Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2707013" data-attributes="member: 18280">Absolutely.Of course, in most game worlds, we do not see thousands of years of uninterupted magical research, do we?&nbsp; That point is rather critical.&nbsp; Most fantasy worlds postulate a &quot;golden age&quot; where more was known than is at present.&nbsp; It was this era that built all of those underground ruins and destroyed cities that adventurers like to loot for....well, for relics of that lost era.Also, magic is not science.&nbsp; It is utterly reasonable, within the context of &quot;magical thinking&quot; to claim that Principle A applies only to a subset of problems.&nbsp; With science, of course, any principle that applies to one problem can be applied equally to any related problem.&nbsp; This may or may not be true with magic.Actually reading some pre-scientific era philosophers would be a tremendous boon for many DMs, allowing them to present a world which is consistent in theory, but which is not scientific in nature.RCPS:&nbsp; How, exactly, do we know that the technological level of magic hasn't changed, anyway?&nbsp; Perhaps the current world norm leans toward a higher standard of magical arts than previous centuries....?PPS:&nbsp; I should also note that I am not saying that a D&amp;D game has to assume a pre-scientific society/philosophy.&nbsp; After all, Eberron makes a strong case for post-scientific fantasy worlds, as do series such as the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen graphic novels.&nbsp; 3.X, in fact, is the first version of D&amp;D that does this well.&nbsp; That said, though, a post-scientific society should not be considered a &quot;given&quot; either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 2707013, member: 18280"] Absolutely. Of course, in most game worlds, we do not see thousands of years of [I]uninterupted[/I] magical research, do we? That point is rather critical. Most fantasy worlds postulate a "golden age" where more was known than is at present. It was this era that built all of those underground ruins and destroyed cities that adventurers like to loot for....well, for relics of that lost era. Also, magic [I]is not[/I] science. It is utterly reasonable, within the context of "magical thinking" to claim that Principle A applies only to a subset of problems. With science, of course, any principle that applies to one problem can be applied equally to any related problem. This may or may not be true with magic. Actually reading some pre-scientific era philosophers would be a tremendous boon for many DMs, allowing them to present a world which is consistent in theory, but which is not scientific in nature. RC PS: How, exactly, do we know that the technological level of magic hasn't changed, anyway? Perhaps the current world norm leans toward a higher standard of magical arts than previous centuries....? PPS: I should also note that I am not saying that a D&D game has to assume a pre-scientific society/philosophy. After all, Eberron makes a strong case for post-scientific fantasy worlds, as do series such as the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen graphic novels. 3.X, in fact, is the first version of D&D that does this well. That said, though, a post-scientific society should not be considered a "given" either. [/QUOTE]

Verification