D&D General What does "magic" mean? [Read carefully, you can't change your vote]

[Hussar]

But SF usually only uses one source of supernatural.

It's really only fantasy that does multiple forms of supernatural.

So saying the aliens who invade Midgard from planet Crogag are using magic because of SF comes off as backwards thought.

Not really. Fantasy just uses magic. It doesn't have to hide the fact that it's using magic because it's fantasy. Something traveling from one planet to another is probably not using magic. However, alien invasion stories are pretty rare in fantasy. Far more common are aliens (for a given value of alien) invading through magical gates who also have magic powers and are possibly magical in nature themselves.

I'd hardly call Cthulhu non magical.

 

[Oofta]

But SF usually only uses one source of supernatural.

It's really only fantasy that does multiple forms of supernatural.

So saying the aliens who invade Midgard from planet Crogag are using magic because of SF comes off as backwards thought.

Eh. Depends on how you define supernatural. Our best guess is that FTL drives are completely fantasy even if there's a ever-so-slim possibility that warp drive or worm holes may give us a work-around. But people accept FTL because it's SF. Add force fields, the force, empaths, healing people with light beams, every other planet having a breathable atmosphere, finding alien creatures nutritious or being able to mate (and even have offspring) with them, etc.

 

[Minigiant]

Not really. Fantasy just uses magic. It doesn't have to hide the fact that it's using magic because it's fantasy. Something traveling from one planet to another is probably not using magic. However, alien invasion stories are pretty rare in fantasy. Far more common are aliens (for a given value of alien) invading through magical gates who also have magic powers and are possibly magical in nature themselves.

I'd hardly call Cthulhu non magical.

I'm not saying nonmagical supernatural things are common.

I'm saying nonmagical supernatural things break both the Laws of Reality and the Laws of Reality Breaking Magic.

Science fiction rarely does double law break. SciFi is built on the building up science then busting down the constructed doors.

Fantasy lacks that core grounding and can go multiple layers of rule break.

The ultimate problems in D&D is the hesitance to construct limits on magic combined with the eagerness to add new material and inspiration.

Without limits, all the additions become "just magic" and lose some of their original flavor

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Yep, exactly. Except the way I see it, the deities were created that way too. They don't get to escape the blame that easily.

I disagree. Making sense of the nonsense means you can add more nonsense on top of it and have it all still work seamlessly.

Put another way: even nonsense needs a foundation to rest on.

Which is all great stuff! What I want to look at when worldbuilding is a) what really happened (i.e. are any of those tales even within a light-year of the truth) and b) how do the physics of it all work and-or what ties it all together.

Hmm...interesting, I don't want to know which of them is correct.

However, I do enjoy our attempts at noodling over nonsenses; yet, at any moment we can undermine and overrule it all with a "new revelation". And, when that happens we're reminded that it was never real all along.

 

[SkidAce]

If that were true D&D fans wouldn't be so hestitant about making 18th century or later science core aspects of the game as class features.

"I fire the LMG at the dracolich"

You laugh but...

 

[Hussar]

I'm not saying nonmagical supernatural things are common.

I'm saying nonmagical supernatural things break both the Laws of Reality and the Laws of Reality Breaking Magic.

Science fiction rarely does double law break. SciFi is built on the building up science then busting down the constructed doors.

Fantasy lacks that core grounding and can go multiple layers of rule break.

The ultimate problems in D&D is the hesitance to construct limits on magic combined with the eagerness to add new material and inspiration.

Without limits, all the additions become "just magic" and lose some of their original flavor

Depends on the SF really. As @Oofta alluded to, things like Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who and many, many others break pretty much any laws they feel like.

I'd say the larger problem in D&D is the hesitance to simply say, yup, it's magic, and move on. Typically new "flavor" means unique mechanics which has been shown, over and over again, to be far more trouble than it's worth. We'd have psionics in 5e if people wouldn't insist that we have unique mechanics for psionic characters. There's no need for new mechanics - the magic system works perfectly well for a psionic character, but, people want psionics to be "different".

Which, frankly, is never going to happen. Because every time you add on a "different" system for something, it immediately gets orphaned because future products can assume that you will have access to that different system.

Perfect example of this is the 5e artificer. Great class. No problems. I'm running Candlekeep right now and there's a module with a bunch of gnomish inventors doing stuff. Not a single artificer in the crowd. Despite having constructs and all sorts of stuff that scream artificer, there's nary a one to be found in the module. Why? Because artificers aren't part of the PHB. I will guarantee that they will be part of the PHB come the new release. And, after that, you'll start seeing artificers getting loving in the modules - magic items for artificers, NPC artificers, etc. But, until that time? They're just an orphan class.

Same goes for any new system you want to add into the game. Ghosts of Saltmarsh has an entire section on naval combat. It's never appeared or been used anywhere else. If you want your new "magic" (of whatever flavor) to be more than one and done, you need to incorporate it into the existing systems.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Depends on the SF really. As @Oofta alluded to, things like Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who and many, many others break pretty much any laws they feel like.

I'd say the larger problem in D&D is the hesitance to simply say, yup, it's magic, and move on. Typically new "flavor" means unique mechanics which has been shown, over and over again, to be far more trouble than it's worth. We'd have psionics in 5e if people wouldn't insist that we have unique mechanics for psionic characters. There's no need for new mechanics - the magic system works perfectly well for a psionic character, but, people want psionics to be "different".

Which, frankly, is never going to happen. Because every time you add on a "different" system for something, it immediately gets orphaned because future products can assume that you will have access to that different system.

Perfect example of this is the 5e artificer. Great class. No problems. I'm running Candlekeep right now and there's a module with a bunch of gnomish inventors doing stuff. Not a single artificer in the crowd. Despite having constructs and all sorts of stuff that scream artificer, there's nary a one to be found in the module. Why? Because artificers aren't part of the PHB. I will guarantee that they will be part of the PHB come the new release. And, after that, you'll start seeing artificers getting loving in the modules - magic items for artificers, NPC artificers, etc. But, until that time? They're just an orphan class.

Same goes for any new system you want to add into the game. Ghosts of Saltmarsh has an entire section on naval combat. It's never appeared or been used anywhere else. If you want your new "magic" (of whatever flavor) to be more than one and done, you need to incorporate it into the existing systems.

Or you use it in your home games, and WotC adventures don't matter.

 

[Minigiant]

Depends on the SF really. As @Oofta alluded to, things like Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who and many, many others break pretty much any laws they feel like.

I didn't say SF doesn't break laws. I said SF really creaks a law, breaks it, then breaks the lawbreaker's laws.

For example, a being with magic might be able to see through solid opaque walls unless they are lined with lead. This magic breaks reality.
This is usually where SF stops. Establish a rule or law then bend or break it.

Fantasy sometimes goes beyond and makes a breaker of the magic rules. It creates the "You can't do that with Magic!" stuff.

A monk with ki can see through lead lined walls by sensing life energy. A psion sees through lined walls if an intelligent people is on the other side and they can see into the being's mind and do it without waving their hands or talking.

I'd say the larger problem in D&D is the hesitance to simply say, yup, it's magic, and move on. Typically new "flavor" means unique mechanics which has been shown, over and over again, to be far more trouble than it's worth. We'd have psionics in 5e if people wouldn't insist that we have unique mechanics for psionic characters. There's no need for new mechanics - the magic system works perfectly well for a psionic character, but, people want psionics to be "different".

That can be a problem be the bigger one is how when new flavor is added to magic. It becomes more unrestricted and unbound and quickly unbalanced. You keep adding moreand more to magic then wonder why the game is flooded with rule breaking magicians on both sides of the DM screeen. More magic spells and magic items and magic beings tat become interconnected and then headaches form.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

Magic is whatever I say it is because I often apply it to things without regard to the logical consequences.

 

[Hussar]

I didn't say SF doesn't break laws. I said SF really creaks a law, breaks it, then breaks the lawbreaker's laws.

For example, a being with magic might be able to see through solid opaque walls unless they are lined with lead. This magic breaks reality.
This is usually where SF stops. Establish a rule or law then bend or break it.

Fantasy sometimes goes beyond and makes a breaker of the magic rules. It creates the "You can't do that with Magic!" stuff.

A monk with ki can see through lead lined walls by sensing life energy. A psion sees through lined walls if an intelligent people is on the other side and they can see into the being's mind and do it without waving their hands or talking.



That can be a problem be the bigger one is how when new flavor is added to magic. It becomes more unrestricted and unbound and quickly unbalanced. You keep adding moreand more to magic then wonder why the game is flooded with rule breaking magicians on both sides of the DM screeen. More magic spells and magic items and magic beings tat become interconnected and then headaches form.

Meh. Ten years into 5e and nothing terribly stands out as unbalanced.