how advanced is too advanced? [LONG]

redwing

First Post
My game world is rapidly moving through its version of the industrial revolution. History on this world has so far closely followed that of ours: from medieval to renasisance. However here is were the divergance starts.

Magic has been discovered. Not only has it been discovered, it has been kept in the hands of those who want to maintain power over society. Magic has not developed like a normal fantasy D&D world. Most spells are related/useful to society. There are a few spells designated for war. As far as the spells affecting society goes, think Eberron taken a couple steps further. Social revolutions have occured pertaining to the fields of agriculture, politics, entertainment, industry, travel, communications, etc. The world is based more on the society and the people living in it than a group of adventures questing to kill all evil.

Jump 50 years into the future. Magic has seeped into several parts of society but hasn't become so common that vending machines sell scrolls and is not as powerful as grand wizards casting fireballs from towers. (Think low power and rare) Now comes the discovery of technology. Steam power has been discovered along with gunpowder. This technology is discovered by the commoners and therefore held by the people.

Jump 30-50 years later. Magic and Technology have grown together, albeit competitively at times and aiding one another at other times. Social revolutions are still occuring and the world is on the edge of what is believed to be a golden age (so they believe).

Now we have high powered/common magic and high powered (steam, etc.)/common technology trying to find its place in this changing world.

The world would have a somewhat steampunkish/victorian (Wells/Verne/Twain) leaning toward tolkien/howard/leiber fantasy.

Technology and Magic in theory are practically the same thing. There are three components to this theory: source, means, ends.

The source is where the power comes from either: technology or magic. The means is either: the machine (gears, springs, wheels, belts, axles, etc.) or the components, somatics, verbal encantations. The ends is the exact same thing for either. There are two ways to produce fire: a create fire spell or a flamethrower.

My question to you is: How far is too far? Seeing as how the effects are the same and the concept of the world/game is this struggle, each side needs to be equal. So where do I stop? I'm wanting it to be a victorian feeling. As I have mentioned the socialogical implications of both magic/technology are highly considered. Teleport, raise dead, messaging spells would shatter the normal notions of a fantasy world. Using technology as an example, where should I stop so I don't alter society so far from the victorian standard? (each technology will have a magical coutnerpart) The following lists of inventions were all actually created before 1875 (except for radio in 1912), so technically they fall into the 19th century. But do they have the victorian (yet still fantasy) feeling?

Communication: typewriter, printing press, telegraph, telephone, radio

entertainment: photography, motion pictures, phonograph

lighting: candlelight, oil, gaslamp

I have already chosen the level of advancements in other fields such as travel, health, agricultural, industrial, domestic, military, etc.

NOTE: I still want this to be somewhat fantasy (swords, armor, etc.) so I have only advanced guns to the flintlock stage. ALSO I know some of these (radio, telephone) should be obviously NO and others like the entire listing for entertainment should probably be NO as well, however, if there are spells in D&D that mimic these inventions, why shouldn't there be technology to do the same thing magic can do? Should I just limit the communication/illusion spells? Again I will state: my campaign style (and players preference) is not that of a normal D&D campaign. There is more political intrigue and how the world and its many societies change over time. We don't have a high suspension of disbelief and if there is magic there must be a realistic resopnse from the world, right down to the commoners (not just spell slinging adventurers). So the level to magic/technology will play a heavy role in the tone of the world and how society reacts and the philsophical, moral, and ethical issues that stem from them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oh and I have read the thread a few below this one. It was somewhat the inspiration to post this.

I guess I would also like to include one more area for discussion: military.

As quoted from the "peanut butter in chocolate thread:"

Quote from Celebrim:

"Which is precisely why it gets away with 'blaster' fire that moves slowly enough to dodge (on screen speed is 200mph or less, which is about as fast as an crossbow bolt), characters wielding swords in an environment which presumably could include mortar and artillery fire (see how well you block a 155mm anti-personnel shell detonating within 15 meters with a light saber), flamethrowers, and weaponry more deadly than a .50 caliber machine guns, sniper rifles, or automatic 40mm grenade launchers. To say nothing of micomissiles, smart mines, mini-nukes, sonic weapons, and the rest of here and near future military tech. And its precisely why it gets away with space combat that follows the conventions of WWII fighter combat right down to the speed of the space fighters, the lack of guided munitions, the relative speed of thier weapons, the effective engagement distance, and the fact that they must make long swooping turns."

Would swords and flintlocks be equal on the battlefield? I'm pretty sure anything further advanced would definately not be.
 

One limiting factor you're going to have to play with, and in some cases fall back on, is discovery and advancement of application.
You already have an environment where magic came first, technology second. So while the initial rush of invention and discovery will shorten the initial gap somewhat, magic is starting with a significant head-start. As far as things like "Moving Pictures or pre-programmed Illusions" the question doesn't have to be why wouldn't they create motion pictures, but has anyone figured out the method to DO so yet. There are scads of technologies we don't use because they are still science fiction; no one has figured out how to DO them yet.

I think if you apply that limitation on some of these questions, you'll find yourself checking things off on the technology end with very little effort at all, deciding in that way that feels natural and right which have and haven't been within the bounds of technological advancements to-date.

Those also leave you with areas you already have mapped out for when you decide they should be invented/discovered. And if you've done the thinking on the matter now, you'll have a fair idea of how you want those technologies to play out in relation to the magic counterparts when you allow tem to come to be. It's all frosting. :)
 

Remove ads

Top