obviously, for more general categorisation purposes, webstores and so on, genres are still a useful tool, but when you're not dealing with where to put a single physical copy you can afford to have more robust and comprehensive procedures in place.

Multiple times at my local library I have been unable to find one book in a series in the Sci Fi/Fantsy section, gone to General fiction and found it there, presumably because that one was slightly different in theme than the rest.

[Klaatu B. Nikto]

Well.. A thematic-based approach to superpowered magic that lets you manifest what you want while still restricted by certain rules...

You could always dust up the good old Mage : the Awakening system, do away with Paradox rules, and find ways to enforce one's thematic in the magic.

For example, a wizards using what he believes to be godly magic would be able to pop spells on the fly, but only if it follow the God's rules and agenda. As opposed to a Vancian wizard who have to painstakingly prepare the spell he will cast, but can use them for whatever purpose he wants.

Itd be a very valid system, while retaining a strong thrmatic feeling. Just remember a cardinal rule of litteracy magic: its costly.

Be it Time. Work. Blood. Soul. Gold. Friendship.

Magic is always costly one way or another. You are meddling with the Rules of the Universe.. Why do you think you can get away with it? ;)

It's an immutable law of the universe: Equivalent Exchange.

Cost one of the Elric brothers an arm and a leg while the other his entire body. But Fullmetal Alchemist and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood weren't quite so scifi until you get to the origin of the homunculi, especially Wrath IMO. But also the mooks that the Elrics have to go through to get to the Big Bad near the end of the second series (Brotherhood).

[MLai]

Sorry, this thread is dense. I've read the 1st 2 pages and can lurk no more.

Cronock: 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.

That doesn't explain how magic distorts physics.

By your explanation above, it seems that the author assumes the laws of physics is some sort of external construct laid upon the fabric of reality, and magic is a competing construct that can be laid upon the same base fabric. But the truth is the laws of physics is better termed as the laws of reality; physics is the fabric of reality.

An actual explanation would be that Magic is a way for humans to bring in a competing reality. That is, open an inlet for another universe, with its own laws of physics, to leak through a tiny bit. There, now Magic and Super-science are on equal footing in terms of background explanations.

But guess what, alternate universes is just the Multiverse and String Theory and all that. Now you just have Science, vs More Science. There is no Fantasy. That is what happens to Fantasy when you say "Let's mix in Sci-Fi." This is because Sci-Fi is not about processes, it's about how ppl think. Fantasy societies and Sci-Fi societies think about, and interact with, power and knowledge in different ways.

Mastikator: 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.

It can be soft sci-fi if you accept the Quantum Mind. Hey you already accepted FTL.

Lord Raziere: 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.

Real, cutting-edge science already does all that already. Just watch some Through The Wormhole, and see how much of reality you start to question (assuming you Deny nothing). The only thing separating "knowledge" from "mystery" is the presentation.

[Cronocke]

Sorry, this thread is dense. I've read the 1st 2 pages and can lurk no more.

God, I hate this discussion.

That doesn't explain how magic distorts physics.

Nor does it need to. Machinery uses observable, repeatable phenomena to produce consistent results and actions in a way that is useful or beneficial. Magic is a strange force that skews probability or even possibility in order to produce a desired result. Somehow, people are able to be trained to manipulate it at will. The exact processes are impossible to examine because, hey, none of the normal methods or devices for doing such work.

By your explanation above, it seems that the author assumes the laws of physics is some sort of external construct laid upon the fabric of reality, and magic is a competing construct that can be laid upon the same base fabric. But the truth is the laws of physics is better termed as the laws of reality; physics is the fabric of reality.

{{scrubbed}}

An actual explanation would be that Magic is a way for humans to bring in a competing reality. That is, open an inlet for another universe, with its own laws of physics, to leak through a tiny bit. There, now Magic and Super-science are on equal footing in terms of background explanations.

But guess what, alternate universes is just the Multiverse and String Theory and all that. Now you just have Science, vs More Science. There is no Fantasy. That is what happens to Fantasy when you say "Let's mix in Sci-Fi." This is because Sci-Fi is not about processes, it's about how ppl think. Fantasy societies and Sci-Fi societies think about, and interact with, power and knowledge in different ways.

Psionic powers.

They are all over the place in science fiction.

The explanation is typically "MIND POWERS AND A STRANGE MINERAL, YO!"

In other words, there usually isn't one.

The most well known examples are Vulcans, who... yeah, that's magic, just low-powered stuff... and The Force, which is so close to clerics, paladins, and antipaladins that you could squint and they'd be indistinguishable.

But somehow the lines are rigid and there's no intermingling ever. It's either hard sci-fi where everything is grounded in modern physics, or it's fantasy and they never have anything more complex than a door with working hinges. Right?

Sheesh.

[MLai]

Nor does it need to. Machinery uses observable, repeatable phenomena to produce consistent results and actions in a way that is useful or beneficial. Magic is a strange force that skews probability....

You didn't grasp my drift.
I was saying that you put physics and magic as competing opposites, but 1 force is much better explained/grounded while the other is ill-explained. You can't do that; the scales don't balance narratively speaking.

{{scrubbed}}

As for "psionics"... it is no more fantastical than FTL. Discard naive realism, and extrapolate quantum mechanics to the macro scale while accepting the conjecture that consciousness affects reality... and psionics isn't so weird.

Getting off the subject of the nitty gritty details of magic for a minute... There was an obscure 90's anime I had a VHS of called Genesis Survivor Gaiarth...

Oh... Oh... OHHH MY GOD!
GENESIS SURVIVOR GAIARTH!!! Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
I've been thinking of this anime for the longest time! Its images haunt me in my dreams! But I forgot the title so I could never find it again, now matter how hard I googled and tried to use keywords.
But as soon as you said the title, I KNEW IT WAS THE ONE. And I was right!!
OMG!!!! Going home to -ahem- ACQUIRE!!!

No srsly, you don't know how much this means to me.
It's not quite as cool as when I finally placed a name on the Nintendo Power artist "Terra": Katsuya Terada (he illustrated Legend Of Zelda, Dragon Warrior, and Final Fantasy... and I saved all those issues). But it's sort of close.

Agree that this old obscure anime combined magic and technology in a way that I've never seen since. Even though it's just "Magitek", this anime not only pioneered it but did it SO WELL (IMO). Time to see what this old anime looks like to me today, without nostalgia/memory goggles.

because if your idea of "fantasy" is walking about experiencing mostly boring mundanity then suddenly magic for no rhyme or reason then it just as suddenly disappearing, and not showing up for a while more, I want no part of fantasy or your idea of it.

so perhaps I should be specific about the magic I want:
-the magic should be thematic. no random assortment of spells. it should be focused towards a specific purpose, or put it another way, I only want to wield one school of magic, or only one element, stuff like that.
-magic should be able to be improvised, flexibly used in the situation to pull off certain stunts
-while I know I want my magic with unlimited use, I know this won't fly with everyone, so as a compromise I can work with a mana system, because I can plausibly see getting "tired" magic-wise.

Dude, you don't want Magic. You want superheroes, period.
You know why some ppl take umbrage at this? Because to them it's like someone screaming "This Bruce Lee movie sucks because it doesn't have teen vampire romance! Why doesn't it have teen vampire romance?!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive

This is total retconning based on the real science of Alcubierre Drive. Warp Drive did not have these sciencey details until Alcubierre worked out his "warp drive" (yes, inspired by Star Trek) theoretical physics.

[Psyren]

Not a large portion of the population. Some. Enough. But Elkmonster the wizard had to study for years to be able to toss a single cantrip, and then practice for years more to be able to throw fireballs. But where things change with technology is the ability for average people to do it. You can toss a laser rifle to Billy from the farm and he can incinerate people from a thousand feet away. And with manufacturing, you can give a laser rifle to Billy and every person from his village.

Star Wars had swords, yes, but they were also a setting designed to include such things... and swords were primarily a prestige weapon for wizard-monks, who had the ability to effectively people armed with lasers. You don't see a lot of non-jedi running around with swords in the movies... because most people know not to bring a knife to a gunfight.

Introducing technology to a traditional fantasy setting is disruptive to that setting. Designing a setting to include technology is fine, though not always what I want.

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.

Exactly. For the average person (which includes most soldiers) you'll eventually hit a balance point of cost/ease of use/effectiveness of weapon. In the Star Wars universe that appears to be the blaster.

Lightsabers lose out because (for most people) of ease of use and effectiveness. Unless you are a Jedi (or cybernetically enhanced like Grevious), the odds are that you will kill yourself with it long before you master it. And even if you can use it without killing yourself, most non-Jedi won't won't be able to reliably deflect laser fire, so they are in the position of having brought a knife to a gun fight.

If you are designing a setting that merges the two, what's your balance point? If your world contains laser weapons and swords, why does someone carry a sword when there are laser weapons? Simon Green's "Death Stalker" novels covered this by having laser weapons have a long recharge period. Chemical propellent weapons had fallen out of favor, so you fire your laser weapon then close to hand to hand with the sword. It's actually a pretty big deal when someone finds an old cache of projectile weapons (guns).

Getting the toe wet has happened a long time ago in role-playing. Remember S-3: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks? That was a pretty tame exploration, and was pretty easy to self-correct if you felt things went too far.

If you're diving in full-tilt (a world with both magic and tech as significant forces), you'll have to be more careful. In most cases, tech is usually the tool of the masses. It's cheaper, easier to replicate, and easier for anyone to use. Magic is more often limited to secret practitioners, or those in elite positions. Again, look at Simon Green's "Secret Histories", where the Droods basically blend magic and tech to hide in plain sight.

I don't have much to add to the thread that is not summed up in these three posts.

Basically, one of the hallmarks of magic that makes it feel like magic (i.e. special) is exclusivity. A lot of folks don't want to admit that, because exclusivity = inequality = unfairness. But ultimately, that is the main separation between magic and technology - how much of the setting has access to it, and how easy it is to use.

[BeerMug Paladin]

By your explanation above, it seems that the author assumes the laws of physics is some sort of external construct laid upon the fabric of reality, and magic is a competing construct that can be laid upon the same base fabric. But the truth is the laws of physics is better termed as the laws of reality; physics is the fabric of reality.

That is a matter of metaphysics about the nature of reality, and for a given fictional setting there's no reason to think that would hold. Mage, (as far as I understand the setting), is based on similar metaphysics.

There's no reason to assume that a given metaphysical assumption has to hold in (of all things) all possible fictional universes. Fictional settings are a big category of universes.