Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Science in D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 7636370" data-attributes="member: 6669384"><p>To me the difference is simple: Science is reproducible. It's an essential component in the Scientific Method, after all. Reproduce the conditions and you will reproduce the results. Doesn't matter if I do it or you do it, if we do it in my lab or on a park bench a thousand miles from here. Push button A and effect B comes out, every time.</p><p></p><p>Magic, on the other hand, isn't hard-reproducible. As mentioned earlier, just because one person can produce colored lights in the air with a few words and gestures doesn't mean that just anyone can make colored lights dance in the air. It doesn't imply, in fact, that the same person could reproduce it on demand. Whether using a spell-point type of approach or a Vancian model, at some point the person runs out of juice and the words and gestures stop working.</p><p></p><p>My own image of magic in D&D is that it's sort of personalized: To produce a magical effect you have/create a "tool" in your mind, an imaginary construct that may or may not be possible in the real world. Once you have this, you apply will power and the tool works. For prepared casters the tool is consumed in the use. For spontaneous casters it isn't but you'd still need to "pull it from your toolbox" (i.e. bring it to mind) before you can use it again.)</p><p></p><p>Now I see that tool as having many properties: Size and shape, color, taste, smell, motion or change, and probably some emotional component; some particular feeling it involves or evokes. Hence, it isn't something you could build in any solid sense.</p><p></p><p>One reason for this being my model is the rules for copying the spells from some other source: You need to make a Spellcraft check each time. Why? Because the written spell in that book is a personal reference, a collection of thoughts and descriptors to help remind the writer of what's needed. Thus for one caster it might be a series of mathematical formula, for another it might be geometric diagrams or astrological references. The words, frequently poetic, are to help remind them of the emotional component. But the words don't all have to be in the same language, or even mattch each other if spoken in the same language. Gestures inspire the motion/change element, materials remind us of the smell/texture factor, etc. </p><p></p><p>But the words that remind one caster of that hollow, drained feeling needed for a spell might remind someone else of the afterglow of a lovely evening. So Spellcraft is needed to understand the other guy's mind set.</p><p></p><p>In this vision of magic, the words, gestures and materials are simply mneumonic triggers, crutches that make it easier for the caster to bring the spell/tool into focus. (Hence, doing without takes more effort and energy, so the spell is harder to cast.) Some may wriggle their fingers while others casting may resemble interpretive dance and so forth.</p><p></p><p>To relate all of this to the OP, I'll suggest that in this scenario magic isn't reliably reproducible even for the same spell being cast by different spell casters: Their words or gestures may be completely different, and their books or other source materials may not have any apparent similarities. That's why the average layman can't always recognize a spell that's being cast, even if they've seen it a hundred times. They need to decipher it and relate what they're seeing/hearing to the known forces used in spell casting.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Greenfield, post: 7636370, member: 6669384"] To me the difference is simple: Science is reproducible. It's an essential component in the Scientific Method, after all. Reproduce the conditions and you will reproduce the results. Doesn't matter if I do it or you do it, if we do it in my lab or on a park bench a thousand miles from here. Push button A and effect B comes out, every time. Magic, on the other hand, isn't hard-reproducible. As mentioned earlier, just because one person can produce colored lights in the air with a few words and gestures doesn't mean that just anyone can make colored lights dance in the air. It doesn't imply, in fact, that the same person could reproduce it on demand. Whether using a spell-point type of approach or a Vancian model, at some point the person runs out of juice and the words and gestures stop working. My own image of magic in D&D is that it's sort of personalized: To produce a magical effect you have/create a "tool" in your mind, an imaginary construct that may or may not be possible in the real world. Once you have this, you apply will power and the tool works. For prepared casters the tool is consumed in the use. For spontaneous casters it isn't but you'd still need to "pull it from your toolbox" (i.e. bring it to mind) before you can use it again.) Now I see that tool as having many properties: Size and shape, color, taste, smell, motion or change, and probably some emotional component; some particular feeling it involves or evokes. Hence, it isn't something you could build in any solid sense. One reason for this being my model is the rules for copying the spells from some other source: You need to make a Spellcraft check each time. Why? Because the written spell in that book is a personal reference, a collection of thoughts and descriptors to help remind the writer of what's needed. Thus for one caster it might be a series of mathematical formula, for another it might be geometric diagrams or astrological references. The words, frequently poetic, are to help remind them of the emotional component. But the words don't all have to be in the same language, or even mattch each other if spoken in the same language. Gestures inspire the motion/change element, materials remind us of the smell/texture factor, etc. But the words that remind one caster of that hollow, drained feeling needed for a spell might remind someone else of the afterglow of a lovely evening. So Spellcraft is needed to understand the other guy's mind set. In this vision of magic, the words, gestures and materials are simply mneumonic triggers, crutches that make it easier for the caster to bring the spell/tool into focus. (Hence, doing without takes more effort and energy, so the spell is harder to cast.) Some may wriggle their fingers while others casting may resemble interpretive dance and so forth. To relate all of this to the OP, I'll suggest that in this scenario magic isn't reliably reproducible even for the same spell being cast by different spell casters: Their words or gestures may be completely different, and their books or other source materials may not have any apparent similarities. That's why the average layman can't always recognize a spell that's being cast, even if they've seen it a hundred times. They need to decipher it and relate what they're seeing/hearing to the known forces used in spell casting. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Science in D&D
Top