Clarke's principle on its head

[Sir Whiskers]

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.

...snip...

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.

Yep, I'm disagreeing with the statement as generally used by folks who haven't read Clarke or delved into its context.

I agree with Clarke - I personally prefer my science fiction to be *science* fiction, meaning it's a reasonable extrapolation of known science. Timothy Zahn is my favorite author of this style of writing (IIRC, he has a degree in physics), but Robert Forward and others are just as good. The all-too-common style of sci-fi where the science is basically magic (Star Trek anyone?) is really just fantasy in space. Such stories can be a lot of fun, but they generally have little or no science in their science fiction.

As for the statement itself, it really depends on the assumptions we make in defining "technology" and "magic". Silveras has done an excellent job of summing up why the statement can be quite reasonable. Of course, if someone changes his definition of what distinguishes technology, it can fall apart.

 

[Nellisir]

Any sufficiently convenient magic is indistinguishable from technology.

And thus I like magic inconvenient.

My rule is simple. If it obeys the laws of physics, it's science. If it doesn't, it's magic.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I suspect magic ceases to feel magical as soon as it's used in recognizable ways by the common man and for the common man's good. (Though it remains distinguishable from technology by the question: would it work in a strictly physicalist universe?)

The wizard's tower ceaselessly guarded by spectral hounds who can see invisible intruders and who is served by summoned fiends feels magical even though a writer changing the story to science fiction would just need to search/replace "wizard" with "mad scientist", "spectral hounds" with "motion sensors" and "summoned fiends" with "robots." The reason is twofold: first, the scientist and the magician are the same archetype. (In fact, the early scientists often were magicians, alchemists, and astrologers as well). They both seek control over their environment with means that ordinary men do not understand. The second reason is because the mad scientist's control over nature is something beyond the reach of ordinary men and that only he controls and that benefits him primarily.

The wizard who is doing research on a cheap form of binding lesser water elementals that enables anyone to command them (once bound) with a view to making them wash bowls, silverware, and clothes for the ordinary man does not feel magical. (Though, his research still is magical by definition because it depends upon spirits and elemental powers rather than mechanical or chemical forces). The reason for this is that the power he is researching would be usable and controllable by the ordinary man and benefits ordinary people as much as it benefits the wizard. Said wizard is recognizable as a type of entrepenuer or corporate researcher and is entirely familiar in his motivations and methods. It would be difficult to imagine him making a deal with the devil to gain his power or doing anything seriously questionable (while not required for D&D magic, the lack of support for that connection cuts him off from the wizards of folklore and mythology who usually did have to make such deals).

So reliability really has nothing to do with it. The warlock's powers are generally reliable. The classic necromancer's powers are generally reliable. The witch doctor's powers are generally reliable, are fairly well understood (he asks/commands/bribes/intimidates/traps/whatever the spirits, they do things for him), and are replicable (by another witch doctor of similar skill). What differentiates magic from technology by definition is the source of the power. What differentiates magic from technology in story is the way that it is used and the kinds of people who use it.

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?

 

[Dogbrain]

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.

A completely consistent and convenient "magic" (which is what one finds in D&D) is "magic AS technology".

 

[Silveras]

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?

When you can buy a Continual Flame torch and light your home with it.
When cities can put Continual Flame torches atop poles to light the streets at night.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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.

As I discussed on another thread some time back ("How to make magic feel like magic," or something like that), the first house rule I will implement next time I run a game is that this does not apply. Any PC will be able to take levels in a spellcasting class. This will not apply to NPCs; you cannot take a random 20 of your subjects with 11+ Int and turn them into wizards through training. The gods of magic decide whether or not someone has The Gift; it just so happens that any PC who wants to can have it (and any NPC who needs it for plot reasons, such as a BBEG or village adept). If the players ask why that is, the answer is simple - their characters are special. NPCs do not get max HP at first level, nor do they have elite ability score arrays.

That one change alone can do a lot to make magic feel special without hurting the PCs. You could also say that NPCs without The Gift can learn spells, but they have a chance of wild surge or similar effect. Or, you could say that most NPC magic is done through incantations, not spells.

If you say, "Without rarer NPC wizards/clerics, there will be fewer checks on PCs and they will be more powerful in the world." Okay, fine. They're heroes. And "checks" can still come in the form of powerful monsters rather than NPCs.

Just a few ideas.

 

[Silveras]

As I discussed on another thread some time back ("How to make magic feel like magic," or something like that), the first house rule I will implement next time I run a game is that this does not apply.
--snip--
Just a few ideas.

All fine. However, the point of discussion is that magic as presented in the Core rules is a technology, for all intents and purposes.

The implications of that are what make *me* crazy as a world-builder. If magic demonstrates the fundamental properties of technology, it will have the same effects as technology on society.

In the real world, advancing technology led to more efficient food production. More efficient food production led to more non-food-production time. More free time led to more learning (generally). More learning led to more advances in technology. More advances in technololgy led to more efficiencies in other types of work. More efficiencies in non-food-production labor led to more free time. More free time led to more learning. More learning led to more advances in technology.

This is a feedback system that is easily replicable with D&D magic.

The Plant Growth spell can, in one action, increase the yield of a 1-mile-diameter circular region by 33%. That is, by definition, more efficient food production. A group of clerics or druids could cast this on several fields per day for a few days, greatly increasing the yield across the whole area.

With greater crop yields, farmers can make more profit. Gradually, they can save up and buy that everburning torch.

In the real world, the availability of cheap lighting led to night life after sundown, both in terms of entertainment and working "3 shifts". With the availability of the everburning torch (which does not need its bulb replaced, and is not subject to power failures), ambitious merchants/guildsmen could have "3 shift" operations.

The key is, we are not talking *just* about spells. "Industrial magic" is often cast on things that don't get saving throws, and so is more reliable than combat magic.

 

[Pbartender]

Well, with respect to magical reliability in D&D, it's the Saving Throws, Spell Resistance, Attack Rolls and Variable Damage Rolls that make them (extremely, in certain circumstances) unreliable. Few D&D spell, however, threaten any actual danger to the spellcaster, if cast improperly.

Now, taking the magic-technology equivalency one step further, I've recently come up with an idea tht I want to introduce into my next campaign...

Proprietary Magic.

I mean, really, if you developed an extraordinary spell, would just hand it out so that every mope was sharing with every other mope? No! You's guard that power jealously, and charge people through the nose for the use of your magical convenience... Make them sign contracts and non-disclorue agreements.

You want to learn how to cast a Melf's Acid Arrow spell? Well, then you'd better go find Melf, and hope he's in a good mood.

 

[FireLance]

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?

I think I've finally figured out what to me is the difference between magic and technology.

It is not a question of reliability. You can have reliable magic (werewolves are always harmed by silver), and you can also have unreliable technology (the latest experimental gizmo).

It is not a question of mystery or unpredictability. Alien technology and undiscovered laws of science can be every bit as mysterious as magic. Chaos theory and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tell us that there are some things we can never know or predict.

It is not a question of rarity. You can have fantastic settings in which every person has some level of magical ability, and post-apocalyptic worlds where most cultures are savage and technological knowledge and tools are only in the hands of a select few.

The difference is a philosophical one. The philosophy of magic is that there are some things that cannot ever be known or discovered. The final answer to questions such as "How does this work?" or "Why is this possible?" is "Because it's magic." The philosophy of science or technology is that everything can be known and explained. It's the difference between "That's just the way it is." and "We don't know yet, but we will, someday."

Perhaps because I like closure, and I find stories in which everything is finally explained to be more emotionally satisfying, I lean more towards the "magic as technology" end of the scale. As a player and DM, I don't like campaigns where the dominant theme is "There are mysteries that can never be explained", and prefer those where the dominant theme is "There are mysteries, but they can be explained if you try hard enough."

 

[Silveras]

Well, with respect to magical reliability in D&D, it's the Saving Throws, Spell Resistance, Attack Rolls and Variable Damage Rolls that make them (extremely, in certain circumstances) unreliable. Few D&D spell, however, threaten any actual danger to the spellcaster, if cast improperly.

Now, taking the magic-technology equivalency one step further, I've recently come up with an idea tht I want to introduce into my next campaign...

Proprietary Magic.

I mean, really, if you developed an extraordinary spell, would just hand it out so that every mope was sharing with every other mope? No! You's guard that power jealously, and charge people through the nose for the use of your magical convenience... Make them sign contracts and non-disclorue agreements.

You want to learn how to cast a Melf's Acid Arrow spell? Well, then you'd better go find Melf, and hope he's in a good mood.

Of course, that just happens to be another example of the technology-social change dynamic.

Intellectual property and Non-Disclosure Agreements are outgrowths of social changes brought about by the invention of the printing press. The ability to mass-produce works that used to be laboriously copied by hand made it hard for the original authors to get paid properly when any enterprising sleaze could go, typeset a copy, and sell it.

Copyright laws were the result.

The direct result of creating a "copy" spell (as was done at one point in 1st/2nd Edition) would be that societies would adapt... and copyright laws would be created.

Magic, having the same function as technology, would have the same effect as technology.