Where Has All the Magic Gone?

[Ahglock]

Originally Posted by nightwyrm

To put it another way: "There is no magic."

A magic user in an RPG world simply uses the natural laws of his own RPG world to produce his effects. It seems magical and mysterious to us because the laws of our world do not allow such effects. To the inhabitants of the RPG world (and certainly to the magic user), their magic would be no more magical to them than relativity or quantum mechanics would be magical to us.

It would be an exaggeration to say I've never seen a fantasy world where magic was treated by the inhabitants like something mundane and non-magical, but it is not a big exaggeration.

[LostSoul]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

???????

What story are you thinking of here?

????????

Beyond the Black River.

He kind of uses magic in The Tower of the Elephant, but I don't think that really counts.

There might be another couple of examples.

[gizmo33]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

EDIT: And a quick check seems to confirm my memory. If you know of a REH story where Conan uses ritualistic magic, I'd be interested to hear it. If not, I am going to call shennanigans on this one.

Closest I can think of is "The Phoenix on the Sword". Assuming that phoenix symbol qualifies as "ritualistic magic" then Conan is using the results of that ritual. He's not preforming the ritual, but in the context of the magic vs. technology thing, a race car driver probably doesn't work on his own car much either at a certain level.

I'd have a hard time accepting someone trying to make the case that Conan is anything but exceptional, across the board. He's certainly a very intelligent person - just not civilized, but he learns to read, and speak languages etc. He wouldn't "have all 18s" because he's not a DnD character, but I think he would have what "has all 18s" would signify when translated out of DnDese.

I think there are matters of degree when it comes to technology vs. magic, and I don't think there is a clear dividing line between the two. On one hand, it seems very easy to see examples of people using magic like technology - throwing salt over their shoulder to ward off evil, for instance. On the other hand, it seems likely that many historical people would have instinctively sensed a difference between issues having to do with gods, ghosts, etc. and those with mundane explanations. I recall reading somewhere that a Sumerian or Babylonian medical text made a distinction between mundane and magical diseases.

Ultimately, I can't imagine that in either a historical or fantastic setting, that the inhabitants wouldn't view magic with a sense of wonder, even if they make use of some small part of it when they need to. That sense of wonder seems to be to almost be required as the definition of magic.

[gizmo33]

Originally Posted by nightwyrm

To put it another way: "There is no magic."

A magic user in an RPG world simply uses the natural laws of his own RPG world to produce his effects. It seems magical and mysterious to us because the laws of our world do not allow such effects. To the inhabitants of the RPG world (and certainly to the magic user), their magic would be no more magical to them than relativity or quantum mechanics would be magical to us.

In a magical system, human beings are at the center of the universe and are the measure of reality. The stones and trees have an intelligence because people do, and people project themselves and their psychologies onto the surrounding reality. This makes the reality of a magical world extremely significant to human beings. Magic is always perfect, even if people aren't prepared for the results (ie. Monkey's Paw) or someone elses magic is stronger. There's never a "better theory" when it comes to magic.

On the other hand, science, by it's own definition, avoids this projection. It's a tool for measuring a predicting things, but it does not purport to capture the essence of reality. Quantum mechanics is not magic because it's fallible. For instance, it doesn't predict the results that relativity does - the two theories are well known to be incompatible but are reasonable approximations for their respective scopes and will be replaced when something better comes along.

I would imagine that a wizard, if there were such a person, would understand his world totally different than a scientist does (at least a good one that's learned from the past 400 years of scientific mistakes). Most scientists that I knew (that I took classes from) would acknowledge that science will always be an approximation of reality. On the other hand, wizards seem to think that magic is capable of achieving perfection, past which there is nothing (ex. the philosopher's stone).

IMO the real historical world is an example of a world where the inhabitants believed their magic to be real, and IMO it certainly was treated with a level of awe/fear/respect that is not comparable to the way a person casually aquainted with quantum mechanics would think of it. The philosophy at the root of the Scientific Method, and the one at the root of "Magic" are significantly different.

[Lanefan]

Originally Posted by Jack7

[i]1. What, if any, do you think is the underlying connection between magic and heroism in fantasy RPGs?

There may not even be one. Magic is just one more tool in the toolbox for some heroes, while for others it is something they have to fight against.

2. What do you think is the connections between magic and treasure in fantasy RPGs? Is magic a type of treasure or is it a treasure of a totally different kind? If so then why?

In general, I'd say magic is treasure the same way anything else of value or usefulness is treasure - once you've found it, you're (usually) either richer or more powerful or both.

3. Have these connections been lost over time?

The first one no, as I don't think it really ever existed. The second one no; in fact I'd suggest the opposite, in that magic has become the cornerstone of most treasure hoards.

4. What does magic do differently than powers?

Runs out. Also, it *should* present more risk to use, given proper design.

5. What does magic do differently than science, and/or technology? (in other words what separates science from magic and what separates the Scientist from the Wizard, the Technician from the Thaumaturgist?)

All in all, probably not very much; it achieves many of the same ends via different physical means...see below.

6. Is magic a weapon? Is it only a weapon? What else should it be aside from a weapon?

It can be a weapon, or not, depending what its caster/owner/user wants to do with it at the time.

7. Should the Wizard control magic in the same way a scientist controls electromagnetism, or channel magic as if he were a conductor?

Channel (or summon) it, shape it, and send it. The three components of casting any spell (though a true wild mage skips the second one). To me, magic is merely a type of physical energy that some living beings can tap into and - to some extent - control.

8. Should the Cleric control Divine magic, or should God, or the gods?

Works the same as for a wizard (see question 7) except the magic in this case is not summoned from the surroundings but from the deity. The Cleric still shapes it and sends it.

9. What is the real nature of magic and how should it function as a game device for changing game-reality?

A two-part question. The "real" nature of magic I see as being the 5th energy type, along with gravity and three others I can't remember right now; the difference being in how it interacts with lifeforms or spirit. How should it function as an in-game reality changer? Hell if I know.

Good questions.

Lanefan

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by LostSoul

Beyond the Black River.

He kind of uses magic in The Tower of the Elephant, but I don't think that really counts.

There might be another couple of examples.

If you think breaking a gew-gaw is kind of using magic, then I suppose Gollum was a magic-user, too.

I am curious what you think qualifies as "magic use" in Beyond the Black River; I will re-read this story tonight. Nothing springs immediately to mind. My immediate thought, though, is "shennanigans". Still, it is possible that I am wrong.

Originally Posted by gizmo33

Closest I can think of is "The Phoenix on the Sword". Assuming that phoenix symbol qualifies as "ritualistic magic" then Conan is using the results of that ritual. He's not preforming the ritual, but in the context of the magic vs. technology thing, a race car driver probably doesn't work on his own car much either at a certain level.

That's not so different from claiming that Conan makes magic swords because he uses one. Sorry, but I don't find that argument compelling. It is certainly not an example of Conan performing ritual magic.

Saying "Conan did ritualistic Magic" =/= "Conan benefited from someone else's magic". There are several stories in which Conan benefits from someone else's magic, or performs an action that undoes that magic.


RC

[gizmo33]

Originally Posted by Raven Crowking

Saying "Conan did ritualistic Magic" =/= "Conan benefited from someone else's magic".

I'm not saying either one of these things, and based on your other comments I think you misunderstood my post. In the case of the phoenix on the sword, Conan didn't perform a ritual. But "benefitting from someone else's magic" is way too conveniently vague. That would fit better for the case of an enemy of Conan being killed by some friendly wizard off-stage. Carrying around a sword that was a subject of an enchantment, and using it to slay a demon (however unintentional perhaps) is significantly more immersed in the magic than the off-stage situation.

I'm not laying claim to someone elses context on this discussion though, so please read my posts literally because I've gotten a little turned around about what the case is that other folks are trying to make regarding this. I don't think Conan needs to perform rituals in order to prove that he has higher than average intelligence.

[Raven Crowking]

Originally Posted by gizmo33

I'm not saying either one of these things, and based on your other comments I think you misunderstood my post. In the case of the phoenix on the sword, Conan didn't perform a ritual. But "benefitting from someone else's magic" is way too conveniently vague. That would fit better for the case of an enemy of Conan being killed by some friendly wizard off-stage. Carrying around a sword that was a subject of an enchantment, and using it to slay a demon (however unintentional perhaps) is significantly more immersed in the magic than the off-stage situation.

I'm not laying claim to someone elses context on this discussion though, so please read my posts literally because I've gotten a little turned around about what the case is that other folks are trying to make regarding this. I don't think Conan needs to perform rituals in order to prove that he has higher than average intelligence.

Anyone who doubts that Conan has higher than average intelligence has never read a Conan story.

IMHO, Conan's Wisdom (perception and intuition) is higher than his Intelligence. I would say, 16 Int in AD&D 1e, and 18 Wisdom by the time he is 30.

However, I denied -- and asked for examples to demonstrate my denial was wrong -- that "Conan did ritualistic Magic in a real Howard story", and I thought that you were counter-exampling me. Conan certainly does make use of magic performed by others in several stories.

EDIT: In Beyond the Black River, Conan is being tracked by a supernatural panther. He scratches a symbol into the ground that he has seen scratched elsewhere, sacred to the power that fuels the creature tracking him. This makes the panther go away, and Conan indicates that he believes it will protect him and his companion from other creatures of the same type -- although it leaves a clear mark to men.

I am not sure that I would call this "ritual magic", though, although I can certainly see the argument that it is some form of magic use.



RC

[Loonook]

Originally Posted by Jack7

Til then I've got a couple of questions about magic and if you guys wanna discuss/argue/debate them then go at it.

[i]1. What, if any, do you think is the underlying connection between magic and heroism in fantasy RPGs?

It exists as part of the narrative, and as an essential part of the milieu. Be it a locale where the heroes fight with silver and cold iron against oppressive fey matriarchs or a place where magic carpets and fireballs rule the player's damage dealing ability, magic is first a narrative function; magic allows (X,Y,Z) which furthers Goals A, B, C to conclusions 1,2,3.

2. What do you think is the connections between magic and treasure in fantasy RPGs? Is magic a type of treasure or is it a treasure of a totally different kind? If so then why?

Treasure? Ehh, moreso reward. As part of the narrative, the necessity of reward as part of the general advancement of the PCs can make magic a nice side dish, or the main course. Boons, banes, and weaponry are all great tools to grant the PCs an edge, but to say that they qualify as a separate piece of the prize puzzle is being a bit obtuse in your thinking.

A shaman of the Cargul tribe grants the player's mount a powerful pattern tattoo allowing it to run in the Spirit Wilds. The player gains an amulet that grants him the ability to shift into the Plane of Shadow. A mage casts Plane Shift. Each is a means to an end (go to location A, do action B), but the level of flavor changes it all.

3. Have these connections been lost over time?

Connections are only lost by the lazy and unimaginative.

4. What does magic do differently than powers?

Magic provides a narrative outlet beyond a power. A villain who can literally rend heart from flesh with the gesture of a hand seems more fierce, more otherworldly (and rightly so) than the evil Melee Brute who kills with blows of his great ax.

5. What does magic do differently than science, and/or technology? (in other words what separates science from magic and what separates the Scientist from the Wizard, the Technician from the Thaumaturgist?)

Magic shouldn't necessarily do anything differently than science; usually it is just at a higher level. Some settings (Shadowrun and Arcanum are great examples) make a separation between magic and tech. Really, a mundane society should come up with ways to deal with magic if it is omnipresent; even in our own cultures there were always little tricks and common charms to stop devious effects of alleged magicians.

6. Is magic a weapon? Is it only a weapon? What else should it be aside from a weapon?

Magic is a force applied to a desired goal. It takes time, dedication, and will to hone and shape. If given enough talent and time, magic should be able to do damn near anything . . . but it comes at a price (spell components, XP loss, damage to self, isolation, etc.) and should be limited based on the spread of knowledge (not every hedge wizard has access to the Spell Compendium, and neither should your players).

7. Should the Wizard control magic in the same way a scientist controls electromagnetism, or channel magic as if he were a conductor?

Depends on the style. Some magic users may burn themselves in the process, others may channel the energy of the land around them, others use fetishes and gris gris (and may not even appear too wizardly). It's a matter of flavor setting-by-setting, really.

8. Should the Cleric control Divine magic, or should God, or the gods?

Again, depends. Is it the cleric's belief or divine intercession which grants spells?

9 What is the real nature of magic and how should it function as a game device for changing game-reality?

Ahh, the crux of the whole thing, and it would take me a page or two to really get into it deeper than I already have . . . so I'll leave my other answers to divine the roots of my argument.

Well, gotta go.
Looking forward to your replies.
Of course you're not limited to these questions. Talk about whatever you wish. I just thought they'd give you something to ruminate about.

Really, my issue is one of flavor and narrative vs. mechanics. I enjoy having a mechanic which is flexible enough to give a lot of leeway when it comes to materials, but I really don't like a strong mechanical backing when it comes to other things. I enjoy the fairly generic Modern for this reason; I build flavor around it, it suits me fine. Thus, when I have to see Random Items +X all about, I get a touch angry... but I also have come to the realization that none of my books magically go away, and if I want to tear out some Dragon's Teeth or Heward's Organ into any game I choose... well, I still have the right to do so.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

[Dannyalcatraz]

Originally Posted by Ahglock

It would be an exaggeration to say I've never seen a fantasy world where magic was treated by the inhabitants like something mundane and non-magical, but it is not a big exaggeration.

Just because magic is not as mysterious to the inhabitant of a typical fantasy world as it is to us, doesn't mean that they don't find it amazing.

I'm surrounded by technology that I don't understand. I watch shows on futuretech & prototypes. Some of that stuff blows me away. I mean, have you ever heard a quantum physicist talk about quantum entanglement, a.k.a. "spooky action at a distance?" To me, that's pretty near to magic.

[Jack7]

I'm surrounded by technology that I don't understand. I watch shows on futuretech & prototypes. Some of that stuff blows me away. I mean, have you ever heard a quantum physicist talk about quantum entanglement, a.k.a. "spooky action at a distance?" To me, that's pretty near to magic.

I think this set of observations says something very important and intuitive about the similarities, and differences, between magic (at least as expressed in game terms) and science and technology. (As have some of the other previous observations on the questions I asked.)

Now I'm gonna tell ya my opinion of why magic is nothing like science and technology both in how it works and in how it would be perceived.

We (generally speaking) call magic a tech, merely because this is the closest thing we could relate it to, based on the parameters of how our modern world functions. But people who lived in a world in which magic operated sans a corresponding version of our science and technology would not only not think of magic as a "technology" they would have no means of controlling it like one.

In other words we only imagine magic would work like a technology because that's the only way we are conditioned to think of it. Those who actually lived in such a society would not think of magic as science. Because they would have no science to compare and contrast it by. But furthermore and far more fundamentally speaking, if magic did break the laws of physics (which the people in such a world would also not really be aware of in a scientific and technological fashion, but would be only vaguely aware of such "laws" and their breakage) then it would seem very likely that magic would break scientific and physical laws in most every respect, including, how it operated, was controlled or not controlled, what effects it produced, and how it was evoked, invoked, and stimulated. In any case it seems extremely unlikely it would operate by a formulaic process like this, Take A, Do B, Then C will occur, always in the same way and at the same instance and with the same effect, which ends up producing X, and that was the desired outcome all along.

We describe magic like this from our point of view, from a modern scientific point of view, not because it would really be likely to operate in this mechanistic fashion, but simply because we often lack the effort of imagination to try and imagine how it might really work (in any other way than our most common way of thinking, and in terms of our most obvious analogies to our paradigm of how we imagine the world to "really work.")

We imagine magic as science in another form and on a different world not because that world would really be different (if magic really worked on a different world like science does, as a technology, then that world would not really be different from ours at all, it would just be in a more primitive state of technological development, and the sconce merely proto-science, rather than magic), and not because magic would really be different, but simply because if magic were real then it would be so fundamentally different that few of us have ever exercised the real effort of imagination to describe just how exactly fundamentally different it would be. So we fall back upon easy analogies and simple paradigms and methods of conceiving of the world that are already familiar to us. (And usually uncritically unquestioned.)

Since we are discussing simple analogies and their effectiveness at disclosing or concealing the truth, then let me now use an analogy of my own. Suppose a Cro-Magnon individual were to encounter a modern jet fighter, like the Raptor, saw it flying over his head, performing maneuvers, perhaps strafing the ground, firing rockets. Think he would describe such a thing in technological terms? How exactly would he describe it? Devise new terms to accurately reflect the nature of his observations, or far more likely describe it in terms relative to his own and previous experience? (And why would he do the latter, because it would be more accurate, or because it would be easier?)

We do the same thing in reverse to magic.

Now could the Cro-Magnon man describe the Raptor (assuming he has a developed language) more or less accurately if he sat down and really tried to imagine how the thing might operate, what it really was and exactly what he had really seen. He certainly wouldn't be as accurate as the draftsmen who helped design it, or even one of us casually observing it in flight, but he could probably come much closer to the truth, be much more precise, than if he just said, "giant-fire-thunder-bird."

But we are really just in the same basic rowboat without an oar of truth as the primitive man when we try and describe magic in mechanistic, scientific, technological terms. Because if myth, and religion, and psychology, and stories from the past are any indication, any guide at all, then magic is anything but mechanistic, mechanical (in the modern sense), scientific, and proto-technological. Magic would rather be much more like a force arising from the souls of men, than from their minds, and only laziness of habit makes us try to imagine magic as a mental construct, as a paradigm of the mind (because we are a mind obsessed culture) rather than as a psychic (as the Greeks meant the term, to describe the soul) contract and a paradigm of the spirit.

We aren't able to even imagine the real possibilities of magic, as out ancestors could, because we are self-absorbed in our own view of the world. (I am not debating what view of the world is superior by the way, I don't consider the scientific paradigm either superior to, or inferior to, a psychaec paradigm.) And for that reason we also cannot imagine magic as intimately related to personal heroism. Because through lack of imagination we can only imagine it as technological in nature, and therefore cold, impersonal, and open to easy manipulation and exploitation from anyone and from any source.

(And this, by the way, explains where all of the Heroes went. Because when the magic of Heroes moves from being an internal force of character, of personal nature, and of the soul, to being a "technological force" then magic stops being magic at all, it becomes a mere mechanical contrivance. And Heroes are not creatures of technology, that is to say they can employ any technology available, but it is not the technology that makes them Heroes and it is not the technology that evokes magic from within. Magic cannot create Heroes, Heroes create magic. Because in at least one sense, they are magic. The Heroes, like magic itself, now slumber in an artificial womb of wires, gear-plates, cogwheels, and a precisely suspended chemical soup of how magic is weakly imagined. And you can cook up a lot of things with modern chemistry, but one thing you can't cook up with such a febrile recipe is a real Hero. The best you can do is just to create different versions of the same Clone. Heroes are cooked in the hot-kiln of personal struggle, not in the tepid tea-pot of impersonal technology.)

That isn't how our ancestors saw magic (that is, a modern construct or viewpoint of magic, that magic is separate from the user of magic, and indifferent to his fate). Even as late as the Arthurian legends magic was intimately connected to the user. It arose from his soul. No one else could effectively use Excalibur or the magic inherent in it because that magic was in some way directly tied to the nature, character, and soul of Arthur. Merlin's magic likewise came from within him. (For that matter so did Aragorn's, Gandalf's and Sam Gamgee's - the real hero of the LOTR.)

With science, all of the laws and principles come from outside ourselves. They operate external to our wishes. Gravity works on you regardless of your opinion of it. It is by learning to internalize the ideal of the objective that a man learns to harness and control forces and powers external to himself. Technology is the embodiment of learning to master external force and redirect it as one wills for useful purposes.

Magic is the exact reverse, if myth and so forth are any guide. Magic is the process of observing and then mastering the forces within an individual to render a unique and characteristic expression of internal force. But magic is not tame-able, as technology so often renders the external world. There always remains a "wild aspect" of the soul that makes magic very, very different from mechanistic, Newtonian physics. Magic can do the impossible, operates in an impossible way, renders impossible effects, and also remains untamed and uncontrolled. Magic is the embodiment of learning to master internal force and redirect it as one wills for greater purposes. We through lack of imagination describe it as a science, as controllable, as predictable, as technological, when in every way, from how it is invoked to how it operates it would be much more like "shock and awe." Not as a simple display of "shock and awe," not as visual cue nor a military metaphor of the precise application of force, but from beginning to end. From genesis to revelation, odd things would be occurring, things that could not be explained, predicted, or prepared for, in a scientific sense. (There is however perhaps one form of science which would have some parallel properties to magic, and that would be Quantum sciences. In some respects anyways.)

Magic arises from within the individual and so is heroically tied to the destiny of that individual. Only the outward expressions of magic become visible and manifest in a way that in some respects seems similar the operations of scientific principles, like electromagnetism, or the strong and weak forces. But that is an illusion, an appearance, a simulacrum, a phantasm of the mind that tricks modern men into thinking that just because a thing looks like something else it must be similar in nature, it must operate in the same way. That because a fireball looks like a big ball of plasma they operate the same way and are triggered by the same source. Hell, that's even bad science, it is certainly very bad magic.

Because magic is a Quantum of Solitude, not a quantity of science. It is intrinsic, not geometric. It arises from the souls of individuals, not from staves of dead wood and funny shaped crystals.

So games and game designers should go back to the true and original sources of magic, and discard the foolish notion that a Ring of Wishes and Radio Waves are the same kinds of things, just packaged differently. They are certainly not. Try this right now. Turn on your Wish Remote and wish yourself into being Conan the Barbarian. See how this world, and the principles that govern it, work differently than magic?

Now, does anyone honestly imagine that describing magic in terms of electromagnetic spectra, neutrino wave transmission, and technological artifaction is the very best way to describe how magic would operate if it did operate?

If you do then I gotta Portable Hole made out of an atomic singularity I'd like to sell ya.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Jack7

In other words we only imagine magic would work like a technology because that's the only way we are conditioned to think of it.

Most D&D players treat magic like technology because that's how it's used in the game, ie as a tool.

edit: and the in-game magic that isn't a tool is usually a plot device.

It's no more complicated than that. Anything else is sophistry... not that I'm knocking sophistry mind you, it can be very entertaining. But let's call a spade a spade (note: that was a pun. A spade is a tool. Even if it's a +5 Spade of Digging).

[Rel]

Re: The "laws of physics" in fantasy worlds...

Them's more guidelines than actual rules.

[gizmo33]

Originally Posted by Jack7

That isn't how our ancestors saw magic (that is, a modern construct or viewpoint of magic, that magic is separate from the user of magic, and indifferent to his fate). Even as late as the Arthurian legends magic was intimately connected to the user. It arose from his soul. No one else could effectively use Excalibur or the magic inherent in it because that magic was in some way directly tied to the nature, character, and soul of Arthur. Merlin's magic likewise came from within him. (For that matter so did Aragorn's, Gandalf's and Sam Gamgee's - the real hero of the LOTR.)

Maybe you're defining magic in a way that's not obvious to me, but I think there are tons of counter-examples to what you're claiming here. The first two that come to mind:
1. Aladdin and the magic lamp
2. Tristan, Iseult, and the love potion.
These two are examples of people using magic not "meant" for them.

The entire field of alchemy of pseudo-scientific and mechanistic in a way that contradicts what you're saying. In fact, I'm able to say that I'm "skeptical" about your claims in a fundemental psychological difference in this area, thanks to Greek philosophy that is firmly grounded in the time period that I think we're talking about. There are plenty of examples of magical thinking in the modern period and scientific thinking in ancient times - though it can come down to definitions.

The One Ring was used by Bilbo, Frodo and other people - and on top of that was sought by pretty much everyone else because it was what you're saying magic isn't. In fact, in one episode Excalibur was stolen by Morgan LeFey and I don't recall that it was said to be unusable by anyone else.

Speaking of Arthurian legends - I wonder (and I don't think I'm the only one) how much of those stories are influenced by forgotten religious beliefs and practices. The notion that Merlin's powers are unique to him has some basis, but is also contradicted by the story of his eventual imprisonment.

Religion can tend to focus more on the soul/spirit of the practitioner, and yet even in this it is not exclusive. Sacrifices, signs against the evil eye, and various other talismans seem very mechanistic in their description - you kill an animal in the temple of a god and you get a good harvest - what you're thinking at the time doesn't seem to be an issue.

[Ydars]

The problem with D&D magic is that is an entirely separate and distinct entity that is not connected to any belief system or any natural force or event. It is never used as a way to displace our scientific assumptions about the world, so of course we fall back on what we know. If the game world told us the world actually was flat, then we, as players, would be forced to accept that this was true of the game world. Similarly, if we are told how magic works and how it functions (even if this is not always logical or predictable) then we would be able to use it and interact with it in a meaningful way. Yet D&D completely sidesteps what magic is and how it works, except to allude to Vance, whose views on magic were fairly obscure and not completely explicit.

So of course magic gets used as a flavourless tool. It was designed to be used that way, though some might say this was a mistake.

Magic originally arose as a way of explaining the world and how it functioned. It was tied to how ancient peoples percieved their world and their own place in it.

There were obviously many magical traditions that became associated with various belief systems and all could be mined for ideas; Cabalism, the philsophers stones, the doctrine of signatures, the law of arcane connections, etc. The problem is, what results would be closer to Ars Magica than D&D and it is probably too late to do more than nudge D&D towards this now.

The irony is, that Gygax's original decision on magic allowed lots of different worlds to evolve because of the lack of this kind of fluff. Now we have a unified cosmology for all the D&D worlds with 4E, it actually would be more feasible to create a unified theory of magic than at any time in the past.

[Ydars]

Oh and the idea that people in a world ruled by magic would be as blase about it as we are about technology only have to think about the medieval world to realise this is not true.

Ancient peoples all believed in magical forces and realms beyound their own senses and up to thw 18th century, people were afraid of the dead walking in the the UK and of possession by evil humours and miasmas that were often associated with magical forces. Even most religions were thought of as magical to most peasant folk and the divide between the arcane and divine did not exist. The queen's own physican cast horoscopes before giving treatment in the 1700s, as did the famous herbalist Culpeper. it was all part making sense of a magical world.

We understand such things are nonsense because of education and even someone who has never been to school understands a hundred times more about the way the world works than any person in the medieval world because of TV and other ways of acquiring "general knowledge".

The key thing about magic is AWE; this was a very familiar feeling to ancient peoples. They could observe many more things than we can now about the natural world as they lived so close to it. Yet they could explain almost none of it and so stood in awe of the majesty of it all.

[Mallus]

Originally Posted by Ydars

So of course magic gets used as a flavourless tool. It was designed to be used that way, though some might say this was a mistake.

The trick is to make magic flavorful while still acknowledging it's role in the game is primarily as a problem-solving tool.

Magic originally arose as a way of explaining the world and how it functioned.

In the real world. In D&D worlds magic arose as a toolbox full of artillery shells.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by Mallus

In the real world. In D&D worlds magic arose as a toolbox full of artillery shells.

Hmmm... I'd say that in D&D rules magic arose as a toolbox full of artillery shells (plus a variety of multi-tools and scanners). That says very little about how magic arose in D&D worlds, which presumably would have an in-character perspective and would probably have more in common with how beliefs about magic developed in the real world. The main difference in this case is that the beliefs about magic in D&D worlds, being part of fantasy fiction, were not necessarily domitable by real physical laws and could develop as an alternative means of explaining and manipulating the environment.

To push on from there, from an in-character perspective, the common features involved in manipulating magical forces could certainly come to approach a level of technology - albeit one that allowed talented individuals, whether that talent came from innate ability, divine connections, or long study, to manipulate the environment in ways that could otherwise break the standard physical laws binding other forms of technology. That, I think, takes magic out of the realm of regular technology as far as the feel goes even if it does bear some similar trappings.

[gizmo33]

One of the challenges/problems with basing an in-character perspective on folklore or history is that AFAIK magic was always described from the perspective of an outsider. In DnD terms - wizards in stories are always NPCs - at least in folklore. When actual occult practices, like the Rennaissance stuff, is documented they become very mechanistic IMO. I think the lesson from that is - the less you know about magic the more wonderous it will all seem. The relevance to DnD is that putting all of the magic rules (like listing magic items in the PHB) in the hands of the players runs counter to this sense of wonder. I think it's a real challenge to make a rule system for a character (wizard) whose folklore persona is basically about breaking rules.

[Gentlegamer]

I think what Jack7 is saying could be made by analogy to how the Force was described in the original Star Wars films compared to how it was described The Phantom Menace.

I think he may have a point there, but I won't attempt to apply it to RPGs, specifically D&D.