Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 5028501" data-attributes="member: 54707">To a degree I think you're absoltely right.That's how progress happens.But what if magic is either the only real game in town or is perceived to be that way. That is what if the cost-benefit ratio is perceived to be acceptable because of no real alterative, or no current alternative. There are those, for instance, who think we should immediately move to hydrogen cars or alternative energy sources, and those who think without viable development and proven track records such moves are risky and silly. Then again others think such changes are totally unnecessary at this time and that all that is really required is refinement of current methods of use and production of known and proven energy sources. (I can see a really interesting background development in such a game setting where proponents of magic and proponents of science and technology come to logger-heads about which is the better and more proven method of manipulating reality. It would be interesting to see how each faction seeks to best influence both important leaders and political figures, and how each faction would attempt to persuade the public at large.)Given that then I don't really think it is always a definite delineation between risk to reward, but also towards perceived risk to reward, in both individuals and in social groups. A sort of background balancing act is always in play I suspect between future and potential/possible benefits, and what people know to work now and what cost they are willing to pay in regards to that certainty (even if that certainty is questionable in either immediate or long terms). In other words people become comfortable with things out of habit and there is a certain inertia towards change, regardless of whether that change is necessary and good, or unnecessary and counter-productive. But otherwise I agree. Generally speaking, and assuming you can disseminate an improvement and demonstrate it conclusively, most people will choose superior and safer methods over inferior and more risky methods. Of course educational levels, societal values, religious beliefs, beliefs about science and magic, cultural norms, and other factors would all have modifying effects.I think it would be much harder to model (if modeling is the way you went about it) than typical systems now employed in games. Not impossible, but much harder than current systems and allowances would have to be made.For instance you'd probably have to modify the psycho-centric expression of magic to be at least partly objective, and partly subjective. But I think it could be done. One thing I've thought about is the creation of a "magical and miraculous space" which exists concurrently and basically occupies the same space as the physical space in which events are occurring, but that events within this magical space are occurring in a  different way from physical space. To put this in science terms, the magical space, which would be partially physical and partially psychological, would be the hyper-space or worm-hole space of the psyche, but it would interact with normal space-time in a sort of constant fluctuation or oscillation. Then again I hate talking that way about magic, because once again it is reducing magic to technological construct, so let me put it this way, in the magical realm weird things happen, and in the mundane realm ordinary things happen, and when they overlap and vibrate against each other violently they alter each other in unpredictable ways. The magical realm or space might or might not be apparent or visible to all parties within the area it encompasses, and maybe the level of power or subtlety under which it operates would determine how it functions and appears (or fails to appear).That's one idea that has occurred to me.I agree here too. I think the paper is about much more than the point the OP concentrated upon, though that is also a valid point, or one way at looking at the primary objective of the piece.</blockquote>

Verification