Magic vs. Technology

[Ginthaeriel]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

- Clarke's Third Law

 

Aren't all RPGs essentially escapist? Imagining yourself in a role totally alien to the mundane world where you live, where you are grander and greater beyond imagine, where you can effectively change the world and push your will upon it? Literature is the one realm where humans can truly play God-- where we are the only Author(ity).

 

We play RPGs, read fantasy or scifi, watch television, and all other forms of escapist entertainment, so we can BE with a character that has control over their lives-- that are actively effecting change, while we are mired in a society that more often than not, tells us what to do every step of the way. But to do that, we need power.

 

Escapist fiction- fiction which entertains the imagination with a world unlike ours- all require some means of power to change that world. You can't just have sharp eared ponces doing matrix bullet dives left and right without a reason. So that's what I'd like to discuss in this thread.

 

As far as I can tell, there are really only two different fictional methods of advancement of power: Magic, or Technology. It can range from a mundane and slight change of power levels: a secret agent with top secret gadgets (tech) or a child gifted with a strange ability to talk with animals (magic). Or it can be epic, with world changing shifts in power: A post-apocalyptic future where technology has truly been man's undoing (Fallout), or a land ruled by great mages who shape the world as they see fit (Forgotten Realms).

 

And if you think about it, although magic and technology can be very similar, they are also very different. Technology is egalitarian and society driven- once you invent it, everyone gets it. While magic is personal and heroic- only certain people are gifted with it, and it is they who must rise to the occasion. Technology is logical- if we can figure it out, we can conquer it. While Magic is imaginative- if you can dream it, you can do it. Technology is based on order: things follow rules, things make *sense*. Magic is based on chaos: anything is possible, so don't even try to control it. They're both forms of power, but they both got their own style.

 

All power eventually comes down to morality, which is why it seems escapist fiction, more often than not, is all about a struggle between the good guys and the bad guys. What would you do with all that power? Do you use it selfishly, tyrannically imposing your will on the world, or do you use it righteously, finding responsibility and virtue in your power and using it to right that which is wrong?

 

And so, I think if put in that context, the way technology and magic deal with morality would cast broad strokes on the very essence of the narrative or setting. Morality of the society is VERY different from morality of the individual. And if that's not enough, what happens when you combine both magic AND technology!?

 

I don't think anybody really knows the answers to these kind of questions, or else a lot of fiction would become terribly boring. So the question I'd like to pose and discuss is: which one do you think is stronger in RPGs? Magic, or Technology, or Both?

Edited February 21, 2006 by Ginthaeriel

[CoM_Solaufein]

I am usually against technology in fantasy games (magic) it does not have a place in it. I always felt it would ruin the fantasy aspect of the game if you started bringing in guns, cannons (gun powder), primitive flying vessels like diragables, etc. After playing Arcanum it changed my out look some what. I'm not so hard pressed set against thaving the two intermix.

 

Now if they started having technology show up in Forgotten Realms than I will be very disappointed.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I'm so used to it now it dosnt even phase me in the slightest. FFX's machina and religion theme worked incredibly and Star Oceans mix of magic and tech worked too.

 

Gunpowder weapons have existed in the FR for over 10 years. It's about time CRPGs caught up with the times. The struggle of magic vs technology would make for some interesting themes beyond the kill the bad guy cliche.

[Enoch]

As they have been traditionally used in CRPGs, there really is no difference. However, I'll make the case that magic has the potential to be far more intruiging.

 

Magic can be mysterious in ways that technology cannot. Technology can always be explained; magic doesn't need to be. In fact, it's better when it isn't. Unexplained magic gives the player/viewer/reader a taste of wonder and awe of the pre-scientific worldview. Like the villain in a horror film, when it is mysterious, the viewer's imagination fills in something far more effective than anything that the writers could actually put on the screen. It also can make magic using characters far more compelling. How cool was Obi Wan the first time you saw the original Star Wars? You had no idea what the depths of his power and insight were. Likewise Gandalf in LotR.

 

Of course, mentioning Star Wars brings up the best way to ruin magic: Explain it like Lucas did in ep.1. Most CPRGs, though, make this mistake even before the player opens the game box ("Wield 132 exciting new spells!!"). When all the magic that the player will confront or use in a game is spelled out in the manual (read: D&D), it's no different than any other character ability. The imagination factor is gone. Magic is best used as an unexplained force in the background of the gameworld. If it is to be used by the player, it should be unpredictable, situtational, and maybe even a little dangerous.

[Atreides]

It's hard to define "magic". The usual cliche is the spellbook with runes and spellcasting with chanting.

 

If the concepts could be understood and reproduced I don't think science/technology would have any qualms claiming it to be part of its own discipline. Magic seems to always keep getting relegated to "unknown" stuff.

[mkreku]

I wish the very idea of magic was forgotten completely. I prefer my games without any trace of magic whatsoever. Technology, on the other hand, is more interesting, even though I prefer real technology as opposed to the Star Wars naive technology.

 

I guess I want my games to be somewhat connected to reality. Real technology, no magic.

[Diamond]

Magic too can be logical and consistent with respect to gameworld.

As well as technology can be absolutely silly (Star Wars).

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

In my campaigns, especially where magic and technology exists I expand Clark's law a little bit.

 

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic as well as any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

[Llyranor]

The way it will be done in Tactica Online sounds pretty promising.

 

Game is set in an alternate Renaissance era. So, you get your alchemists, new technologies popping up, etc. Faction based on Da Vinci.

 

On the other side, the church still holds much clout. Go inquisitors!

 

And, of course, the magic-using heathens. BURN THE HERETIC!

 

Adding in the 3rd faction really makes it more appealing to me, in providing extra context. It also make magic more appealing at the same time, too. Playing heretics is more fun than playing every other mage in the gameworld.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I'd like to see a setting which took on the premise of Arcanum - of magic and technology opposing itself - but not on all levels, meaning some magic and technology could work together. The more powerful the magic and the technology involved, the more dangerous it would be to make them work together; but the smaller manifestations could probably function together, such as magical projectiles being fitted into and used as flintlock ammunition, or small magical currents being used in street lamps. Perhaps there could be a middle ground with the use of electricity for the powering of vehicules to be replaced with an equivalen in magic so you'd have magical powered steam trains or flying ships.

[Plano Skywalker]

Fantasy/magic will always be the tried and true turf to return to in the RPG but we do need to see more non-"fantasy" settings and more low magic/no-magic settings.

 

Star Wars is an excellent setting for an RPG because it has "magic" or "religion" if you prefer (i.e. the Force) and it also has technology....and, of course, it has space travel and different races of people....it is space fantasy.

 

It would also be nice to have more RPGs based on more conventional Sci-Fi stories and settings....some have mentioned a "Groundhog Day" RPG...I think that would be outstanding....and, of course, there is Fallout, which is based on science fiction (science fantasy) rather than magic-elves and dwarves-fantasy.

 

I would really like more historical, no-magic RPGs. Sid Mier's Pirates!, though not technically an RPG, is a good example of what I speak and would be a good template for a historical-based game like that.

 

Thing is, there are already a number of good, story-driven games like that out there...they just aren't RPGs (i.e. Half-Life 2).

[Darque]

I like a mix of Magic and Tech, like Arcanum or Final Fantasy.

[Gabrielle]

I don't like technology in fantasy games. Magic only, after all it's a middle ages fantasy setting.

 

Well the only exception to this is Arcanum. YeAH

[Ginthaeriel]

It's hard to define "magic".  The usual cliche is the spellbook with runes and spellcasting with chanting.

 

If the concepts could be understood and reproduced I don't think science/technology would have any qualms claiming it to be part of its own discipline.  Magic seems to always keep getting relegated to "unknown" stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I define magic as anything that does not follow natural laws, while technology as anything that exploits said laws to produce great effects. Yes, that's the Arcanum definition. Yes, I am shamelessly ripping off of that game.

[Diamond]

It's hard to define "magic".  The usual cliche is the spellbook with runes and spellcasting with chanting.

 

If the concepts could be understood and reproduced I don't think science/technology would have any qualms claiming it to be part of its own discipline.  Magic seems to always keep getting relegated to "unknown" stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I define magic as anything that does not follow natural laws,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like lightsabers? "

[metadigital]

Aren't all RPGs essentially escapist?

...

We play RPGs, read fantasy or scifi, watch television, and all other forms of escapist entertainment, so we can BE with a character that has control over their lives-- that are actively effecting change, while we are mired in a society that more often than not, tells us what to do every step of the way. But to do that, we need power.

 

Escapist fiction- fiction which entertains the imagination with a world unlike ours- all require some means of power to change that world. You can't just have sharp eared ponces doing matrix bullet dives left and right without a reason. So that's what I'd like to discuss in this thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a very bleak view of society. There is an alternative, positive view that we are in complete control of ourselves. As Eleanor Roosevelt wrote in the August 1960 Catholic Digest: No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

 

Sure, to change the world, it might be necessary to wield power in some magnitude. However it might just take someone setting an example, like Mahatma (Mohandas Karamchand) Gandhi's stand against violence. At no point did he force anyone to do anything, except by the weight of logic in his argument.

 

I don't just read / watch / play SF for escapist purposes. I can also use the work to expand thought experiments of personality and scenario, to investigate traits and discover under which circumstances they are virtuous and when a fatal flaw. (See my reply to your "morality" comment, below.)

As far as I can tell, there are really only two different fictional methods of advancement of power: Magic, or Technology. It can range from a mundane and slight change of power levels: a secret agent with top secret gadgets (tech) or a child gifted with a strange ability to talk with animals (magic). Or it can be epic, with world changing shifts in power: A post-apocalyptic future where technology has truly been man's undoing (Fallout), or a land ruled by great mages who shape the world as they see fit (Forgotten Realms).

 

And if you think about it, although magic and technology can be very similar, they are also very different. Technology is egalitarian and society driven- once you invent it, everyone gets it. While magic is personal and heroic- only certain people are gifted with it, and it is they who must rise to the occasion. Technology is logical- if we can figure it out, we can conquer it. While Magic is imaginative- if you can dream it, you can do it. Technology is based on order: things follow rules, things make *sense*. Magic is based on chaos: anything is possible, so don't even try to control it. They're both forms of power, but they both got their own style.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Technology = Magic, just like Clark said. The only difference is that what we understand we call technology, what we don't we call magic. That was his point.

If the concepts could be understood and reproduced I don't think science/technology would have any qualms claiming it to be part of its own discipline.  Magic seems to always keep getting relegated to "unknown" stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I define magic as anything that does not follow natural laws ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like lightsabers? "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. To us, unable to explain the physics behind the technology (assuming it is possible), it is magical.

 

I don't agree technology is egalitarian: ask the nineteenth century Zulus about how fair British munitions were. Colonisation depends on the abuse of the technology-haves against the -have-nots, whether it's the Athenian navy, Roman legions or the US SDI.

 

Magic is atainable by anyone learned in the arcane arts, just like anyone can use technology if they read a book. Don't healing potions used by fighters count as magic? A person of meagre intelligence is just as incapable of understanding rocket telemetry (reality) as nineth level spells (fantasy). The reason I pick your distinction apart is that it is entirely arbitrary. Magic doesn't permit anything to happen: at least not in CRPGs! Further:

Most CPRGs, though, make this mistake even before the player opens the game box ("Wield 132 exciting new spells!!").  When all the magic that the player will confront or use in a game is spelled out in the manual (read: D&D), it's no different than any other character ability.  The imagination factor is gone.  Magic is best used as an unexplained force in the background of the gameworld.  If it is to be used by the player, it should be unpredictable, situtational, and maybe even a little dangerous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. In the same way that people of the 1940s wielded atomic weapons without fully understanding their impact, magic is similar (unknown technology).

All power eventually comes down to morality, which is why it seems escapist fiction, more often than not, is all about a struggle between the good guys and the bad guys. What would you do with all that power? Do you use it selfishly, tyrannically imposing your will on the world, or do you use it righteously, finding responsibility and virtue in your power and using it to right that which is wrong?

 

And so, I think if put in that context, the way technology and magic deal with morality would cast broad strokes on the very essence of the narrative or setting. Morality of the society is VERY different from morality of the individual. And if that's not enough, what happens when you combine both magic AND technology!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good entertainment does not rely on magic or technology. That is just a juvenile expression of impotence writ large on the fantasy universe: the poor servant of reality becomes the master of fantasy; the "chosen" god-in-mortal-form for the epic determining battle.

 

Rather, engaging stories involve the interplay of strong, complex characters in a world where their strengths are tested and where supposed weakness may prove the winning ingredient.

 

Where assumptions are challenged.

 

Where intangible concepts like bravery, goodness and hope are explored: is it brave to fight against those who cannot win? Is it good to fight against non-evil for a greater good? What is hope: a rose-colouring, situation-underestimating weakness, or a mental decipline that provides an override for seemingly unbearable deprivation? Or both? Or neither? Was the Roman Empire Good? What about Stalin and his impact of the Soviet Union? Where does the definition of Good bifurcate; how much evil in a greater good turns the phenomenon evil?

 

These are the themes of the epic and the mythic.

[Ginthaeriel]

This is a very bleak view of society. There is an alternative, positive view that we are in complete control of ourselves. As Eleanor Roosevelt wrote in the August 1960 Catholic Digest: No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

 

Sure, to change the world, it might be necessary to wield power in some magnitude. However it might just take someone setting an example, like Mahatma (Mohandas Karamchand) Gandhi's stand against violence. At no point did he force anyone to do anything, except by the weight of logic in his argument.

Ah, but did Mahatma Gandhi or Eleanor Roosevelt play or read very many SciFi RPGs and books? I'm not saying that life is essentially out of control, rather, I am saying that the popularity of the SciFiFantasy genre is based on feelings of powerlessness. I'm not pushing any personal philosophy, and I don't think that's the kind of thing someone can convince others of, but that train of thought probably belongs in WOT.

 

However, it does not seem that you disagree with my thesis that escapism is, at the very least, a large factor in the popularity of the genre.

For example, I think Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness says more about the nature of evil than any Drizzt book ever will.

I don't just read / watch / play SF for escapist purposes. I can also use the work to expand thought experiments of personality and scenario, to investigate traits and discover under which circumstances they are virtuous and when a fatal flaw. (See my reply to your "morality" comment, below.)

Well, personally, I don't think Sci Fi/Fantasy is the best genre for doing that, then. The amount of time devoted to creating the setting and describing it would, in my opinion, get in the way of a good character study. This is just me, but I find that many personal "flaws" possessed by the heroes of Sci Fi/Fantasy stories are really nothing but well-tread gimmicks these days.

Technology = Magic, just like Clark said. The only difference is that what we understand we call technology, what we don't we call magic. That was his point.

But that simple difference can be expanded on so much, and thats what I want to explore. It's not just a simple matter of them being the same thing, or else why would the genre be divided so clearly between Science Fiction and Fantasy? It's because of the fact that we can't understand magic, that it is so mysterious- that is why it is alluring. It's personal. But what we understand, we can abuse and exploit. These are vastly different themes.

I don't agree technology is egalitarian: ask the nineteenth century Zulus about how fair British munitions were. Colonisation depends on the abuse of the technology-haves against the -have-nots, whether it's the Athenian navy, Roman legions or the US SDI.

And that's exactly what I mean by how technology examines the morality of a society.

Yes. In the same way that people of the 1940s wielded atomic weapons without fully understanding their impact, magic is similar (unknown technology).

But again, that was a society discovering the folly of power beyond understanding. It was a government which dropped that bomb, not an individual. Generally magic is not cast by committee. That is a very heavy distinction, one which drastically changes the ideas presented.

 

Listen, it's not like I'm laying down the law about what's different between magic and technology. I was only listing a couple of possible themes that the dichotomy between the two could explore.

 

Perhaps I should have made clear that most of what I said were my own thoughts and nothing more, and for that I apologize.

 

Good entertainment does not rely on magic or technology.

And that's why I made the clear distinction that I was only talking about escapist fiction at the very top of my post, as I believe that is the genre of literature that is most applicable to RPGs.

Rather, engaging stories involve the interplay of strong, complex characters in a world where their strengths are tested and where supposed weakness may prove the winning ingredient.

 

Where assumptions are challenged.

What you're proposing would apply to all literature in general, but I doubt all literature can apply to CRPGs. All this talk about CRPG settings and no one ever dares venture beyond the scope of a Sci Fi/Fantasy setting, or some derivation thereof. Cyberpunk, Steampunk, Tolkienesque... all variations on the same theme: imagine a world totally different from ours. And why shouldn't it stay within that realm? What is the point of creating a character in a bleak world, grounded in reality? Why should we face the struggles of our every day existence, why should we learn of our identities and seek the meaning in our lives, when all we want to do is just play a game?

 

I know a lot of people who believe there is not an engaging story to be found in all of Sci Fi/Fantasy. And can we blame them? Are there really all that many complex characters to be found in the literature?

 

A young governess with a fiery spirit, seeking a balance between her passion and her rationality, caught up in a whirlwind of romance in the rigidly class-based and confining Victorian society, only to discover a dark, horrible secret locked up in the attic of her lover... that is certainly an engaging story with complex characters. But would Jane Eyre make a good RPG? I do not think so.

Where intangible concepts like bravery, goodness and hope are explored: is it brave to fight against those who cannot win? Is it good to fight against non-evil for a greater good? What is hope: a rose-colouring, situation-underestimating weakness, or a mental decipline that provides an override for seemingly unbearable deprivation? Or both? Or neither? Was the Roman Empire Good? What about Stalin and his impact of the Soviet Union? Where does the definition of Good bifurcate; how much evil in a greater good turns the phenomenon evil?

 

These are the themes of the epic and the mythic.

If you're going to talk about historical epics, then I would say I don't think that makes a very good RPG. It's going to be difficult for an individual to triumph without some sort of external influence, a dramatization of reality. Even Spartacus, in fiction, is usually given some legendary, mythical and... dare I say? Nearly magical fighting ability that cannot be on par with what really happened.

 

And if we were to focus on those great battles of old without the rise of the individual, then that sounds more like an RTS.

[Ginthaeriel]

Like lightsabers? "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hehe... anybody who thinks Star Wars is Sci Fi instead of Fantasy does not have a good grasp on the laws of physics, in my opinion.

[Gabrielle]

Put sword in place of lightsaber and what do you get?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Put sword in place of lightsaber and what do you get?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

An 18 rating

[Jorian Drake]

I am usually against technology in fantasy games (magic) it does not have a place in it. I always felt it would ruin the fantasy aspect of the game if you started bringing in guns, cannons (gun powder), primitive flying vessels like diragables, etc. After playing Arcanum it changed my out look some what. I'm not so hard pressed set against thaving the two intermix.

 

Now if they started having technology show up in Forgotten Realms than I will be very disappointed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Magical +5 vampiric minigun rulez!!! :D

[Gabrielle]

Put sword in place of lightsaber and what do you get?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

An 18 rating

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am to assume that means blood and gore? Lightsaber would cauterize the wound.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

In a Forgotten Realms "what if" campaign I had a several Netherese enclaves survive the cataclysm of the Fall of Netheril. Their leader used portals to transport the survivors to a continent far from the Realms. They didn't loose their knowledge of magic, power, and technology. Netherese magitech was quite advance and over the next thousand or so years they developed starcraft,personal weaponry that shoot beams of magical energy, and magically powered prosthetics.

 

They also had quite a nasty disposition.

[Gabrielle]

In a Forgotten Realms "what if" campaign I had a several Netherese enclaves survive the cataclysm of the Fall of Netheril.  Their leader used portals to transport the survivors to a continent far from the Realms.  They didn't loose their knowledge of magic, power, and technology.  Netherese magitech was quite advance and over the next thousand or so years they developed starcraft,personal weaponry that shoot beams of magical energy, and magically powered prosthetics.

 

They also had quite a nasty disposition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No we can't have that kind of stuff in the FR setting.

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

What was really fun was when the players decide to use some of the netherese weaponry. You see a good chunk of Netherese weaponry were bioorganic in nature yet gain their energy from a mythomir powre source. Their starcrafts use mythomir power system which transmits that energy to their personal equipment.

 

Well, the party was able to get their equipment but the netherese ship left so they had all this kickarse gear but no power, but they had no idea that it had no power. Lets just say the next fight they were in was quite interesting.