Magic-tech - A Story of Love and Hate

[Sejs]

I love it, but to qualify that, I love it when it's done right.



Either:

A) When it's presented as having been a part of the society for some time, and the two concepts are realistically integrated, even if the two have problems directly interfacing. Magic can do X, but technology can do N, and knowing where one starts and the other stops. Oh, that mage just went invisible - paint bomb the area where he was. If he's still around, we'll pick him up.

or,

B) When having both magic and technology is a reasonably new thing to have come about, and the society is still getting its feet back under them and figuring out just how things work, and work with one another. The Shadowrun setting would probably be the best example I can think of this; technology's been around forever... and now there's this magic stuff, too. FAB layers in walls to block astral (etherial, in d&d equivalent) bodies from passing thru them. Automated gun turrets around summoning circles in case the critter breaks loose. Security guards who don't necessarily know what exactly magic can do, but do know that if you ever get into a firefight with intruders, you shoot the mage first.

 

[francisca]

I voted loathe it. But, hey that's just me. I like a more straight-up (whtever that is) fantasy.

To those of you who dig it, more power to you.

 

[dekrass]

I voted love it. I love the shadowrun style for magic-tech, but good systems are hard to come by. I'm still trying to make it work in D20 modern, but as it is in the core rules there is no reason anyone would be a mage.

 

[Nifft]

I voted "meh" -- I'd like to see Magi-Tech well integrated into a setting.

However, I'm still waiting to see Magic well integrated into a setting, so my hopes are low.

-- N, fingers crossed for Eberron

 

[AIM-54]

I voted meh, for a couple of reasons.

While I do love Shadowrun and its mix of magic and tech, as others have previously mentioned, that same dynamic, IMO can't be effectively replicated in a D&D or fantasy type setting. Fantasy tech just doesn't interest me that much and my preference tends to run towards low magic anyway. There's nothing worse than having gone through a tactical planning process and then have some smart-ass mage say, "why don't we just do X magical affect?" Takes all the fun out of it. But I'm more of a tactical wargamer style player.

But having played Shadowrun for so many years, D&D magic just seems kinda lame.

 

[Desdichado]

Since magic-tech doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, you'd probably have a better response if you were more specific.

 

[BryonD]

None of the above.

It is simply a different type of setting.

Not even "meh" because I can loathe it done poorly and love it done well.

 

[Alpha]

Love it.

My favorite setting, Rifts, is a great example of a cool setting where they nicely integrate the idea of magic with the idea of technology(tho really it's all over the map in which type of integration is being used where). My favorite games go so far as to combine elements of magic with elements of technology, as Rifts does with Techno-wizardry, or d20M does with the Techno-mage(e-spell, anyone?)

Now, whether or not you appreciate the Rifts mechanics is a different matter, but a good setting deserves praise...

 

[ivocaliban]

Loathe it.

Although, that's a little misleading. I dislike it, but there are exceptions. I truly dislike campaigns or worlds in which magic and technology have equal footing. I like Castle Falkenstein and I've ran Werewolf games dominated by Glass Walkers and Ratkin. While I do have a natural aversion to tech (even in the real world), it is an aspect that I can and often do enjoy if it only makes up a very small portion of the setting. Gnomish Tinkers, Dwarven Engineers, and other things of this nature are great, because they can add flavour to a campaign.

It's when magic and technology both function perfectly well side by side that I begin to have my doubts. I'm more of the Mage: The Ascension mindset where Technology/Science is directly opposed to Magic/Mysticism. The belief of or reliance in one overshadows the other. I guess I'm a purist in that I like my fantasy mostly fantasy and my sci-fi mostly sci-fi.

 

[Roman]

I voted loathe it. Now, that is not strictly true, but for the most part it does hold.

Originally Posted by Herpes Cyneplex

I even like the way most magic-tech settings state or imply that civilization is improving itself, discovering new things, setting higher goals, and generally making the world better than it was before. I get so sick of the tired old genre convention that says "a long time ago, there was the ultimate Golden Age of magic and enlightenment, with flying cities and no sickness and everything was great but then disaster struck and now all that's left are the uncanny and inexplicable artifacts of our great and powerful ancestors and we're just rebuilding our little shantytown of a civilization in the shadows of their mega-cool ruins, and isn't it sad how lame we are now compared to back then?" I think there's more than enough room for settings that say the best works of civilization are ahead of it rather than far, far behind it. And I admit that's a snobby and petty attitude, but I did say that all of my reasons for kind of liking magic-tech were little ones.

Yes, the campaign I run intermittently over the summer holidays does have progressing and improving magic, which will surpass anything seen in the past (unless something upsets the progress... which will probably not happen since I am the DM and would not like that, but you never know the ) but it does not have 'advanced' technology.