Interesting article about magic in RPGs

[Dire Bare]

Of course, there is also Dr. Faustus, though he's an anti-hero.

Well, Faustus isn't really the magician in the story. His power is not only supplied by Mephistopheles, but the big M pretty much runs the show and does all the work.

D&D warlocks have so much more control over their infernal pacts than their literary counterparts . . .

 

[Janx]

Some of Jack's idea is a bit further than I might go, namely having spells shift in nature as it travels. That affects the "reliability" which may impede game-ability.

However, the basic idea of a m-dimension that overlays our own is interesting, and could be used in a modern setting to "explain" magical effects. Given in the real world, there's very little reference in myth to wizards throwing fireballs, and there's nobody remotely credible claiming to have magic powers to throw fireballs (though there are people claiming to do other non-tangible magic).

So, running with the idea that magic effects are non-tangible, it would be explained that magic alters the m-dimension, and if the power is strong enough, it warps the dimensions we see in some fashion (generally as indicated by the spell). Kind of like Einstein's bowling ball on the bed.


One model idea is that as a dimension, it runs in a line, a measurement of the force. It has existance in the x,y,z dimensions as well. I using the term dimension as our perception, rather than "alternate plane of reality". If you were storing coordinates (say for a PC game), you'd record the x,y, and z position of the item. The m dimension would be another variable in that set. Only "sensitives" would be able to see or manipulate it.

Or it could be a whole plane, which could be easier to explain. But I like the idea that it's invisible on the physical plane, and yet it can manipulate/affect it.

 

[Jack7]

However, the basic idea of a m-dimension that overlays our own is interesting, and could be used in a modern setting to "explain" magical effects. Given in the real world, there's very little reference in myth to wizards throwing fireballs, and there's nobody remotely credible claiming to have magic powers to throw fireballs (though there are people claiming to do other non-tangible magic).

That's an interesting concept about modern day magic, and I really like the phrase, "m-dimension."

I'm personally not thinking of it so much as a pocket universe, or a separarte dimension, so much as a confined space of other, overlapping dimensions, but it seems that it would in practical effect, actually and temporarily create a sort of sub-dimension all it's own. So I really like the phrase, "m-dimension," to cover that. Mind if I use that?

Course, when it comes to fantasy and myth I think I'd phrase it differently, but in term of modern and sci-fi subject matter, that's pretty good.

 

[Janx]

you're welcome to use it. I might use it as well, consider it "public domain"

the nature of it being a "dimension" like x or y, or a parallel universe, or pocket universe is wholly up to your usage.

Much like when I describe it as part of a coordinate system, that in effect acts like another plane of existance.

Consider a game board (I tend to consider a reality model from the perspective of a programmer) where the world is on an 8x8 grid.

Let's say I place you at x=4 and y=5, which is nearly center on the board.

If I add altitude axis z, let's assume 1 is the "ground". I can set your z to 100, and you'll have a completely different view of the world. You might also be falling, but that depends on if we have gravity.


Let's expand the axis limit to infinity, or at least a really big number, much farther than the eye can see.

If I set my X to be 1,000, you could accept that I'm too far away to see you at 4x5x100. Or that there's a lot of objects in the way.

Now if I add an m axis to the map, most folk (like myself) can't even imagine how that would be modeled on screen.

In a most simplistic model, the 4th axis is akin to the server number you are playing an MMO on. If you're M=0 and mine =1, it is akin to us playing the same MMO in the same location, but hosted on completely different servers. We can't see each other, but if a 3rd observer saw our screens, they'd note that we are both "in the same place".

Note, this example breaks down if you really interpret our "same location" as not the same because we're hosted on different servers, don't take it by the literal technological implementation, merely by the presentation of space.

What I mean then with this example is that most people tend to think of alternate planes and dimensions as wholly seperate locations. The reality is, all it really takes is a shift along a different axis, and you are "in the same place as you were, but not"

As a storage medium of "objects", having a 4th dimension (that isn't time) gives you buttloads of places to put things. The result is, there's room for worlds upon worlds, all in the same "place"

In some ways, this is how I envisioned TSR's plane model when they talked about the Prime Material Plane, and referenced alternate material planes. It implied they all existed in the same "plane", but along a different axis.

There's my free model of a "reality", it isn't the only one.

 

[Celebrim]

That's an interesting concept about modern day magic, and I really like the phrase, "m-dimension."...Course, when it comes to fantasy and myth I think I'd phrase it differently, but in term of modern and sci-fi subject matter, that's pretty good.

There are alot of things in modern string theory that can be readily adopted as the basis of a magical universe. For example, although its not clear to humans sitting on this relatively large chunk of rock and iron, gravity is mysteriously much weaker of a force than the others that are known. Yet, it maintains its strength over greater distances. One of the guesses string theory makes about how the universe really works is that gravity is actually as strong as the other forces but that most of its force is actually perpendicular to this universe and therefore pulls in a direction we cannot observe or feel. What this suggests however is that an observer, like say a fairy, angel, djinn, or thing from the dungeon dimensions, sitting on a higher dimensional plan could readily observe everything that happened in this one in great detail by sensing and monitoring the changes in the pull of gravity as things in this universe moved about, while we on the other hand might have only the dimmest ability to sense anythinig that they did.

 

[Jack7]

you're welcome to use it. I might use it as well, consider it "public domain"

Thanks. I appreciate that.

Let's say I place you at x=4 and y=5, which is nearly center on the board.

If I add altitude axis z, let's assume 1 is the "ground". I can set your z to 100, and you'll have a completely different view of the world. You might also be falling, but that depends on if we have gravity.


Let's expand the axis limit to infinity, or at least a really big number, much farther than the eye can see.

What I mean then with this example is that most people tend to think of alternate planes and dimensions as wholly seperate locations. The reality is, all it really takes is a shift along a different axis, and you are "in the same place as you were, but not"

One of my buddies and I had a conversation like that once and we both concluded that depending upon one's condition of genesis, or state of origin, one really can conclude that the sun revolves around the Earth or that the Earth is the center of the universe. Of course, in such a scheme any place or time can be used as a reference weltanschuuang, and some points have greater claim to objective "gravity" than others, but then again, from a certain point of view;

"Deus est sphaera infinita, cujus centrum est ubique, circumferentia nusquam..."

So, maybe, is much of everything. At least in one way or another.

There are alot of things in modern string theory that can be readily adopted as the basis of a magical universe. For example, although its not clear to humans sitting on this relatively large chunk of rock and iron, gravity is mysteriously much weaker of a force than the others that are known. Yet, it maintains its strength over greater distances. One of the guesses string theory makes about how the universe really works is that gravity is actually as strong as the other forces but that most of its force is actually perpendicular to this universe and therefore pulls in a direction we cannot observe or feel. What this suggests however is that an observer, like say a fairy, angel, djinn, or thing from the dungeon dimensions, sitting on a higher dimensional plan could readily observe everything that happened in this one in great detail by sensing and monitoring the changes in the pull of gravity as things in this universe moved about, while we on the other hand might have only the dimmest ability to sense anythinig that they did.

CB, I personally am not a big proponent of String Theory per se, but I very much like the idea of sensing things through gravity (and through other basic universal forces). The idea of things like Gravity, having both universal and specific meanings (or Gravities if you will) beyond their immediate and apparent physical function seems both natural to me as a practical concept, and implicational to me in a spiritual sense.

(I've always suspected that Gravity, and many of the other forces, but gravity in particular, has both a physical and scientific and pragmatic function, as well as a psychological and spiritual function, and your idea of angels and other beings "sensing" or monitoring changes in conditional states is a fascinating one to me. Think for instance of God, just as an idea, using Gravity to instantly "illuminate" all of physical time and space in the same way we might illuminate objects with a spotlight - only in the case of gravity the energy would be self-renewing whenever and wherever mass was involved, that is to say gravity would not diminish over distance when concentrated upon an object of interest, but would increase its effective utility - but Gravity would allow not only exterior illumination, but simultaneous interpenetrating illuminations, while also altering the interactive courses of spatial and temporal relationships between both gigantic and miniscule objects. Of course gravity as we know it probably breaks down at the quantum level, but perhaps there is a corresponding "spooky force" that would be used for corollary functions at that level. Still, gravity as a sort of universal or omni-penetrative illuminator. I like the concept.)

And I'm peculiar to the idea that there are still many forms of energy (and maybe some forms of matter) that exist beyond the range of both human sensory capabilities, and current human technology, so the idea of forces and forms of energy (or even dimensional spaces and temporal currents) moving or acting perpendicular to, or even obliquely against, normal dimensional structures appeals to me.

Those are some really good ideas you suggested and have given me some interesting things to think about.
Both as regards science and God, and as regards magic.

 

[Celebrim]

CB, I personally am not a big proponent of String Theory per se..l

I'm not either, in as much as it doesn't appear to be testable. Of course, it points to a general problem science is running into right now, in that its increasingly unclear how many of the big questions that science would like to answer will ever be testable. I used to work in genetics, and you'd do these statistical reconstructions to try to create a philogenetic tree to answer questions like, "When did turtles branch off from the main reptile group, and for that matter are these things we call reptiles even closely related to each other at all?" And the problem with that is that at best all you will ever have is a good guess, because the event you are trying to describe is lost to history somewhere in the distant distant past and we know for a fact that information isn't conserved. All we can talk about are 'likely' events, but we can never reconstruct the actual event itself.

What happened 'before' the big bang? Does the question even have meaning? If it doesn't have meaning, why did time suddenly begin when it did? Are we just one universe of many, and if we are how will we ever know?

At my most skeptical, this reduces most paelentology for me to a level just above that of 'Just So Stories'. How did the fish get his legs? How did the bird get his wings? How did the insect learn to fly? Even if you have a good guess from the evidence, how do you test that event and reproduce it in a lab? As a computer scientist, I'm even more skeptical of computer modeling as a solution, because its really only one step removed from Aristotle sitting in his closet imagining what the world must be like. The complexity of the model just serves to hide its utter banality and independence from reality. As any game player ought to know, just because the results feel or look realistic, doesn't mean the underlying engine has anything to do with how the world really works. It just means you've massaged the simulation to the point that it feels right.

Think for instance of God...

See, I just wasn't going to go there.

Of course gravity as we know it probably breaks down at the quantum level...

Alot of things break down at the quantum level, which is itself a really mysterious problem. Why is the quantum level so jittery? What force is driving all this randomness, and is it really random or is that just or best approximation of it because we can't see what is really going on?

If magic can play with quantum probabilities, you've pretty much got your whole scientific magic problem solved right there. The spontaneous creation of energy or items, teleportation, levitation, time travel, etc. are all basically just really unlikely quantum events. Though the probability of any of them occuring in the lifetime of the universe is essentially zero, none are strictly speaking impossible. For me this raises a really interesting point, which is, if anything is possible, then if we saw magic how would we ever know it was magic and not merely a really unlikely random event? Any sequence of unlikely events could simply be explained as that. For example, we might imagine a visiting magician trying to prove he was a wizard, so something like the following might happen:

Wizard: "I'm going to drop this crystal vase, and it will land intact on the floor. Ta duh!"
Scientist: "That proves nothing. There is a million to 1 chance of that happening. You just got lucky."
Wizard: "Fine. I'm going to levitate this apple in the air. Ta duh!"
Scientist: "That proves nothing. There is a 1 in 10^23 chance of that happening. You just got lucky."
Wizard: "Fine. I'm going to throw this baseball through this pane of glass, harming neither the baseball or the pane of glass. Ta duh!"
Scientist: "That proves nothing. There is a 1 in 10^60 chance of that happening. You just got lucky."
Wizard: "Well, what would it take to convince you of my sorcerous power."
Scientist: "Well, you could do something that is impossible."
Wizard: "Nevermind then, I'll just go away."
Scientist: "Just as well, I never believed in you anyway. The idea of a wizard is just far too improbable to believe."

And I'm peculiar to the idea that there are still many forms of energy (and maybe some forms of matter) that exist beyond the range of both human sensory capabilities, and current human technology, so the idea of forces and forms of energy (or even dimensional spaces and temporal currents) moving or acting perpendicular to, or even obliquely against, normal dimensional structures appeals to me.

Actually, I'm not terribly fond of that notion, although I don't dismiss it as impossible. I'm not even convinced that the so called 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' aren't experimental error or even, as was in the case of Michelson–Morley experiment, evidence of something we have no expectation of, and we are awaiting some Einstein to tell us what our measurements really mean.

At heart, I'm a scientist. I believe the world is studiable and knowable. I just accept that there are probably limits to how knowable the world actually is. But the idea that there are common things like fundamental forces out there that we can't observe because they have no effect on how the universe works is one I'm deeply skeptical of. If there is anything left unknown, it must be either really big or really small, for otherwise we'd have observed it at least indirectly.

 

[Flatus Maximus]

In a most simplistic model, the 4th axis is akin to the server number you are playing an MMO on. If you're M=0 and mine =1, it is akin to us playing the same MMO in the same location, but hosted on completely different servers. We can't see each other, but if a 3rd observer saw our screens, they'd note that we are both "in the same place".

Nice analogy. I'll try and remember this next time I get asked "What is the fourth dimension?" by one of my students ([size=-10]whippersnappers[/size]), most of which play WoW or some such.