>>95860901
what do you mean?

>>95861080
You have a point, but it doesn't have be certain that people in the setting has the meta-knowledge and comprehensive picture players have when reading the rules.
That might actually be the case in D&D in which case the problems of rationalizing magic is an issue there too. However, you could create a magic system that is too inefficient, inconsistent, obscure, esoteric, high cost, etc. to prevent it from being "industrialized". Think ancient masters in kung fu movies that can catch bullets with their fingers, but this power is so deeply tied to cultivating personal abilities and traits that the method will be different for everyone and require so much effort that it's impossible to teach to normal soldiers even if it had been really useful to them.
Another alternative is to go the arcanum route and have magic and technology fail when close to each other, although I think that would require very strict boundaries on where the tech level failure threshold goes