Keeping Technology Stagnant

[Mechalich]

I've been operating on the assumption that there are sufficient resources for the foreseeable future. Planar gates aside, I guess that may have been a mistake. If the world is at, or nearing a shortage of certain resources than it changes things significantly. Among other things, I would be inclined to classify that as an apocalyptic setting and flavor stories or campaigns as such.

Actually, I think the majority of D&D settings actually qualify as post-apocalyptic in construct.

Forgotten Realms is post-apocalyptic: there were several apocalypses but the most important is the fall of Netheril - a society that was absolutely more advanced (in terms of pure magical technology) than anything currently present.

Dark Sun: obvious

Dragonlance: the Cataclysm certainly qualifies as an apocalypse

Planescape and Spelljammer: the entire meta-narrative of D&D history posits a vast period of ancient history when the Illithids (TM) ruled over essentially the entire known universe. Their destruction due to the rebellion of Gith, was a reality shattering apocaplypse that shook planes. I ran the calculations (based on the number of Githyanki monarchs) once and estimated that occurred about 32,000 years before the accepted present.

So maybe stagnation is something that's less common in D&D style settings than we think and the whole advance-collapse-advance cyclical model is more common.

[EggKookoo]

This is the internet, what do you expect?

I expect exactly what's happening. I'm just making the request.

[bulbaquil]

Exploiting the laws of physics (where "laws of physics" here basically means the operating principles of the world/campaign setting/universe/whatever, whether they are simple mathematical formulae applicable everywhere or convoluted reams of legalese rife with exceptions, special cases, and the like) to develop lasting technology is much like exploiting vulnerabilities in a computer program - essentially, technological development is "physics hacking."

Given sufficient time and resources, just about any computer program or operating system, no matter how secure, can be hacked. The primary exception is a computer program designed to self-destruct if someone attempts to breach its security. (The legality of the hacks is immaterial here - the authorities arresting the hacker before the hacker can infiltrate the system is a case of "insufficient time".)

Now, how do those who don't want the system to be hacked deal with vulnerabilities they don't want exploited? They code, install, and disseminate security patches, or upgrade to a new OS, or something of that type. In other words, they change the rules of the system.

So what does this have to do with maintaining technological stasis (or near-stasis)? Simply put, in order for a set (or subset) of laws of physics to be able to be exploited as the type of technology that "builds upon itself", the following postulates must be true:

1. The laws of physics must be constant in time; or at least, the timing and nature of any changes must be able to be anticipated in advance. (They do not need to be constant in space, and they can have time-dependent variables [some of OUR laws of physics do!], so long as the laws themselves do not change.)

2. The laws of physics must be deterministic; or at least, they need to be close enough to deterministic at relevant scale that the relevant-scale results are statistically reliable.

To explain postulate 2 - quantum phenomena like radioactive decay are (at least believed by many to be) stochastic and random in nature. Suppose you have a clump of 100 trillion atoms of a radioactive isotope for which each atom has a 2% chance per second of decaying into its stable form - every second, if you will, you roll a d100 for each individual atom and if it comes up a 1 or 2, that atom decays, 3 through 100 it does not. After about 34.3 seconds, about half, 50 trillion, will still be radioactive - that's what a half-life is. It may not be exactly 50 trillion, but it will be as near to it as to make little difference.

But now we change the laws of physics so that, instead of rolling the d100 for each individual atom, we roll it for the clump of radioactive matter as a whole. If it comes up a 1 or 2, the entire clump, all 100 trillion atoms of it, decays into stable isotopes; if it comes up 3-100, the entire clump stays radioactive. I went ahead and rolled d100s on Random.org, and I came up with a 2, finally, on the 91st roll. Up until the 91st second, then, the entire clump is still radioactive; from the 91st second onward, the entire clump is inert. I rolled it again for a different clump of 100 trillion atoms, and this one went fully inert on second number 19. Under the old laws of physics, that would be for 2 individual atoms; under the new regime, it's for 200 trillion.

Now, 100 trillion atoms is still pretty small - it's about the amount in a human blood cell - but given that the entirety of the D&D system (and all other non-diceless systems) is predicated on unpredictable stochastic processes occurring on macroscopic scales, adjudged by a GM typically empowered to ignore or enforce the rules when convenient or otherwise necessary... the entire concept of reliable laws of physics that is necessary to create technology that "builds upon itself" breaks down.

As for why it tends to be at a medieval/Renaissance level - it's entirely possible that the laws of physics themselves are "in on it". We have in the real world laws of physics that essentially boil down to "you can't go faster than light". They're hidden in mathematical formulas, but they essentially boil down to "you can't go faster than light, and if you try, weird stuff starts to happen... well, it's technically happening at normal speeds, but it's so small there that for most purposes it isn't happening." There's no reason why a different set of laws of physics might not have this sort of asymptotic relationship with technology - "you can't start the industrial revolution, and if you try, weird stuff starts to happen... which technically is already happening with medieval tech, but the effects are so minor that for most purposes it isn't happening."

[Khaelo]

Actually, I think the majority of D&D settings actually qualify as post-apocalyptic in construct.

<snip>

So maybe stagnation is something that's less common in D&D style settings than we think and the whole advance-collapse-advance cyclical model is more common.

There's an essay in Kobold Guide to Worldbuilding about this exact phenomenon. This model is common because you need someone to a) build dungeons for players to delve and b) leave desirable items in said dungeons. A "first generation" monument-building society wouldn't have as many dungeon crawl opportunities. You could alleviate the issue with a strong tradition of grave goods (a la ancient Egypt), but that doesn't make for heroic PCs.* The cyclical model not only makes more sense than a stagnant model, it also supports better gaming. The PCs just always happen to be born in a time that resembles the European medieval period.

The Game of Thrones timeline is a pet peeve of mine. It breaks my suspension of disbelief.

ETA: * i.e. If the PCs do it in 2000 BC, it's "tomb robbing." If they do it in AD 2000, it's "archeology."

[Quarian Rex]

5. Technological revolutions come about because of money. Someone has to spend to make it happen, and generally their motivation is long-term profit...usually in the form of greater systemic efficiency. Irrigation means more land to grow on, which means more surplus calories to consume or trade. Sewers means a few less gong-collecting jobs, but generally larger and less death-prone labor pool in your urban area.

See, this is the interesting part. It reminds me of something I read that said that we owe most of our modern technological advancement (since the Enlightenment, Renaissance. etc.) to the Black Plague. Prior to that all problems (military, engineering, etc.) were resolved by throwing more serfs at it. They were cheap, plentiful, and couldn't say no.

Then comes the Black Plague, killing most of them off. Now there aren't enough serfs to do all of the things. Now the nobility needs to actually pay (gasp!) people for the work thay do lest they go to someone who will. With money in the hands of the people actually doing the work, expending resources on finding ways for the work to suck less now becomes a thing. Laziness being the mother of all invention and all that.

Looking at this from a fantasy perspective, Clerics and healing magic means that even the worst of outbreaks never really spread farther than a villiage or two before it gets quashed. No shortage of serfs/slaves means no motivation to find easier/more efficient ways to do the work things. After all, the Kings, Priests, and Mages, who control the wealth and power don't care how hard/tiring a job is. That is a worry for peasants. And if there were a resource scarcity/sudden defeat/immediate need that would normally drive a search for new solutions? Magic. Disruption is now over. Let the plebs grind on.


Now these things...

Talking about "breaking the laws of physics" is merely a fanciful piece of nonsensical rhetoric, for the laws of physics are nothing more than a description of events that happen in the world. If a thing happens, its behavior defines the laws of physics. If you can wave your hands and speak an intonation and cause something to fly around, the very fact that you can do that makes it part of the physical rules by which the world operates, by definition. Saying that a flight spell is breaking the fantasy world's laws of physics is equally silly to claiming that an airplane is breaking the laws of gravity.

Magic in D&D is repeatable and predictable, and therefore the scientific method can apply to it.

... go hand in hand and show exactly why science could not progress.

Magic in D&D type settings is not repeatable and predictable. It is repeatable by that guy. The one with the pointy hat and a beard. I doesn't matter how many ranks of Linguistics and Perform (Mime) an Expert (of any level) has to perfectly, "wave (his) hands and speak an intonation", he will not cause something to fly around. Even the guy with the pointy hat, when saying the same words and making the same gestures, can only make the object fly around so many times and then it just stops working. Same words, same gestures, same guy, nothing happens. This is not a scientifically repeatable nor reliable phenomena. It is most definitely something that happens (everyone saw the guy fly into the air and Fireball the orcs last week after all), and might even happen a lot, but not something that can be independantly recreated in the lab.

Can you imagine being a natural philosopher in such a place? Where would you even start? Every question or curiosity you had would ultimately be answered with 'because the gods'. If that didn't fit then 'because magic'. And that would be the most truthful and accurate answer possible. That is no form of intellectual laziness. That is the final conclusion of any intellighent individual.

What if there was some brain damaged individual with genius intellect who decided keep going? How can you develop the theory of gravity when you have to account for levitation/magical flight? How can you develop explosives by inspecting Fireballs? How can conservation of matter even be contemplated when Creation spells are a thing. Either every inquiry leads back to magic being the answer, or magic skews the observations so much that no useful observations can be made, and so no useful theories can be crafted.

All in all, I think that the idea of technological stagnation in fantasy worlds would be a pretty valid one.

[LooseCannoneer]

Here's the way I see it: people who would normally develop new technology are instead seen as smart, then taken to be educated as a wizard, preventing them from researching technology. They developed plows and the like because there wasn't enough food to support enough spellcasters, but when they started to produce enough food to provide more people to research technological advances, the mages started recruiting, limiting the research along non-magic lines.

[Xuc Xac]

Here's the way I see it: people who would normally develop new technology are instead seen as smart, then taken to be educated as a wizard, preventing them from researching technology. They developed plows and the like because there wasn't enough food to support enough spellcasters, but when they started to produce enough food to provide more people to research technological advances, the mages started recruiting, limiting the research along non-magic lines.

That's like saying nobody studies medicine in the real world because all the people smart enough to be doctors just learn engineering instead. In a world where magic can be studied academically and scientifically (as in D&D where it's reliable and repeatable), then it wouldn't be any different than any other subject. The distinction between "Magic" and "Technology" only makes sense to people, like us, who don't have magic. In a fantasy world, it's all just stuff you can learn to do, but which most people never bother to learn because it's hard.

[Xuc Xac]

Magic in D&D type settings is not repeatable and predictable. It is repeatable by that guy. The one with the pointy hat and a beard. I doesn't matter how many ranks of Linguistics and Perform (Mime) an Expert (of any level) has to perfectly, "wave (his) hands and speak an intonation", he will not cause something to fly around. Even the guy with the pointy hat, when saying the same words and making the same gestures, can only make the object fly around so many times and then it just stops working. Same words, same gestures, same guy, nothing happens. This is not a scientifically repeatable nor reliable phenomena. It is most definitely something that happens (everyone saw the guy fly into the air and Fireball the orcs last week after all), and might even happen a lot, but not something that can be independantly recreated in the lab.

This is like saying "Squeezing the trigger of a revolver doesn't always make it shoot. It works half a dozen times, then you can repeat the trigger pull in exactly the same way a 7th, 8th, or 9th time and nothing happens. Revolvers are mysterious and their functioning can't be quantified." There's a lot more to casting a spell than just the verbal, somatic, and material components, just like firing a revolver involves a lot more than the basic point-and-click interface.

[BladeofObliviom]

This is like saying "Squeezing the trigger of a revolver doesn't always make it shoot. It works half a dozen times, then you can repeat the trigger pull in exactly the same way a 7th, 8th, or 9th time and nothing happens. Revolvers are mysterious and their functioning can't be quantified." There's a lot more to casting a spell than just the verbal, somatic, and material components, just like firing a revolver involves a lot more than the basic point-and-click interface.

Indeed. Even the act of preparing spells requires a lot of knowledge to weave the spells together, leaving only the last bit (the components) for a wizard to finish up and call it in. If you're willing to go through the academic training and knowledge to be able to figure all this out...

...Well, you've taken a level of Wizard. (Or equivalent Arcane Spellcasting class)

[LudicSavant]

The distinction between "Magic" and "Technology" only makes sense to people, like us, who don't have magic.

Hiryuu puts it well when he says "Scary magical hoodoo and technology are the same thing; their difference is merely one of cultural context."

Spoiler: Breaking Rex's post down

Show

Magic in D&D type settings is not repeatable and predictable.

You contradict this in your very next sentence.

It is repeatable by that guy. The one with the pointy hat and a beard.

First off, science doesn't actually require a phenomenon to be repeatable to study it. We can't repeat the Big Bang (or indeed much of the things we deal with in astrophysics), but we study it just fine.

Second off, if it's repeatable by anyone or indeed anything, it's a repeatable phenomenon.

I doesn't matter how many ranks of Linguistics and Perform (Mime) an Expert (of any level) has to perfectly, "wave (his) hands and speak an intonation", he will not cause something to fly around. Even the guy with the pointy hat, when saying the same words and making the same gestures, can only make the object fly around so many times and then it just stops working. Same words, same gestures, same guy, nothing happens. This is not a scientifically repeatable nor reliable phenomena.

Everything you said about fly spells goes for countless things that work in the real world. The example of a revolver given by Xuc Xac is an apt one.

The fact that you are using the same gestures, same words, and same guy but getting a different result can simply mean that some condition besides the gestures, words, and guy has changed. And it has: Spell slots ran out. This isn't even mysterious to people in the game world. Spell slots, what they are and how they work, are described in detail in the lore of D&D, and pretty much all of the main bullet points of that lore can easily be gathered by observation of your average wizard.

It is most definitely something that happens (everyone saw the guy fly into the air and Fireball the orcs last week after all), and might even happen a lot,

Then it's observable, and so science can apply.

You seem to think all of these other factors are required, but they aren't. You just have to be able to observe something and, through observation, learn something about that thing. That's it. And I can learn an awful lot about Fireballs just by watching a Wizard do it. I can learn even more by watching him do it 10 times. I might not learn how to do it, but again, that's not the goalpost. I don't need to be able to make cavitation bubbles like a pistol shrimp in order for marine biology to be a valid scientific pursuit.

but not something that can be independantly recreated in the lab.

This contradicts your earlier statement saying that a wizard can repeat his spells. However, even if it was the case that it couldn't be independently created in the lab, that would be irrelevant. Being able to independently recreate a phenomenon in a laboratory environment is not necessary for science to happen, whether we're talking about anything from astrophysics to sociology (it certainly helps, though ).

Can you imagine being a natural philosopher in such a place? Where would you even start?

You would do it the same way that you do it in real life. Kinda like this: http://hpmor.com/

You start by going out and exploring the world and seeing what it has to offer.

Every question or curiosity you had would ultimately be answered with 'because the gods'. If that didn't fit then 'because magic'. And that would be the most truthful and accurate answer possible. That is no form of intellectual laziness. That is the final conclusion of any intellighent individual.

This is equivalently bad to saying "how does gravity work?" "Because physics. Okay, that's our final conclusion, science work done, moving on to next question?" Not only is it intellectual laziness, it's one of the worst kinds of intellectual laziness, where explanations are reduced to nothing more than labels and guessing the teacher's password.

How can you develop the theory of gravity when you have to account for levitation/magical flight?

Using the same principles and methods you would to develop such a theory in the real world.

How can you develop explosives by inspecting Fireballs?

Well, for starters, Fireball spells ARE developed explosives, as are things like Fireball scrolls or Fireball wands and so forth. And second off, they're... well, explosions for anyone who wants to learn about combustion and explosions and the like to observe.

How can conservation of matter even be contemplated when Creation spells are a thing.

Science is not just something with a bunch of preformed rules that you contemplate. Scientific knowledge is achieved by going out into the world and observing how it works. If, in your universe, matter is not conserved, "Conservation of Matter" would be an unscientific idea, not the other way around.

Science is, at its core, a set of methods by which you can gather information about the world, not some dogma that sprung up out of nowhere comprised of decrees like "Conservation of Matter."

Either every inquiry leads back to magic being the answer

Just because you conclude that a Fireball is magic doesn't mean that you can't learn things about it. I can learn how hot a Fireball is. I can learn its effects on things that are hit by it (they burn!). I can learn how big an area it covers. I can learn that its area and range appear to be consistent from one casting to the next unless an additional method (like metamagic) is applied. And so on and so forth. Science accomplished.

[VoxRationis]

Indeed. Even the act of preparing spells requires a lot of knowledge to weave the spells together, leaving only the last bit (the components) for a wizard to finish up and call it in. If you're willing to go through the academic training and knowledge to be able to figure all this out...

...Well, you've taken a level of Wizard. (Or equivalent Arcane Spellcasting class)

And if a character with a bunch of ranks in Linguistics and Mime or something to that effect perfectly mimics the entire casting process, including the boring stuff the wizard does at the start of the day, then what you have is a ritual or incantation.

[Gnoman]

One important distinction that has to be made between the real world and a magic-rich fantasy world is that, in the real world, books are nothing more than information-storage devices that don't hurt much in the short term if you lose them. Meanwhile, spellbooks in a high-magic setting are weapons of war in their own right, and taking out the libraries becomes a strategic goal - which also has a massively destructive effect on non-magical knowledge. Imagine that the sum total of human knowledge was engraved on the wall of missile silos.


Second, it is far from rare in fantasy settings for people to learn how to do things by having a god point to them and say "Do this!". If you didn't invent metalworking or chemistry yourself and were just given the secret of steel, you don't have a foundation for improving the art - it's the difference between using RPG maker and knowing how to program in assembly.

[Khaelo]

Second, it is far from rare in fantasy settings for people to learn how to do things by having a god point to them and say "Do this!". If you didn't invent metalworking or chemistry yourself and were just given the secret of steel, you don't have a foundation for improving the art - it's the difference between using RPG maker and knowing how to program in assembly.

I don't think this explanation works. Humans tinker with things. "Sure, the god said to do it this way, but..."
a) "...it takes forever; let's try this shortcut."
b) "...we're out of this material; let's try this substitution."
c) "...we've done that a thousand times before. What happens if we tweak this?"
d) "...oops!"

Stagnation works if the god is handing out steel swords without explaining how to create them. A fantasy god can do things like that. But once humans have the process, somebody is going to mess with it, whether or not they have any clue what they're doing. In our world, all sorts of technology were attributed to divine origin (agriculture, writing, metalwork). People didn't have sophisticated theories of chemistry to explain how smithing worked. They managed to improve on it anyway.

[BootStrapTommy]

First off, science doesn't actually require a phenomenon to be repeatable to study it. We can't repeat the Big Bang (or indeed much of the things we deal with in astrophysics), but we study it just fine.

Spoiler: Scientific Method

Show

Note that data replication is included under Gather Data to Test Predictions

There's a difference between scientifically knowable data and scientific theory (extrapolations and predictions based on empirically induced causal relationships between variables).

To scientifically study magic, it would have to be repeatable. You can't accurately induce things from a single point of data.

That being said, repeatable magic is setting (or even GM) dependent.

[Mechalich]

There are very, very few settings where magic can be said to function in a scientific way. D&D is absolutely not one of them. D&D magic functions as an art. FR outright refers to magic as The Art.

In science, you can take an extremely complicated experiment, say, taking a particle accelerator and synthesizing a few atoms of element 112, and, if you've done your work properly and described all the steps, the next guy can come along and without any training whatsoever follow the steps exactly and throw the switch and produce the same result.

In art, you can't watch Van Gogh paint for a few days and then produce a Van Gogh through sincere imitation. It does not work that way.

Even with incantations in D&D, you have to have sufficient training to make a spellcraft check in order to make the incantation work. Not only does that require skill and training, but it is subject to the RNG. That's not a scientific process.

[BladeofObliviom]

Even with incantations in D&D, you have to have sufficient training to make a spellcraft check in order to make the incantation work. Not only does that require skill and training, but it is subject to the RNG. That's not a scientific process.

How so? Everyone makes mistakes. Even perfectly competent scientists and technicians pay too little attention to one thing, or too much to another, or get a little distracted, or simply screw up. The RNG in DnD doesn't represent literal random chance most of the time, it's simply a way to simulate that the same person with the same skills can both succeed and fail at the same task at different times.

I've never heard someone claim chemistry isn't a scientific process because sometimes a chemist accidentally mixes in the wrong chemical, or forgets a step in the process, or otherwise accidentally violates experimental parameters. Someone might drop a test tube once due to carelessness or distraction, and it doesn't mean they don't have the skill or training to operate grasping fingers.

[AtlasSniperman]

How so? Everyone makes mistakes. Even perfectly competent scientists and technicians pay too little attention to one thing, or too much to another, or get a little distracted, or simply screw up. The RNG in DnD doesn't represent literal random chance most of the time, it's simply a way to simulate that the same person with the same skills can both succeed and fail at the same task at different times.

I've never heard someone claim chemistry isn't a scientific process because sometimes a chemist accidentally mixes in the wrong chemical, or forgets a step in the process, or otherwise accidentally violates experimental parameters. Someone might drop a test tube once due to carelessness or distraction, and it doesn't mean they don't have the skill or training to operate grasping fingers.

Agreed, and that's what taking 10 and taking 20 are for, If you're following a step-by-step manual you're probably taking 10. If it's super detailed and covers ever nuance, it's probably taking 20.

[Mechalich]

RNG applies to saves - the efficacy of a spell's effect. While reflex saves arguably account for differences in conditions, a fortitude or will save is largely random.

Finger of Death is a spell that kills people some percentage of the time, and that percentage differs for every spellcaster/spell target combination in the whole universe.

While characters in universe may have some vague understanding of how to make people 'more vulnerable' to certain spells (often by casting other spells) there is absolutely no way, in universe, to elucidate the mechanism that governs how saving throws work.

[AtlasSniperman]

RNG applies to saves - the efficacy of a spell's effect. While reflex saves arguably account for differences in conditions, a fortitude or will save is largely random.

Finger of Death is a spell that kills people some percentage of the time, and that percentage differs for every spellcaster/spell target combination in the whole universe.

While characters in universe may have some vague understanding of how to make people 'more vulnerable' to certain spells (often by casting other spells) there is absolutely no way, in universe, to elucidate the mechanism that governs how saving throws work.

Sure there is, the capacity of the target to resist the energy(focusing on Will or Fort for this) and the amount of energy a particular caster can put INTO an effect. The caster is a variable in any experiments utilising magic, but as long as the caster continues to apply the same amount of energy(caster level), the spell itself is consistent.
Finger of Death for example is an amount of raw energy that some people can resist and others can't, likely due to training or natural immunities, just like poisons and diseases.

[LudicSavant]

Note that data replication is included under Gather Data to Test Predictions

It is possible to have reproducible and/or repeatable data that helps us understand non-reproudicible events, because those things leave footprints for us to examine.

It's also very important to note that science has more tools in its toolbox than the controlled lab experiment, such as correlational research and "natural experiments." The fact of the matter is that much of the scientific knowhow we have today would not be possible without such methods. I highly recommend that you, MechaLich, and Quarian Rex read the following article: http://arstechnica.com/science/2006/10/5744/

Not that that's even particularly relevant, since magic in D&D fits all of the criteria for reproducibility and repeatability that you could ever want (none of the published settings appear to be an exception to this. Magic appears to follow consistent and discoverable rules in all of them).

In fact, if you got together a group of clever people to play a game system like D&D, had them play premade spellcaster characters and never told them the rules (only the results of their actions determined by the DM, who is rolling everything behind a screen), they could accurately reverse-engineer the mechanics for their magic with enough playtime and effort, simply via in-character investigation. That's science, right there.

[VoxRationis]

There are very, very few settings where magic can be said to function in a scientific way. D&D is absolutely not one of them. D&D magic functions as an art. FR outright refers to magic as The Art.

In science, you can take an extremely complicated experiment, say, taking a particle accelerator and synthesizing a few atoms of element 112, and, if you've done your work properly and described all the steps, the next guy can come along and without any training whatsoever follow the steps exactly and throw the switch and produce the same result.

In art, you can't watch Van Gogh paint for a few days and then produce a Van Gogh through sincere imitation. It does not work that way.

Improper comparison. The creation of the particle accelerator requires technical expertise which is similarly difficult to replicate for the layman. But a sufficiently trained engineer, well-versed in knowledge of what he's doing, can build another such device, and a sufficiently trained forger can replicate a Van Gogh just fine. In both cases, however, it's actually less replicable than D&D magic, which follows mathematical progressions according to caster level and whatnot which are quite simple, compared with most scientific laws and formulae.

Even with incantations in D&D, you have to have sufficient training to make a spellcraft check in order to make the incantation work. Not only does that require skill and training, but it is subject to the RNG. That's not a scientific process.

As others have pointed out, that's the same amount of random chance that applies to literally every other endeavor in D&D—it represents a number of things, including small and fluctuating but significant environmental factors, and usually the fact that people are trying to do things in a stressful, uncontrolled scenario, such as combat.

[BootStrapTommy]

In fact, if you got together a group of clever people to play a game system like D&D, had them play premade spellcaster characters and never told them the rules (only the results of their actions determined by the DM, who is rolling everything behind a screen), they could accurately reverse-engineer the mechanics for their magic with enough playtime and effort, simply via in-character investigation. That's science, right there.

That is a consequence of the fact that D&D is a game and games are based on knowable rules. If it wasn't, it would be a garbage game.

So what you are talking about is completely incidental to the nature of a roleplaying system, and does not necessarily reflect the reality of the magic in the world it is suppose to represent. It has to follow those rules, because it would be nonsensical to the players if it didn't.

I have often jokingly propose in other threads the idea of a 5e Hermit whose Discovery was that the world was run by a DM on the rules of 5e D&D, as a kind of farcical comic end to that line of reasoning.

II highly recommend that you, MechaLich, and Quarian Rex read the following article: http://arstechnica.com/science/2006/10/5744/

You ignore (as does the article) the fact that scientific theories are not themselves observations or experiments, but the inductive reasoning of causal relationships based on testable and observable data, judged by their correspondence to the data and the reliability of their predictions. They are not data, nor can they be held to the same empirical standards, as they are logical inductions not physical observations. No one saw the Big Bang. But the Big Bang explains the data and has been used to make accurate predictions.

I find it strange that that was overlooked by the article, as it is honestly a simpler response to the creationist critique then what they choose. No one has to see the Big Bang. We induced the existence of the Big Bang.

Inductive reasoning is the oft forgotten hero of science.

[Gnoman]

I don't think this explanation works. Humans tinker with things. "Sure, the god said to do it this way, but..."
a) "...it takes forever; let's try this shortcut."
b) "...we're out of this material; let's try this substitution."
c) "...we've done that a thousand times before. What happens if we tweak this?"
d) "...oops!"

Stagnation works if the god is handing out steel swords without explaining how to create them. A fantasy god can do things like that. But once humans have the process, somebody is going to mess with it, whether or not they have any clue what they're doing. In our world, all sorts of technology were attributed to divine origin (agriculture, writing, metalwork). People didn't have sophisticated theories of chemistry to explain how smithing worked. They managed to improve on it anyway.

It's not that I'm claiming that no advancement is possible, just that the precursor knowledge needed to make directed advancement does not exist, and the technology exists in a vacuum - in our world, it took hundreds of years to go from copper to steel, and by then so many alloys were created that a genuine understanding of how properties of various metals interact in the process and how much of metal A needs to be mixed with metal B to get that result. If all that was known was "mix one part tin to four parts copper to make bronze" and "use bones while shaping iron to get steel", all those centuries of work would not exist, and it would take decades at least to acquire it once somebody decided to start looking.

[Mechalich]

Improper comparison. The creation of the particle accelerator requires technical expertise which is similarly difficult to replicate for the layman. But a sufficiently trained engineer, well-versed in knowledge of what he's doing, can build another such device, and a sufficiently trained forger can replicate a Van Gogh just fine. In both cases, however, it's actually less replicable than D&D magic, which follows mathematical progressions according to caster level and whatnot which are quite simple, compared with most scientific laws and formulae.

The comparison is abjectly not to what a person with sufficient training can do, but do what a person with no training at all can do.

There is nothing in scientific practice that inherently requires pre-established expertise. It is absolutely possible for a high-school student to follow the steps in a manual and conduct a ridiculously complex process and successfully produce the expected result. In fact, students do this all the time in labs - conducting highly complex procedures like PCR with no real understanding of the principles behind how they work.

D&D magic does not work this way. Even if you follow the steps exactly, you cannot cast a 5th level spell without sufficient training. You also simply cannot cast that spell unless you have a 15 intelligence. The principles of magic in D&D do not have universal applicability, they work only under certain conditions, conditions that other magic (like Fox's Cunning) can actively change.

They are also not additive - in science it is perfectly possible to do an experiment that relies on procedures and reactions that other people have developed that you, the experimenter do not yourself actually understand. I have, personally, done this, using both molecular biology tools whose chemistry I am at best very fuzzy on, and cladistics analysis packages whose statistical principles make my brain hurt to conduct other research. You cannot do this with D&D magic - while some breakthroughs can be shared, you cannot combine a 3rd level spell and a 4th level spell can get a 7th level spell out of it.

[AtlasSniperman]

The comparison is abjectly not to what a person with sufficient training can do, but do what a person with no training at all can do.

There is nothing in scientific practice that inherently requires pre-established expertise. It is absolutely possible for a high-school student to follow the steps in a manual and conduct a ridiculously complex process and successfully produce the expected result. In fact, students do this all the time in labs - conducting highly complex procedures like PCR with no real understanding of the principles behind how they work.

D&D magic does not work this way. Even if you follow the steps exactly, you cannot cast a 5th level spell without sufficient training. You also simply cannot cast that spell unless you have a 15 intelligence. The principles of magic in D&D do not have universal applicability, they work only under certain conditions, conditions that other magic (like Fox's Cunning) can actively change.

They are also not additive - in science it is perfectly possible to do an experiment that relies on procedures and reactions that other people have developed that you, the experimenter do not yourself actually understand. I have, personally, done this, using both molecular biology tools whose chemistry I am at best very fuzzy on, and cladistics analysis packages whose statistical principles make my brain hurt to conduct other research. You cannot do this with D&D magic - while some breakthroughs can be shared, you cannot combine a 3rd level spell and a 4th level spell can get a 7th level spell out of it.

But the whole process of reverse engineering developed spells to create new effects is simulated in rules by the "Spell research" rules in the DMG. You are developing a new spell and require a library, fair enough to assume that means you are building on existing knowledge.
As for performing a spell without proper training, that's what rituals and incantations are! A wizard prepares spells in the morning(see, begins ritual) and completes them throughout the day. You can document every action someone takes in the preparation of a spell and then reproduce that as a ritual. Just because you can't prepare spells and cast like a wizard, doesn't mean you can't repeat all the steps and replicate the effect anyway.
Also by RAW with spell research; you don't have to actually CAST spells to create them. a first level commoner with enough ranks in spellcraft and enough time can make a living off creating 9th level spells. It's possible, just not often utilized.

[LudicSavant]

No one has to see the Big Bang. We induced the existence of the Big Bang.

Funny, that's the very point that you were disputing in post #74.

[Quarian Rex]

This is like saying "Squeezing the trigger of a revolver doesn't always make it shoot... Revolvers are mysterious and their functioning can't be quantified." There's a lot more to casting a spell than just the verbal, somatic, and material components, just like firing a revolver involves a lot more than the basic point-and-click interface.

Except that the revolver can be quantified, by anyone, given the opportunity to inspect it. The trigger releases the hammer, which strikes the cartrige, which ignites the powder, which fires the bullet, which puts a hole in a nearby object. The number of times that it goes boom seems to coincide with the number of cartriges in the weapon, etc. There are plenty of things to give clues as to what is happening and plenty of opportunity to reverse-engineer. Not so with magic.


{Scrubbed}
Look at the thread you are posting in and look at my response. We're looking at why technology doesn't seem to develop in a D&D type setting. Specifically a similar technological progression to what we have seen in the real world. You seem to be stuck on the idea that all study of a thing is science, and that all science will lead to technology. While I completely understand this sentiment, since it is mostly correct in our world, you must realize that this would not be the case in D&D-land.

In D&D-land the 'laws' of physics, as we know them, are mostly identical to what we know in the real world. The rules themselves abstract things, because this is a pen and paper game, but it is meant to resolve things in a similar manner to reality. Fire consumes fuel, living things need food, water freezes, etc. All identical to what we know. Magic, however, allows all of this to be sidestepped/manipulated/negated/blurred/what-have-you. Magic is the exception. Magic is the hack. Magic is what lets that-which-should-not-exist to exist. Magic is a seperate force layered upon reality whose removal, accomplished through dispels, anti-magic fields, and dead magic zones, leaves the rest of the firmament fully intact (the same could not be said for electro-magnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc.).

Magic follows it's own rules, not those of the physical reality in which it is most often used. It manifests something regardless of cause and effect, and any requirements that something may need to otherwise exist. Studying a magical effect will not lead to any observations that could be used to develop technology. Such observations will even provide erroneous info. Case in point...

I can learn an awful lot about Fireballs just by watching a Wizard do it. I can learn even more by watching him do it 10 times. I might not learn how to do it, but again, that's not the goalpost.

Again, you miss the point, because that is the goalpost.

Fireball spells ARE developed explosives, as are things like Fireball scrolls or Fireball wands and so forth. And second off, they're... well, explosions for anyone who wants to learn about combustion and explosions and the like to observe.

Ahem...

The explosion creates almost no pressure.

What was that again? I assume that there would be many esteemed mundane scholars in this setting, who, much like yourself, would study Fireballs to learn all about combustion and explosions, and learn absolutely nothing about combustion and explosions.

You're kind of proving my point for me here. You are looking to study the most obvious example of an effect in a setting to develop a technology based on that effect. Observations of that effect, because it is a magical effect, are useless for developing technology. Welcome to a technologically stagnant setting.

Just because you conclude that a Fireball is magic doesn't mean that you can't learn things about it. I can learn how hot a Fireball is. I can learn its effects on things that are hit by it (they burn!). I can learn how big an area it covers. I can learn that its area and range appear to be consistent from one casting to the next unless an additional method (like metamagic) is applied. And so on and so forth. Science accomplished.

To what end good sir? You have just described putting points into Spellcraft. Studying magic leads to knowledge of magic. It does nothing to advance technology.

You also seem to be using science as a catch-all term for academics. Just because something can be studied does not mean that it is a science. Music can be studied. Paintings can be studied. Sculpture can be studied. Arts can be studied. In amazing depth. And, as has been mentioned many, many times before, magic seems to be an art.

However, magic is not like science or industry. It is a deeply personal process, essentially an art. Each sorcerer or wizard has to go through the same process their mentor did, and teaching is of limited capability to unlocking the secrets of the universe. While a wizard might be able to utilize the spells of predecessors, that cannot bypass the slow nature of level gain needed to attain power. Therefore magical advancement fails to build on itself generation by generation the way engineering and science do. Essentially wizards are constantly re-discovering the abilities of the past (in the form of gaining levels).

So while magical knowledge, and even magical items, might accumulate over time, it does nothing to raise the tech level of society as a whole.

There are very, very few settings where magic can be said to function in a scientific way. D&D is absolutely not one of them. D&D magic functions as an art.

Mechalich sums it quite well. Magic is an art. Art is not science. Art does not lead to technology. This is something that just seems to not be getting across.

[LudicSavant]

Magic in D&D literally is technology, by definition. And not just one definition, either...

Full Definition of TECHNOLOGY
1
a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area
b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge

2
: a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge

3
: the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor <educational technology>

- Magic is the practical application of knowledge. The wizard knows how to cast the spell Fireball (it's knowledge), and applies it to blow things up (it's a practical application). That's definition 1.
- Magic is a manner of accomplishing a task (such as fireballing some goblins) using technical processes, methods, or knowledge (things like verbal and somatic components count as technical methods, again by definition). That's definition 2.
- Necromancy (and all other magic schools) embodies the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor (Magic). That's definition 3.

Technology (from Greek τέχνη, techne, "art, skill, cunning of hand"; and -λογία, -logia[3]) is the collection of techniques, methods or processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives, such as scientific investigation. Technology can be the knowledge of techniques, processes, etc. or it can be embedded in machines, computers, devices and factories, which can be operated by individuals without detailed knowledge of the workings of such things.

Magic is technology under every definition here as well. Magic is a technique, method or process used in the production of both goods (such as magic items, stuff made with creation magic, or just things made with the assistance of spells like Magecraft or Unseen Crafter) and services (such as healing wounds or divining the location of objects), and in the accomplishment of objectives (such as Fireballing anyone who looks at you funny). Magic includes knowledge of techniques and processes (such as spell preparation and casting components), and it can be embedded in machines and devices that can be operated by individuals without detailed knowledge of the things (you don't need to be a wizard to use a +1 Flaming Greatsword).

To what end good sir? You have just described putting points into Spellcraft. Studying magic leads to knowledge of magic. It does nothing to advance technology.

Okay, so, Spellcraft = knowledge in a particular area (magic). Using the Spellcraft skill = practical application of Spellcraft. Therefore using the Spellcraft skill is the practical application of knowledge. That should remind you of something.

Full Definition of TECHNOLOGY
1a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area

Taking ranks in Spellcraft not only does something to advance technology, it literally is advancing your personal technological means. Share the information that you used to gain ranks in Spellcraft with a society and that society's technological means advance as well.

[AtlasSniperman]

I'm not sure if I'm seeing correctly, but it looks like a lot of people here are stating that the natural laws of the universe in a D&D setting are the same as ours but they also have magic which is outside of these rules.

Why do the rules have to be assumed to be the same yet conflict with magic? Why isn't magic part of the laws of nature that create the functionality of the universe? "Magic follows it's own rules, not those of the physical reality in which it is most often used." Why can't they be the same thing? Why can't magic possibly be part of the physical reality in which it occurs? Sure it doesn't match OUR universe, doesn't mean its not consistent in itself and can allow Scientific inquiry and the development of technology within it's own rules.

"Studying magic leads to knowledge of magic. It does nothing to advance technology.", I counter:
"Study of biology leads to knowledge of biology. It does nothing to advance medicine."
You seem to be defining magic as mutually exclusive from a naturally occurring phenomenon, but it's not. Magical effects occur in the nature of the D&D world, and magical effects are studied and built upon by specialists in the fields associated with it: Necromancy, Divination, Evocation, Illusion, Enchantment, Conjuration, Transmutation, Physics, Chemistry...

If you mentally separate and say "magic is mutually exclusive and fundementally different from- the forces of nature" then I agree, Magic makes scientific inquiry impossible and stagnates technology. But if Magic is a part of the forces of nature, it can be investigated and can be used to create technologies.

[Mechalich]

Why do the rules have to be assumed to be the same yet conflict with magic? Why isn't magic part of the laws of nature that create the functionality of the universe? "Magic follows it's own rules, not those of the physical reality in which it is most often used." Why can't they be the same thing? Why can't magic possibly be part of the physical reality in which it occurs? Sure it doesn't match OUR universe, doesn't mean its not consistent in itself and can allow Scientific inquiry and the development of technology within it's own rules.

Well, divine magic, for one, is explicitly a hack. It's drawing on the power of the gods to violate the rules that the gods would otherwise maintain for mortals. Casting Cure Light Wounds is not somehow utilizing internal formulae to alter the bodily balance of positive and negative energy - it is issuing a prayer to channel the power of a divine entity to do so.

Interestingly, arcane magic cannot mimic that effect. It actually operates on different principles entirely, manipulating underlying forces of the D&D world (which are explicitly not the same as the real one, the interaction of the primary elements and positive and negative energy may functionally duplicate quantum mechanics, but quantum mechanics they ain't) through the lens of complex symbology.

There is really no logical reason why a wizard can't cast cure light wounds or any other spell on the cleric spell list. That boundary is explicitly arbitrary, existing solely for the purpose of game balance. This is a very clear example of how the rules of D&D are not built to be internally consistent - they're built to model a game where the nature of reality is controlled by capricious gods.

All sorts of examples abound. Ethergaunts can just flat out ignore spells below a certain level because of their incredible brainpower - but a human who advances their Int score to the same level doesn't get to develop that skill.

Look, you absolutely can develop 'magical technology' in D&D as opposed to scientific technology. That's how you get things like the Tippyverse. And the principles of spellcasting, in D&D are fundamentally formulaic and logical in nature, so you can apply experimental principles to those properties. You can do the same thing in certain types of artistic analysis too, but that does not mean that you can look at the totality of 'magic' and say that it can be considered a variant of science.

In terms of the original topic though - the reason that I put forward the advancement of magic as a counterforce to technological advancement can actually be seen in something like the Tippyverse. D&D spellcasting is flexible and powerful enough that, applied with logical goals and taken to its natural conclusion you can achieve a post-scarcity society that has the power to fundamentally rewrite reality into a utopia a whole lot faster than you ever could using science.