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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sorrowdusk" data-source="post: 5429263" data-attributes="member: 96342">For me-when it comes to Science VS Magic in fiction, often (but not always) there's only ONE difference: The Trappings. What you're talking about is the difference between HARD SF and SOFT Smoooshy SF. A mad scientist creates a "device" that does something, ANYTHING it doesnt matter what (How many times has Star Trek just 'invented' "sensors" for EVERYTHING) . The author may in fact NEVER attempt to explain the "how" at all, or he may just invent a "new particle" or "new type of energy" , or similar implausible unobtanium (How many times has Star Trek done that?) or whatever to handwaive it away that issue or that episode, because the "how" is not actually important to the plot. In effect, in this situation there is no difference between a Mad Scientist, a Magician, or an ancient shaman save the trappings the author uses to dress up what they do UNLESS you are Hard SF.  Two wizards and two spacers are communicating. Both pairs have "crystal globes" on their desks that allow one another to see each other and communicate, and both are wearing robes and have funny hats because their in fashion. The author never explains how either one works, but you make your assumptions based on the trappings of everything else. Some require you to have a little suspension of disbelief and are ingrained in current knowledge "what could the future be like?" whereas variations may require you to throw it out the window.  What about Spiderman? There's plenty of "scientific" explanation for all his abilities he's a mutant. Plus Parker is really smart and into science himself. But...how did he get his powers? A radioactive spider bit him and somehow... who knows why this combined the spiders DNA with his own and... you see what I mean? Radiation is definitely a REAL thing, but it often comes up in Soft Sci-Fi to explain anything and everything-it never kills people or gives them cancer (unless they're red shirts), there's always one dude or fantastic four that survives and becomes changed in some beneficial way.  When they removed Doc Manhattan's "intrinsic field" -what was that really all about? What about all the things he could do? Was it magic or science? The language and the trappings tell us its "science" and for the purposes of the story IT IS albeit completely fictional. But magicians could just about do the same thing in another story, and it would be magic because they're magicians and not science at all. By your "annoyance" at telekinesis defying known laws of physics, you seem to have a distinct preference of one over the other-which is fine. But simply being "soft SF" does not make something NOT SF. You seem to believe that because a fictional work or motif, or notion or what have you -should only have the SF tag if and only if it contains a certain % of actual known science, and everything depicted fits within the parameters what should actually be doable based on what we know.  I would consider Futurama for example a Sci-Fi Comedy, same with Venture Brothers (well the later is more specifically a Pulpy Sci-Fi-Action-Adventure-Comedy that draws heavily on Johnny Quest.) "How does the ship get around the universe so fast?""It doesnt. It moves the universe around it."-Prof. Farnsworth  Let me throw Star Wars out there as an example. You've got this clearly SF setting at first glance and then BOOM-MAGIC. You've got a SF setting, but then you've got this quasi-religious order of monk like dudes that still study swordsmanship (albeit plasma beam swords), meditate, and channel "THE FORCE" a mysterious thing that no one can explain and they can see the FUTURE enabling them to avoid attacks, sense events across the UNIVERSE, and create forces at will to fight or lift space ships outta swamps.  But then... (and it miffed some people) They remove a little of the mystical and bring in Medi-cholorians, little symbiotic life forms in peoples cells. This explains WHY some people are force sensitive and some people are not-so the potential is actually medically measurable and thus not just a spiritual thing. It also means that lots of cybernetics is bad for your force sensitivity (and suppposedly Vader could have been immensley more powerful than he already was. Its said that Sidious was dissapointed in him, because he had lost much of his potential). Of course, you may still wonder HOW little symbiotic life forms actually enable people to tap into the force anyway, so its up to you to decide whether you think the Jedi are still mystical or they could entirely be explained by "science" that people of that setting just havent learned yet. So what genre is Star Wars, or narrower- what is "the force" in Star Wars? Is it fantasy? Is it Science fiction? Is it Soft SF? Is it a fantasy story in an SF setting? SF with fantasy elements? Science-fantasy fiction? WTH knows. And what about Ghost Busters? They encounter "psychoactive" slime that responds to emotions at a distance, and encounter "Class III Free Floating Non-Repeating Specters" which they acknowledge were created by cult activities in the Sedgwick Hotel's basement and later on EVIL GODS  "As a duly designated representative of the City, County and State of New York, I order cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place of origin or to the nearest convenient parallel dimension." "Are you a god?"  "...No..." And what do they fight it with? SCIENCE not "magic" weapons. And they repeatedly tell people they are scientists.  I think it mostly comes down to your opinion and how you want to define all these lables.   (I'll also bring up one RANDOM thing about Star Wars that just bugs me: If they have all this tech, everything else-why bother giving someone a mechanical hand or WHOA-A WHOLE BODY or something, rather than just cloning parts? Albeit, the full cyber and the helmet, and the breathing sound was badass. )   Um....why? I'm sure 99% of (basically I'm saying "most") scientists even open minded ones would propbably say they're all equally implausible and "silly". They dont exist. Albeit, you can come up with "scientific" explanations for both to justify their existence within a fictional setting, none of which are all that believable to most scientists -but have the trappings of "science" either because they use apply sciencetific principles (in both right and wrong ways), or simply use scientific sounding terms or terminology. What I find interesting is that you will often see creatures or things that have fantasy origins explained in scientific terms in a fictional work(No we were wrong, they DO exist you fools! And here's why) but almost never do you see things with completely modern scientific origins explained in fantasy or magical terms (No we were wrong, the world isnt so scientifically explainable after all-its far more mysterious-)  (^EDIT: No, Lovecraft does that, albeit in the sense there are things we dont or cant understand, unkowable. But I dont think you see it written too often that science is just straight up wrong about something, and that a fantastical explanation is right. Until...you get religion. But I wont go there.^)  So tell me. Where did psionics in DnD come from? What inspired its creators? The elder more spiritual psychic notion-or 80 years of marketing by occult scholars that has become apart of pop culture? That "grey lump of jelly" in our heads may not "plausibly" have any extraordinary abilities, but it seems a popular notion in fiction and pop culture (the "we only use 10% of our braaains" BS). I WILL SAY that Gary himself has stated in interview and on this forum in FAQ that he does not belive in "magic" at all-but that he does believe in ghosts, because he has had what he believes to be experiences with them. Whether this means he believed in psychic abilities (of any origin, physical brain or spiritual) exactly, has not been stated. I myself do not believe in either.  I'm not saying there's any "right" or "wrong" way to portray psychic abilities in a campaign, its up to you as DM. Its SF to some people (mutant powers) and Fantasy to others (spirtualists and "psychic mediums), you could dress it up either way but at its core IMO when you strip it of everything, it doesnt belong to either one. Psychic abilities are NOT supernatural-but nor are they physical, what they are is fictional, and exactly what type depends on the author/creator and when you get down to it, the GM and the terms they wants to use. Its just that for me if I were to depict it, I would call it SF most of the time (depending on what else is in my setting/campaign.) When I see it, I feel an SF vibe. I'm just curious as to where you belive the notion came from in DnD.</blockquote>

Verification