Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jgbrowning" data-source="post: 2419917" data-attributes="member: 5724">I'm postulating (c) Their is no way to ever determine causal relationship even when one does X, Y always happens. This is a contradiction—this is what I'm thinking magic is—contrary to our understanding of how systems work. Regardless if they're "real world" systems or "pretend world" systems.There's no way to apply knowledge (of x then y) to form a framework about the "inner workings of magic" because the working (the magic) is a permanent black box since things never work the same way twice even when the results are the same.Only when you take the control of magic out of the players hands. As a DM I'm constantly saying "This works this way because of magic" and there's never been a need to explain how the magic works. Say I want a room that turns red, then blue, they yellow constantly. I just black box the magic and it happens. You're postulating that since the magic is predictable and replicatable, all things concerning magic are predictable and replicatable. I like to think that magic, by its very nature is counter to such laws, not just a "new" set of laws. Something completely different.Of course the world still has physics is so far as is related to game play because its not fun playing in a game with no boundries (I killed you! No you didn't! Yes I did! No you didn't!). But there's no need to assume that even though the game boundries function like scientific physics that they are scientific physics. Back to gravity, if anything could be the "cause" of gravity the knowledge of how gravity works is much less useful (and hence not a "building block" upon which more developed knowledge can be developed upon) than something like "gravity is caused by mass which is a disturbance in the fabric of the universe which is a simplification of space/time." The latter is a scientific idea upon which further ideas can be tested and studied. "Gravity is caused by something that is never the same thing twice" completely shuts down any form of real scientific study because the causality cannot be studied. Which is what science continually does... A does B because of C and C does D because of E. When C become X (a non repeating variable) figuring out the remainder of the chain becomes imposible, and hence scientific thought become effectively useless. Which is why you need to say your prayers when you're smelting iron. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />There's a third answer, none of the above. Magic. Magic can be the contradiction-can be both total random chance that functions as an incompletely comprehended pattern. I'm saying that magic doesn't have to make sense because it's magic, not reality, not a "different reality with it's own set of paramenters" but something that, although it can function repeatedly in the same manner (ala fireball spell), isn't restricted by our thoughts that repeatability indicates causality.Magic means that, no the "top level" awareness doesn't have a pattern but yet there are still identical outcomes.Imagine that magic really works backwards in time. Players are caused to cast a fireball spell because it's already gone off. Or at least imagine that for that one single casting of fireball, that's why it worked. The next casting will have a different causility. This type of thought makes magical studies something like someone's taste in art. Entirely subjective, and not quantifiable. Think of the consistancy in magic like the consistancy that everyone will have some art they like better than others. The bits and pieces are uncomprehensible but the effect (liking something better) is the same every time for different people. Imagine if the universe and magic was a preference, not a subjective reality that can be causaly studied.I'm challanging the idea that consistent, predictable action must come from a consistant predictable universe. I'm saying that magic breaks that concept because it's magic, not science.At a basic level yes, but to make modern metals, you need our modern concept of metalurgy to produce high-tech products. I'm saying imagine a world in which that knowledge, the knowledge of chemical reactions, is impossible to discover because it's not observably consistant.Not true, the DM can fiat whatever he wants because it's magic. Which is (sorta <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />) what the point of this is. Only the player works within a deterministic system. When I need a flying city, I just *poof* there's a flying city. When a player wants to make a flying city, I just *poof* here's how the flying cities work. As long as I don't openly contradict any existing rules (at least to the detriment of the players <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> or at least without informing the players first that I do things this way), there's no need to assume that there's a set physics concerning magic in the world the characters operate. A determinsitic system is used to provide players with guidelines in interacting with the environment that I non-deterministically created.In other words, If I can make water flow uphill, I don't have to accept that the rules are the physics of the world because I can make the water stop flowing uphill the instant someone tells me there's a studyable causality involved. Every change I makes changes the physics of the world the players are in.joe b.</blockquote>

Verification