Over-explained magic is boring. Magic is better when it's

>>48926668
Question:
How can you have rules for something without explaining it?

>>48926668
Shadowrun

>>48926704
Explain whatever you give players access to, which can be anywhere from none to a lot, and have even more going on that's beyond their comprehension. For a simple example, think of a party of fighters. You could have magic be this weird, mysterious shit and they have to fight, talk, sneak, and generally be clever to beat it.

>Over-explained magic is boring. Magic is better when it's mysterious.

This is true, but the problem with translating fantastical magics a tabletop game is that you still need to create mechanics for that magic. No matter how mysteriously you fluff the source of the magic, everyone at the table still knows how the mechanics of the wizard's spell casting works and exactly what spells he has access to.

>>48926746
That's assuming you allow wizards as player characters.

>>48926800
It would be weird to have wizards and not let PC be one.
I don't know any RPG like that, D&D kind of set in stone the wizard in fantasy tabletop

>>48926668

Star Wars, before the EU and George went off the rails

>>48926746
Generally, you do it by creating more open-ended mechanics. Just because some systems nail magic down by the balls to the millimetre doesn't mean every system has to.

>>48927248
The One Ring.

The manufacture of a gun is amazing when you think of it, but the function isn't hard to understand.

All battle magic would be like that.

Which parts of magic do you think needs to be "mysterious". And how do you balance mystery?

>over-explained technology is boring. Physics is better when it's mysterious.

>>48928799
If I wanted technology, I'd just play sci-fi. When you explain it, it's no longer magic. At that point it's just physics with different rules.

>>48928937
If something exists, it's physics. That venn diagram is a circle.

>>48929025
Science is an epistemological approach. It's one that has tended to be pretty successful, admittedly. Physics is a branch of science. Not everything that exists "is physics" because physics is just a way of understanding things, and even then, only a way of understanding them at a certain level (hence physics not being the only science).

Magic is an entirely different approach to understanding the world, which predates science and which is still practiced by some people. In some cases, it is very complex and detailed, and in other cases it is more fluid and intuitive, or just based on old folk tales and superstitions.

Creating a world where magic works means creating a world where understanding the world through certain kinds of intuition, through the manipulation of symbols, and through legends and so on, is as effective as trying to understand it through science. If magic worked, which I don't believe it does in reality, it might be something that physics could study, but it wouldn't "be physics" at all.

And there is still debate about how science itself works, among philosophers of science (for example, does it present us with "truth," or just with models that have predictive value)? So even that has some mystery to it.

>>48929109
Wow, semantics, cultural relativism, and appeal to philosophy all in one post? Time to close this tab!

>>48929109
>Magic is an entirely different approach to understanding the world
magic is a phenomenon, not an "approach"

the process of science could be applied to ANY phenomenon ( even magic) to understand it

and no scientists ever says it presents anything but a model,
only philosophers do, and they are entirely useless so no one cares what they think

>>48929148
>semantics
are important sometimes.
>cultural relativism
It's not moral relativism. It's useful for understanding how other cultures see things. You can still say they're wrong.
>appeal to philosophy
I didn't appeal to anything. I pointed out it's a discussion that happens. There was no argument on one side or the other from me.
>>48929149
>magic is a phenomenon, not an "approach"
Magic in the sense of spells can be thought of as the equivalent to technology, created based on information gleaned in some way besides science.
>the process of science could be applied to ANY phenomenon (even magic) to understand it
Sure, but maybe in a given setting technology doesn't exist, or maybe it cannot physically be invented, to measure the source or origin of magic.

>and no scientists ever says it presents anything but a model,
>only philosophers do, and they are entirely useless so no one cares what they think
Scientists do say that. There have been debates with scientists on the side of "scientific realism." Also, philosophers invented science.

>>48929238
Technology is a phenomenon, and science can be applied to it, its called reverse engineering

>>48929238
>philosophers invented science
no they didn't.
the term philosopher has shifted and I was using its current form to talk about the vapid pseudo "intellectuals" that you seem to refuse to discard

>>48928799

Consider that physics itself is actually much like magic already. We can measure and quantify gravity with great precision, but we still don't know why gravity is. Apparently it results from the curvature of space-time caused by matter, but we are not entirely sure why that happens at all.

In a sense, physics isn't the counter to that argument, it's an example. We can quantify magic, learn its properties, it's measurements, the exacting details of the shape that is a physical property, but we can't look into that box and see what's inside or what causes it to function the way it does.

>>48926746
One possibility here is to keep magic unpredictable, rather than always working the player wants it to. Dark Heresy and WFRP's Perils of the Warp tables are examples of this - players can end up with unpredictable side effects (or perhaps losing the effect they were trying to create entirely). Depending on this is implemented magic use can become or at least feel more dangerous.

D&D's fundamentally a game about resource management in an unpredictable environment (i.e. a dungeon), which is why magic in D&D tends to be quantified and predictable. It's meant to give players solutions to problems (at the cost of spell slots) that may emerge as they explore an unfamiliar environment - the dungeon in D&D is the source of the mystery and wonder rather than player capabilities.

If you remove the resource pressure aspects of D&D the magic system certainly does feel rather pedestrian.

>>48931545
This is a great explanation.

>>48931545
>>48931779
And making it inherent to some.
Like breathing for you.

>>48926668
Xianxia settings with Daoist magics do it the best.
Anything becomes magic after you train enough and meditate over it.

I've been sketching out a game system that tracks the time and has different powers available depending on your character/skills. You could have different powers throughout the seasons. At the same time I'm trying to keep everything easily modified cause idgaf how people play it.

Earthsea, although the intention of the series is to subvert escapism. Magic can't milk a goat, nigga.

>>48926668
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/magic/antiscience.html

not a setting but some tips on making it work in an RPG

>>48926668
The setting & system I am developing.

File: Nod.gif (3MB, 427x352px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 427x352px

>>48934012
Helpful

>>48926668
LotR

>>48929025
"Physics" implies that the rules are able to be reduced. Reductionism is by no means inherent to the universe and in fact we're still not able to apply it, yet, to several systems (consciousness, quantum mechanical oddities etc.)

Magic that is irreducible and ad hoc is far from physics as we understand it but can easily be part of a setting.

tl;dr you're a retard and don't know what the fuck you're talking about because your knowledge of science is based on memes and ritualistic application of grad-level knowledge (at best)

>>48929287
t. someone who thinks philosophy is the cliff notes from Wikipedia that he skims over and misunderstand because he can't understand the terminology

>>48926746
But is this really a problem? I don't think giving mechanics for something means you have to explain it, or that it loses its mysteriousness. Humans know the mechanics for making fire since several millennia, but only really understand it for a few hundred years. Magic to players in rpg should be like fire was to a stone age man - something they can control and make use of to some extent, but whichs full processes and true nature is far beyond their understanding and which can which can go horribly wrong if you are not damn carefull with it.

>>48931545
You'll need to make magic more varied and dangerous than in the Warhammer games to give anyone a real sense of peril, though. In Warhammer, you're just fine 99% of times, and the other 1% you either get a pointless flavour effect, or you die instantly. No one has ever hesitated to use magic because of the WHRPG rules, sadly.

>>48938372
Not that guy, but as someone who has had to suffer through the self-important blathering of an endless stream of old men and women with doctorates in philosophy, I think I can say with certainty that it's a useless field of "research" that has long outlived its usefulness.

>>48939697
In Rogue Trader and onward, you cause Warp Phenomena at doubles on a d%, so you have a 10% chance to get weird stuff when channelling normally. From there, the lower 60% of the table is pretty harmless.

But if you push for more power, it gets worse. You ALWAYS generate Phenomena, and you usually get some bonus on that table, making the high (i.e. dangerous) results more likely.


And the old Dark Heresy system was arguably WORSE, as was the magic in WFRP on which it was based. You roll a number of d10s equal to your Psy Rating and must beat some target score with their sum. ANY doubles cause Phenomena.

>>48939730
There is no field where you can say 'well guys we got everything useful, we finished the tech tree!!1' Philosophy gave us so much we consider essential today that people prior could not even imagine. I don't see how the position that a field has 'outlived its usefulness' could ever be tenable.

>>48939898
Oh, my bad. Let's resume studying alchemy, then, since we got a whole bunch of useful shit out of that as well.

>>48939890
No one ever pushes, except for powers they expect to maintain all day. And once you've accounted for all the added safety you get from being an astropath transcendent, the odds of anything really bad happening are insignificant. And when something really bad does happen, it's usually just an instant game over.

And yes, dude. Dark Heresy was way more dangerous. Not that that ever mattered, since you all you ever needed was minor powers.

>>48939730
The point of philosophy is to teach people how to think.

There will always be more people who need to be taught that.

>>48926704
Do not explain the context of the rules or why they exist.

>>48940218
This.

Your light spell lasts 30 minutes, but spooks any animal its light falls on. Why? Who knows? But it's a consistent rule.

>>48926668
Under explained magic is lazy. Magic is better when it follows a reasonable internal consistency in temper with the setting. What are some good settings made by people that understand this, in which I could set an fuck you op?

>>48940207
Except the teaching of people HOW to think is finished. Christian monks put the finishing touches on logic and argument centuries ago. Undergraduate level stuff, man.

Now it's about teaching people WHAT to think, with a hierarchy of predetermined value judgments. Like the rest of what were once the "liberal arts."

PhD in Philosophy means you're an expert in unfalsifiable bullshit and clever morality puzzles.

>>48940364
TES.

>>48940456
>Except the teaching of people HOW to think is finished.
No, it isn't.

There's a huge difference between teleological ethics, and deontological ethics, for instance. Part of learning philosophy is learning to recognise and differentiate the two, in order to understand how people construct meaning and purpose. Is proper action or proper aim more important? Not everyone would agree, and it's important to know why. You can't just ~logic~ that away.

The point of the "clever morality puzzles" isn't to smugly present a conflict with no right answer, but to highlight the fact that there are many "right" answers, and that they all depend on one's perspective. They are intended to confront the audience with their own morality, and force them to seriously consider what they believe and value.

And, fucking hell, science is founded on the Socratic Paradox - "I know that I know nothing". That statement is an acknowledgement of how limited and fallible human perception and knowledge is; an acknowledgement that we should always be willing to admit our ignorance, because the odds are good that a lot of what we "know" is actually wrong. It is the foundation of the scientific method, of critical thinking, and the learning process.

But no, no, anon says philosophy is over. Let's never talk about it again. I'm sure a world where everyone thinks they're completely right about everything all the time, and can't even begin to fathom why someone might not hold the same values as them, would be soooo much better.

>>48926668
You just need to explain about magic far enough that you warp back around into a bastardized mess of quantum physics and Phenomenology.

Do you want to read 50,000 words on why the Fae are unable to change themselves, and this dictates the intensely personal way the can affect the world in a fashion that some might misconstrue as magic?

Also, in lieu of Autism I recommend cocaine. It worked for Stephen King.

>>48929287
Wait, yeah they did didn't they? Wasn't the precursor to science literally called natural philosophy? Wasn't Francis Like, science is just a methodology of verification. That's why they call it the scientific method..

And philosophy already has a name and an insult for "vapid pseudo "intellectuals" ". They called them sophists right?

And hey! wait, no, you can be a philosopher of anything. You can get your doctorate in the philosophy of "blank". Like, this is a real thing. you can do it.

>>48940364
>Under explained magic is lazy.

No, not really. Not everything needs to be done in explicit detail to be compelling.

I think this video explains it well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHrTTgmB_3w

>>48940456
>Christian monks put the finishing touches on logic and argument centuries ago. Undergraduate level stuff, man.
You can't pass undergraduate logic without being able to construct truth tables. Truth tables were developed by Wittgenstein during WW1.
So, a century ago.
By a gay jewish aristocrat who volunteered to be a forward observer in WW1.

>>48940116
>en, since we got a whole bunch of useful shit out of that as well.
We did get a bunch of useful stuff out of it! Where do you think we got serious about metallurgy from? I studied painting in Uni, guess where alot of the (higly toxic) paint recipies started?

File: g1385538209824556122.png (135KB, 400x277px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 400x277px

>>48942025
Your right.

>>48940930
>I'm sure a world where everyone thinks they're completely right about everything all the time, and can't even begin to fathom why someone might not hold the same values as them, would be soooo much better.

That's the world we live in now, motherfucker.
The few people willingly engaging in any philosophy that involved people with PhDs is already going to have figured out basic shit like that on their own, or will be completely impervious to it already.

>>48942042
How do you get that I'm sarcastic, but get the part I'm sarcastic about completely wrong? I can't even begin to understand the kind of reason that made you miss my point so completely.

Did you just already have an answer that you wanted to post, and deliberately misunderstand my post so you'd have an excuse, however weak, to post it?

>>48938358
>hurr conciousness is magic
You're right on some of the quantum stuff though.