Clarke's principle on its head

[Aaron L]

Making magic mysterious and wondrous is a burden that falls to the setting and/or players, not the rule mechanics. Making a game system that works consistently is wjat the rules are or. If magic in D&D had rules like Mage then we would hear neverending complaints of how unbalanced and broken it was (don't get me wrong, I love the Mage system of magic, but boy is it vague and easy to abuse)

And I really despise the idea of magic AS technology. Can The benefits of technology is that anyone can use a technological tool once it has been made. Can anyone use a wand or a staff? Can anyone cast a spell? How much training does it take to operate a car versus casting a fly spell? agic alongside of technology I love (Dragonstar makes me happy) but magic as technology makes me sick.

The idea of people going to work on their flying carpets and watching movies on their crystal ball TV sets makes me cringe.

 

[CyberSpyder]

No offense intended, but this is one of those sayings that sounds a lot more profound than it is. Consider, what does "sufficiently advanced" mean? Why, it means it looks like "magic"! If it doesn't, then it's not "sufficiently advanced".

Exactly my point. The original saying is circular - doesn't really mean anything.

Incorrect. The meaning lies in the differing understandings of what 'magic' and 'technology' mean. Technology, as a product of human thought and experimentation, is presumed to be comprehensible and understandable, whereas magic is seen as a mysterious thing operating on principles the human mind cannot grasp - except for a select few people.

The more advanced technology gets, however, the less we actually understand how it works. We see this today - for instance, I have only a very hazy notion of exactly how this LCD monitor of mine actually functions.

The point is, as technology becomes extremely advanced, it also becomes nigh incomprehensible to all but the people who actually made it - that is to say, it becomes magical.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Incorrect. The meaning lies in the differing understandings of what 'magic' and 'technology' mean. Technology, as a product of human thought and experimentation, is presumed to be comprehensible and understandable, whereas magic is seen as a mysterious thing operating on principles the human mind cannot grasp - except for a select few people.

The more advanced technology gets, however, the less we actually understand how it works. We see this today - for instance, I have only a very hazy notion of exactly how this LCD monitor of mine actually functions.

The point is, as technology becomes extremely advanced, it also becomes nigh incomprehensible to all but the people who actually made it - that is to say, it becomes magical.

If I understand your post, then anything that is sufficiently complex and mysterious can be compared to magic. So planetary ecologies are similar to magic. Weather. Social dynamics. Chaos theory. Pretty much anything which works, but is so arcane that only a few people truly understand it can be compared to "magic". But that only works if one defines "magic" as anything that only a few people truly understand. IOW, a circular definition.

Also, from reading the posts from others, it should be clear that "magic" means different things to different people. There are a lot of unstated assumptions in Clarke's saying - remove those assumptions and it no longer works.

 

[FireLance]

i agree, too bad the company that owns D&D doesn't

Well, if you want spell failure that badly, you can always wear full plate armor .

 

[FireLance]

Seriously, though - if you want magic to be rare, mysterious, unpredictable and dangerous, do the opposite of what Hong has done and ban all spells below 6th level. Then houserule that no PC can gain more than 10 levels in a spellcasting class. This way, spellcasters can only cast spells from scrolls and there will always be a chance that something goes wrong. In a crunch, you can always say that the scrolls are created by dragons or demons or something.

 

[Umbran]

The point is, as technology becomes extremely advanced, it also becomes nigh incomprehensible to all but the people who actually made it - that is to say, it becomes magical.

Well, let's give an example, shall we?

Your Computer is Made Out of Magic!

 

[Silveras]

I quite agree that, as presented, D&D magic is a form of technology.

The distinguising things about technology are: a) at maturation it becomes fairly reliable, b) when fully implemented it can be used without understanding the principles involved, and c) no special talent is required to operate it (although some amount of training usually is).

Consider the lever. A simple piece of technology. When placed over a fulcrum, it allows the lifting/moving of heavier objects than native strength alone.

a) At maturation, the principle of the lever arm is understood, and for any given lever, a practiced user knows how large/heavy an object s/he can affect. Failure does not indicate that the tool did not work, simply that the appropriate tool for the job was not available.

b) Most people have heard of the lever, and know to place it over a fulcrum of some sort, but comparatively few could discuss the physics involved. That is Ok, though; the technology works without understanding the principles involved.

c) Finally, no user of the lever needs to invoke some special talent to make it work. Given 3 people of the same mass and muscular strength, they would be able to move the same objects with equal ease. All that is required to operate the technology is the minimal training of showing someone the lever, fulcrum, and a large object being moved. Neither is any special talent required to make the lever. Some raw materials and a few tools are all that is needed.

Now, consider the continual flame spell.

a) Every time the spell is cast, it has the same effect. It does not fail without active interference (antimagic field, someone casting a counterspell, etc.)

b) The spellcaster only requires sufficient training as a wizard or cleric to be able to prepare and cast the spell. Theoretically, any character could "find religion" and take up Wizard or Cleric training, eventually learning enough to be able to cast Continual Flame. The spellcaster does not need to understand the principles under which the spell operates (i.e., does not have to re-invent/research it).

c) Aside from Sorcerers, the spellcaster does not require any special talent to cast the spell. With the same training, any character could do it.

Of course, there are some slight differences. Clerics need to be in good standing with their god/philosophy/whatever to draw on its power. Sorcerers need their "draconic" heritage (or whatever the DM substitutes).

By-and-large, though, magic would become technology. The wealthy would see an advantage in having a trained Wizard in the family. Education would become an increasingly valuable commodity. Trained workers, able to operate magically-enhanced tools, would become a strategic advantage for each nation.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Any indistinguishable convenience is sufficient magic technology?

Oh, how true this is.

Also, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a yo-yo.

Double also, DnD magic is pretty dang unpredictable. How many times have you had a mind control spell work when you actually needed it to?

 

[Tiew]

Hey Sir Whiskers, I'm going to have to defend Arthur C Clark.

As a general statement his famous law is a bit meaningless. However taken in context, as comment on science fiction writting, it's a very concise summing up of the philosophy he held to.

All but one (the worst one) of the Clarke short stories I've read have used technology very close to modern technology for his time. For instance, he had a story about satelite TV a couple of decades before the technology came into existence. I think to him part of the fun of science fiction was trying to imagine what it would be like after a few more steps of developement, or if we used technology we already had in a different way.

I think he liked to be able to give a reasonable explanation for how the technology he made up worked. I think he saw this as the superior way of writting science fiction. I don't think his law should be taken as a general philosophical statement. It's more of a subtle dig at a style of science fiction writing, and a defense of his own style of writting.

 

[Remathilis]

my point remains unchallenged..

Do you NEED magic to be unreliable, non-understandable, and unreplicable to be magic?
Can magic have a reliability factor that a layman can understand and still be fantastical?
Basically, When does magic STOP being magical and START becoming technology?