D&D General Should magic be "mystical," unknowable, etc.? [Pick 2, no takebacks!]

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

On another note, the idea of magic and science being in opposition to each other is a very modern one. In a more historical view, science is magic. Take metallurgy, for example. In many ancient cultures, metallurgy held a special, mystical significance. Smiths could create incredible works by treating the metal they worked in just the right ways - ways which were esoteric to others. A “magic sword” would just be a particularly well-made sword, who’s properties might seem miraculous to someone who knows nothing of the science behind it. These techniques were probably arrived at through trial and error, but when you found something that worked, you kept at it, which meant things like saying particular prayers at particular points were often considered by the smiths themselves to be as important to the process as any of the direct physical actions.

A great example of this from history are the early Norse smiths, who would make weapons from bog iron, using bones and blood to try and make magical weapons by "imbuing the weapons with the spirits of the creatures the bones/blood came from". They were actually making a rudimentary type of steel, but they thought it was magic.

Another example is people making weapons out of meteoric iron, believing the weapons were supernatural because they were better than the other weapons they had, but this was just because iron is a better material to make a weapon out of than copper or bronze.

If you don't understand what's going on, you're more inclined to think that it's magical. We used to do this with lightning (Frankenstein's monster being brought to life through electricity, the Flash getting his speed from lightning), chemistry (alchemy), electromagnetic radiation (glowing radioactive ore), and we still do it with Quantum Physics.

If we don't understand something, we very commonly label it as "magic".

 

[Micah Sweet]

It also makes it hard for gaming if you have spellcasters in your game. The magicians need to have some understanding of the scope of what they can do for a game to work. (If you don't have actual PC spellcasters but do have magic that's another story - the modern campaign where the players are investigating weird occult phenomenon that has no rational explanation without access to the occult themselves - or with access that they can use but not understand - is a trope that works in a horror game quite well IME).

I tried to have a game where there is nagic but the players can't play spellcasters - nearly had a riot on my hands. Players hate magic if they can't have any.

 

[Charlaquin]

A great example of this from history are the early Norse smiths, who would make weapons from bog iron, using bones and blood to try and make magical weapons by "imbuing the weapons with the spirits of the creatures the bones/blood came from". They were actually making a rudimentary type of steel, but they thought it was magic.

Another example is people making weapons out of meteoric iron, believing the weapons were supernatural because they were better than the other weapons they had, but this was just because iron is a better material to make a weapon out of than copper or bronze.

If you don't understand what's going on, you're more inclined to think that it's magical. We used to do this with lightning (Frankenstein's monster being brought to life through electricity, the Flash getting his speed from lightning), chemistry (alchemy), electromagnetic radiation (glowing radioactive ore), and we still do it with Quantum Physics.

If we don't understand something, we very commonly label it as "magic".

I agree with your examples, but not entirely with the framing of “they thought they were doing magic.” I get where you’re coming from, they found approaches that worked but misunderstood why they worked, but I think saying “they thought it was magic” is still looking at “magic” from too modern a perspective. They were doing what they undrerstood to be proper smithing techniques, because it achieved good results. The ritualized elements were, in their understanding, part of what made it work as well as it did.

 

[Thomas Shey]

At the heart of this question is the tension between hard and soft magic but in my opinion one cannot really do soft magic in an TTRPG as that become a game of "GM may I"
All TTRPG magic systems are hard magic, in that they are codified in the rules even if things can go wrong.

There absolutely are soft magic systems. As you say, they can easily be a game of "GM may I?" but they exist.

 

[Dausuul]

Arthur C Clarke would like a word with you.

Arthur C. Clarke was a science fiction writer, not a fantasy writer. I think if you asked J.R.R. Tolkien for his opinion on the subject, you'd get a very different answer.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Arthur C. Clarke was a science fiction writer, not a fantasy writer. I think if you asked J.R.R. Tolkien for his opinion on the subject, you'd get a very different answer.

There didn't used to be a difference between Sci-Fi and Fantasy. It was all Speculative Fiction being called Fantasy.

There's a reason Spider-Man first appeared in Amazing Fantasy.

 

[AtomicPope]

I voted that magic should have a "mystical" component to it, because by definition it should. One of the narratives that I've been using in my Eberron campaign is "previously unknown magic." Baked into the Eberron lore is a terrifying, powerful, but lost magic in the 13th Dragonmark: the Mark of Death. Since some Dragonmarks are only heritable gifts it adds another layer of mysticism to it. Also, the Dragonmarks allow you to create new magic, like Warforged: a race of living constructs with souls. I like that there is something that is not in the spell books, a powerful magic that could spontaneously appear in an unlikely source. That really separates magic from technology or science as it's not repeatable nor predicable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I look at high-level physics equations and they might as well be arcane sigils to me.

Having studied the mystic runes, I can usually explain their overall meaning to those not initiated into the deep mysteries of the Kuwan Tomb and Kalul-Yuss, but true understanding requires years of study.

(More seriously, even as a physics student I found a lot of it mystifying, but most of the strange symbols are actually straightforward if you have a little bit of calculus knowledge already. Most are either "condense 3 equations into 1 equation so we don't have to write as much" or "this is just the label we use for this important number or the standard label for a measurement." Like how pi is the symbol for the number you need in order to calculate a circle's area, or x is usually the independent variable and y is usually the dependent variable. It's just Greek symbols and high-level math symbols because all the English letters had already been used up, and it's easier to know what's going on if you don't repeatedly re-use the same symbols.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I voted that magic should have a "mystical" component to it, because by definition it should.

Not...really? I mean if you dig deep enough in dictionaries you'll usually find references to the word "mystical," but several don't include it in the relevant definition being used here (that is, not the mere legerdemain that is actually possible IRL, but actual supernatural power). E.g. Dictionary.com gives, "the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature." (It uses "mystical" only for metaphorical uses of the word "magic," e.g. "magic beauty.") Merriam-Webster doesn't mention "mystic(al)" at all: "the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces." Collins: "Magic is the power to use supernatural forces to make impossible things happen, such as making people disappear or controlling events in nature." (Though it does reference the use of the term to refer to a "mysterious" or otherwise ineffable quality that makes something exciting--again, metaphorical uses only.)

So...yeah. The definition, when it comes to legit "powers," doesn't require mysticism. But it also doesn't forbid mysticism, and metaphorical uses of the term are sometimes explicit about it being a mystical thing, others eschew such references, and some imply "mystical" without actually using the term.

The only thing it actually seems to require is control, which is the one thing most pro-mysticism folks seem to dislike!

 

[Azzy]

The answer is:

It depends on the setting.

This.