Why are psionics treated as different or separate from magic when will working is a core theme of the occult? It’s the same with the divine. It’s all occult. It’s all esoteric. It’s all arcane.

Same reason why retards think there’s a difference between magic and science. A critically inability to spot parallels, or think holistically, mostly.

>>96050509 (OP)
Different traditions and trope-sets. That the real history heavily overlaps does not dictate that Elfgame treat them as one, the game rules have to treat them as separate things to support their points of distinction.

>>96050520
>Same reason why retards think there’s a difference between magic and science.
Of course there's a difference between magic and science, science is a very narrow thing that simply happens to work excellently in our world and magic is a popular subject of intentional counterfactuals that commonly invite scenarios where the limits to the definition of "science" applies.

>A critically inability to spot parallels
Certain points being in parallel does not make things synonymous. For example, that I likely share your approximate skin color does not mean we are both of a Germanic ethnicity in specific.

And could you seriously not wait for even a single reply before returning to your compulsive retardation?

>>96050537
>Of course there's a difference between magic and science
Not really. If a spell works, it’s automatically science, physics, etc, you’re just attributing arcaneness to it.

>>96050537
>For example, that I likely share your approximate skin color does not mean we are both of a Germanic ethnicity in specific.
Genetics =|= melanin

>>96050509 (OP)
A number of different things; The evolution of those ideas, their nascent incorporation into various stories, and the mindless aping of everyone who read those stories.

>>96050509 (OP)
Because humans culture is shaped like a horseshoe.
>>96050537
Science isn’t a very narrow thing. In fact it’s everything.

All magic is psychic since you first have to see something as magic.

You say that like "the occult" is one thing. Psionics is associated with modern New Age occultism, it doesn't have anything to do with medieval occultism.

>>96050620
Your critical inability to spot parallels or think holistically is showing.

>>96050616
>If a spell works, it’s automatically science, physics, etc
>>96050628
>Science isn’t a very narrow thing. In fact it’s everything.
Asserting your definitions does not change that the terms have a long history of being very specific because people used to take the supernatural as a separate thing. For these past discussions to remain intelligible, the definitions of "science", "physics", and "nature" must retain their historic out-groups. Counterfactual fantasy settings embracing the likeness of such disproven-to-us worldviews are quite routine, and as such the distinctions you insist are purely psychological become trivially observable, even if said observation reveals nothing meaningful of their inner workings.

Again, you are Not Even Wrong, because you CONTINUE to insist on a very specific construction regarding IRL to the AGGRESSIVE exclusion of those the fantasy genre revolves around. Your argument does not properly apply to /tg/ matters in the first place, as no matter how many parallels you find to insist upon reducing them to one thing in the IRL context Elfgame must preserve the distinctions them to have rules for their differences in the TTRPG or wargame context.

>>96050620
Melanin is in fact governed primarily by genetics. And ignoring the point that one parallel does not make the broad category the same just makes you look like a rambling retard.

>>96050636
Most definitions of it are with respect to non-extant and widely-varying yet definite ritual practices, not a subjective feeling or interpretation.

>>96050509 (OP)
Oh fuck off, your last rancid thread got archived just hours ago

>>96050719
No, >>96032858 is still up, if in autosage.

>>96050509 (OP)
Magic is a concept in fiction for any aspect of a setting that is separate from our understanding of our own world classified as magic within that setting which expands to other concepts also..
If the fiction says a dude shooting lighting out of his hands is magic its magic, if it says its science its science, if it says its psionics its psionics.
Works of fiction invoke certain literary tones by presenting resonances with IRL cultural understandings of concepts without any need for greater clarifications unless the author feels that it will add to the intentions of a work.
And an obstinate denial of the acceptability of this practice for the purposes of compulsive self satisfactory classification by autists on /tg/ should be met with distain and call for euthanisa of the offending parties.

Because the AD&D writers wanted it to be different. In some ways, there's a good reason for this, because stories involving psychic powers tend to have different approaches compared to a lot of stories about using magic spells. On the other hand, this is all kind of arbitrary and dependent on what you saw and liked and wanted to emulate, as well as what people were introduced to first.

>>96050982
It seems like at least current D&D is slowly moving away from psionics being some hard concept and just classifying certain spells under psionics.

If nothing else, I give Starfinder a nod for completely doing away with hard classifying things as divine/arcane/psionic/whatever.

>>96050660
Magic being an innate psychic quality has been a thing since forever. Look at shamanism. It's usually cultivated in bloodlines.

>>96050712
>it's this autist again

>>96050537
>Of course there's a difference between magic and science

How is science not bloody magic?

All scientists are sorcerers to some shade. That's why they seek theories of everything to unify different layers of reality. It's as if scientists believe as-above-so-below and as-within-so-without. Scientists believe in summoning entities that transcend the body like AI and wish to become transhuman themselves. Don't forget scientists' quest for immortality either…and think about their obsession with seeking patterns, their inclination to turn patterns into geometrical representations, and their wish for theory to be beautiful! Scientists might as well wear robes and dissect bodies on altars- no, wait, they're already doing that… Christ, they might as well sacrifice materials in rituals to gain a material back with transcended properties. Oh wait…

It may be shaped differently. But it’s all quite indistinguishable. Mad scientists are wizards. “No sense of right and wrong“, “Sweet, man-made horrors beyond my comprehension”, “It’s not a matter of could, but should”, “All success requires sacrifice”, “oh my science, what have I done…”, etc.

If you don’t think there’s a dark arts irrational side to science you really need to update your information.

>>96050712
He's saying melanin isn't genetics as a whole. Genetics as a whole is a deeper layer. Noticing that things like shamanism and mediumship and speaking in tongues are all essentially the same thing is the same sort of layer. Noticing that Christian masses are indistinguishable from high ceremonial magicks is on the same layer.

>>96051009
The magic is worked through spirits with the shaman being a glorified intermediary, that's not will working.

>>96050509 (OP)
Why do you keep posting this same stupid thread again and again? Do you really have nothing better to do in your life?

Because pop culture sees it as different. Psionics is basically more "grounded" feeling and rooted in the ideas of things like mind reading, telepathy, mental powers etc. that lean toward scifi.

>>96050509 (OP)
You're just asserting that synonyms have the exact same meaning regardless of context

>>96050520
Magic is a tradition, while science is an applied philosophy of empiricism

>>96051082
It's not solely a glorified intermediary if they only interact with select bloodlines/personalities.

>>96051110
>Magic is a tradition
Not in my setting.

>>96051122
Thats nice

Is clairvoyance mental or spiritual? Is there a difference? The soul/spirit IS the mind/ego.

Imagine you want to have both Western dragons and Chinese dragons (or Western vampires and Chinese vampires, etc) in your setting, do you:

a) Say they are variants of the same "species" that are fundamentally the same

b) Say they are fundamentally different "species" that share some superficial similarities

>>96051149
They're both "dragons", the same way a blue whale and an elephant are both "giants". A transcendent sufficiently advanced alien would classify each completely differently, or maybe even as related, I don't know.

>>96051164
You could classify a frank and a welshman as kin because they're both "white", but they'd both still jab a sword up your ass for such a horrible insult

>the other bait thread that got over 400 replies wasn't enough

>>96050509 (OP)
It doesn't matter what's supernatural to us. It doesn't matter how it's seen.
What matters is how a game establishes its terms and functions, and how consistently the behaviors of those terms and functions are. Then, it's the duty of the players to control their characters within those functions, and of the GM to enforce those functions.
The apple is round and red, regardless of whether or not your eye can register its shape and/or color. It's about state of being.
A fantasy game can have laws of physics that aren't natural in our world but natural to their world, and also have forces beyond/above the nature of their world that also aren't natural to us. It's state of being doesn't have to behave like ours.

I'm sorry you're still having issues understanding this.

>>96051242
Just admit he has a point.

>>96050525
Lots of games don't require them to coexist or be similar, but even in games like Dicks & Dildos psionics is mechanically identical to any other magic type.
Why is psionics different? That's a setting question, not a game mechanics question, because you can make the mechanics any way you want. You don't have to treat psionics as different... because the question is then "different compared to what?"

>>96050509 (OP)
Psionics are brainwaves. Magic is, broadly, alchemical artifice. Priestcraft is communing with external forces.

They overlap.

>>96051029
>How is science not bloody magic?
Because science is definitionally empirical while magic operates on skeptical epistemology. They have some touch-points in rational epistemology, but these differences render the two UTTERLY logically incompatible. Your equivocations do not change the very long list of ways the practices and ideas behind them differ.

>>96051036
But the lower layer MATTERS. Insisting on ignoring it just leaves you incapable of discussing the points of difference between the subsets. "Natural philosophy" contains "science" contains "physics", each being narrower in principle than the last even if they ended up synonymous because of how the real world works. "Magic" is a wide group of disproven models not under natural philosophy, science, or physics, and to write rules for a game regarding the counterfactual where they are provably accurate you must keep in mind the subsets of "magic".

>>96051142
Not really, total ego death without loss of soul is the standard in reincarnation systems.

>>96051930
No, because he doesn't. He's Not Even Wrong, because his constructions aren't how semantics work, his argument isn't how science or physics work and cannot co-exist with how they arose from natural philosophy, and he constantly roots it in the happenstance of IRL which is wholly irrelevant to Elfgame. Everything he says is inapplicable to how at least three other people view it, and because definitions are descriptive this proves him wrong.

>>96051965
>even in games like Dicks & Dildos psionics is mechanically identical to any other magic type.
Only in 5e. Even in fucking 4e, the death of distinction on the alter of game balance, Psionics STILL got highly distinct mechanics. The PP/slot difference and Augmentation vs. CL scaling difference in 3.X are rather considerable, and the void of standards that was the TSR edition gave it its own part of the turn order.

>>96052303
>Only in 5e.
Fuck, EVEN in 5e the UAs spanned a lot of different mechanics of varying novelty with the final release still having a bit of difference from the standard X/Long Rest by tying the number to Proficiency with growing die sizes. I'm not even sure 5.24 completely crushed it into nothing but a thematic frill.

>>96052303
>The PP/slot difference and Augmentation vs. CL scaling difference in 3.X are rather considerable

Not really. The 3.X Psionics power system was pretty much the standard D&D magic spell system converted into a spell point system with everything given pseudo-scientific names and associations with crystal. The differences were mainly fluff rather than mechanical.

>>96051930
Just admit you're samefagging.

>>96052468
>converted into a spell point system
...Which is in fact a sizable departure from the pseduo-Vancian standard, being that it puts lower-level effects in competition with higher-level effects for daily resources.

>why are these things that don't exist in our world treated accordingly to the preferences of authors, directors, and game designers instead of satisfying my personal preferences?

>Why are pthionicth treated ath different or theparate from magic when will working ith a core theme of the occult?

>It’th the thame with the divine.

>It’th all occult.

>It’th all ethoteric.

>It’th all arcane.

>>96050727
That's even worse.
What a fucking worthless piece of trash OP is.

>>96050509 (OP)
They aren't in 40k.
Play another system before making the next thread.

>>96052593
Don't you worry. This retard considers 40k psionics to be magic as well.
>>96050628
>Science isn’t a very narrow thing. In fact it’s everything.
Hhahhahhahahahahhaaaha. I don't have the time an patience to explain wrong you are or why it's so funny that you think that but know that what you said is deeply embarrassing.

>>96052486

The Sorcerer's spontaneous casting did that as well (especially when using Spell Point variant rules). The way psionic powers were gained and siloed was identical to how spells were gained and siloed. The biggest actual difference was the fact that psionic powers did not autoscale with level which ended up weakening psionic classes as scaling the various powers consumed resources.

>>96052623
>The Sorcerer's spontaneous casting did that as well
No it did not, spell slots remain keeping different levels of effect independent usage while their Spells Known mechanic bears no conflict between spell levels. Both are the other way around on the Psion.

>(especially when using Spell Point variant rules)
Which are not core game rules.

>The way psionic powers were gained and siloed was identical to how spells were gained and siloed.
No, the options for external access are immediate and all differ significantly from spell access.

>The biggest actual difference was the fact that psionic powers did not autoscale with level which ended up weakening psionic classes as scaling the various powers consumed resources.
No, it's situational because they get to use qualitatively higher-level effects more by eating into low and mid level effects. The resulting burst performance advantage has resulted in many a DM with poor campaign planning banning them altogether for bricking their fundamental encounter logic.

>>96052667
>Which are not core game rules.
Neither are Psionics.which is why they are comparable. Unlike the Tome of Magic classes released years later. 3.X Psions functioned mechanically like Sorcerers with a Spell Point system only their spells were fluffed differently.

>No, the options for external access are immediate and all differ significantly from spell access.
You got two new powers/spell per level. Spontaneous Casters and Psions had the exact same limiting factors for gaining new spells/powers.

>No, it's situational because they get to use qualitatively higher-level effects more by eating into low and mid level effects. The resulting burst performance advantage has resulted in many a DM with poor campaign planning banning them altogether for bricking their fundamental encounter logic.
Which also happened with every other caster. The 15 minute work day was a issue through out 3.X's lifespan. Spell point systems just made it more visible because resources can be burned through in fewer actions.

>>96052486
Uh, no, the spell points framework was how vancian slots were organized and compared against each other in value when designing spells. According to the developers themselves in the sidebar on that page when introducing it in Unearthed Arcana.
And the way that spells competed with each other for fungible resources was a key feature: because it meant that important effects like Fly and Teleport were directly pressuring each other in a way they didn't before.

Why teleport to the top of the tower when it costs so much more than flying up there? Well, in Vancian mechanics, if you don't have the slots for another fly spell, then you're teleporting. That's bizarre, arbitrary and counter-intuitive in a profoundly unsatisfying and frustrating way. Teleport isn't a more powerful spell, really, because it is bought with an entirely different resource pool than fly. They're completely different, unrelated menus. That makes no fucking sense at fucking all.

With fungible points, you can finally actually say "this is a powerful spell" and it has some basis in mechanic fact. Finally you can directly compare between them not just because their relative power is implicit in their costs, but because their costs are different and explicitly competing against each other for a task. For the first time, players had a reason to use the "weakest" spell that could accomplish what they wanted. Finally, the players were not actively punished for trying to meaningfully engage with obstacles:

Flying to the top of the tower means you have to deal with the gale force winds and the sorcerer aiming scorching rays at you as you ascend. Hope you invested in the Fly skill because you're gonna be making some rolls. Teleporting up there means you skip all that, cheating everyone at the table out of the experience of playing the game. Which one will you choose? Well, now you're actually given the CHOICE about it, instead of it being forced on you by arbitrary stupid fucking '70s novels.

>>96052303
>Only in 5e. Even in fucking 4e, the death of distinction on the alter of game balance, Psionics STILL got highly distinct mechanics.
Holy fucking shit, it's amazing how the garbage can just come here and say the most blatantly untrue bullshit like that. Direct and actual misinformation.
Not only do you have absolutely zero understanding of game design, you don't know anything about that specific franchise of games' designs. And you' gonna just shit that out and pretend like anyone should take you seriously. FUCK OFF with that Zoomer shit.

>>96050660
It was associated with a potential new frontier of science, like psychology, with some occult adjacent people(like scientologists) showing interest in it too. Money was thrown at it, it was researched, it failed and was seen as bunk. Then it became fully part of the occult and new age.
Most occultism is just failed science. Lemuria was thought up to explain to why lemur skeletons were found on land surrounding the Indian Ocean, a landmass was thought up to suggest that lemurs migrated through it, then plate tectonics was theorized and seen as a way better explanation and now you only hear Lemuria in the same breath as Atlantis.
Psionics only exist because it was made in the waning days of ESP research. Anyways I really enjoy the sci-fi flavoring of most psionics, and flavoring is what it usually boils down to. Hooking people up to wires and shit.

>>96050509 (OP)
I mean, Occult 101 is the idea you can shape your reality by simply imagining what result you want hard enough. Psionics in RPGs are the closest to actual occult thinking. This is not a new idea. Divine magic simply being favors from being so powerful they can do those things as part of who they are. Which, by the way, is also one of the original forms of real magic. Trading favors with a thing who can do this miraculous thing as part of who it is. Which I can't advise enough against attempting. It won't work these days anyway, but it will still cause you tons of problems just trying it.

Arcane magic, in the DnD sense, is actually the odd man out. It has no connection to history nor any real conception of it's own working. It only really exists as a page of in game affects you select from and prepare. How do you learn it? How do you study it? Whatever suits the satisfaction of the narrative. As there's no parallel to history.

>>96052790
What about it is wrong? The Anon is basically right, 4e psionics works on a unique mechanical subset of the AEDU system.

Three of the four psionic classes, Ardent, Battlemind, and Psion, utilize Psionic Augmentation as a class feature, allowing them to alter and augment their AEDU powers via a pool of points. No other classes get such a mechanic.
Monk, the fourth psionic class, gets a wholly unique mechanic to its class, where each power has a linked attack and movement action. When using a power, the monk is only allowed to move and attack the way the power states.

So the other anon is right, they still get highly distinct mechanics to reflect the difference psionics imposes as magical power, even for the mostly physical monk class.

>>96052620
>Don't you worry. This retard considers 40k psionics to be magic as well.
Shitloads of people in-universe consider psionics to be magic too. There's no real distinction in 40k.

>>96050509 (OP)
Because it's fun to have different power systems, to give them different labels, and to assign them different mechanics. While on the most broad level they may all be just expressions of occultism, the distinction at the lower levels is what makes them interesting.

>>96052959
>How do you learn it? How do you study it?
Its funny you can understand the other two but not the one where you go to a college, and magical colleges are an old concept, to learn theory and practice of the arcane arts, where by a level 1 wizard is a newly graduated and accredited mage and scholar of the mystical arts. Where their power comes from long study and the knowledge of theory and formula, where the power is external to themselves.

It has precedent in the Scholomance, the Romanian school of black magic, where the Devil is either headmaster or teacher. From there many writers have had schools of magic, where prospective learners go to master magical power. From the Wizard of Earth Sea, to Harry Potter, to many others.

In fact, for D&D itself, we can look to how Vancian magic itself comes from but also other authors mentioned in Appendix N. Poul Anderson, responsible for how elves are in D&D, has two different schools of magic in his bibliography, and one is in the same book the elves come from.

>>96053052
>While on the most broad level they may all be just expressions of occultism
They're only expressions of occultism in our magicless world. For any other world or universe, it is likely there would be distinctions between them, as is expressed in the many games which do so. Do not be caught in his framing of focusing only on how things work in the real world. It is an intellectual trap he has himself caught in.

>>96052773
>Neither are Psionics.
Psionics are not directly overriding the standard, they necessarily compete with it.

>only their spells were fluffed differently.
The optionality of Augmentations and Energy type selection are not mere fluff.

>You got two new powers/spell per level.
Of any level, which allows good-scaling lower-level Powers to be taken only once they hit breakpoints, like Huge size on Expansion.

>Spontaneous Casters and Psions had the exact same limiting factors for gaining new spells/powers.
Psions get Power Research adding to the total, and by default they are allowed to Manifest with eachothers' Powers while item-based expansion has the clusterfuck that is Advanced Psionic Tattoos.

>Which also happened with every other caster.
To a far lesser degree than "twenty 9ths" Psions. This difference in degree creates a significantly wider space than Vancian for DMs, which 3.X did a terrible job instructing on campaign pacing.

>>96052778
>Uh, no, the spell points framework was how vancian slots were organized and compared against each other in value when designing spells.
But not how they were deployed, which is the statement you replied to.

>And the way that spells competed with each other for fungible resources was a key feature: because it meant that important effects like Fly and Teleport were directly pressuring each other in a way they didn't before.
Which mostly served to make spell-level-based effects more reasonable, but in standard use means fuck-all.

>That's bizarre, arbitrary and counter-intuitive in a profoundly unsatisfying and frustrating way.
To one who doesn't understand PREPARING spells.

>With fungible points, you can finally actually say "this is a powerful spell" and it has some basis in mechanic fact.
A higher-level slot does this perfectly well enough, as it requires a higher-level character to use.

>Well, now you're actually given the CHOICE about it
You always had the choice, you just don't like it being before-hand speculation instead of in the moment.

>>96053082
You can conceive of a school where you learn to be a wizard but not actually know how that works in practice. The idea that humans have access to this.. other source.. and just need to learn to wield it is actually very new. Historically, this is simply something beyond human capability. No different than how birds don't have thumbs, humans don't have magic. What you did was contract a thing that did have 'magic'. Which would just be something it can do anyway. Because that's how it's built. Like asking a being who can breathe fire to make fire for you. In which your ability to do this is predicated on your ability to negotiate with it or make it owe you. That is classic, real, magic. Though again I warn people not to even try.

Pop culture magic has the idea you can go somewhere to study it and learn it, but that's where it ends. It has some flavor layered over it. You say the fun words and it kind of just happens. Sometimes wands are involved. Sometimes not. There's no actual sense to anything though. No actual internal system or logic. Just flavor.

>>96053109
>>96053082
For completionist sake:

You ever hear of those self-help seminar spokespeople? Imagine it, see it, believe it, manifest it into your life kind of self-help stuff? That's occultism. That's literally what it is. That is occultism 101. The most basic facet of it is that. It's called manifesting, and it's the belief in the power of the will to shape reality. Envision to future you want and focus on it every time you wake up. Chant it in the mirror. Eventually it will 'manifest'. That's occultism. Mind power. Well, now we call things psychic power to confuse the issue.

As such, honestly, I would rather people enjoy the simple stupidity of modern conception of Harry Potter style magic than brush past anything genuinely nearing the occult. If you had to choose. Actual occult belief and ritual, like the Lesser Key of Solomon, is more sinister and deceptively simple. What kind of stuff does real occult demand? Don't pray to God today on purpose and great fortune come your way! Which is more desperate and sinister a thing than a fiction about a set of random words and silly poses that summon a cherry pie if done right every time.

Christ bless you, Anons. Stay away from these things. Turns out your dnd wizard is perfectly fine as any toy is fine. Beware of real occult.

>>96053109
You are very stuck on how magic works historically, in a very autistic manner. Yes, D&D wizards are not based on historical "ask the spirits" magic. They have no connections to gods or devils or fey beings for their magic. So what? Nobody else has to stick to your weird autistic ideas of how magic must function or work, whether thats based on history or not.

Wizards in D&D have plenty of mechanics surrounding how their magic works and how it functions, at least before 5e.
A wizard must carry around their spellbook, a container for the many spells they have. Each spell occupies a number of pages, detailing its formulas, references to theory, and the explicit instructions on how to "memorize" the spell for the day. In older editions each spell took up a certain number of pages.
To "memorize" a spell, a D&D wizard performed a ritual each day, precasting each spell they want to cast that day, leaving out the final trigger command and targeting data. This arcane construct of magical power is then stored in your mind, precreated via special practices and meditations, till its needed. The wizard then expends the energy and it is used up and lost.

>>96053148
>Beware of real occult.
There is no magical power except that which you grant power over your own mind. It is hocus pocus bullshit. You have tricked yourself by way of cognitive biases and errors into thinking certain things are real. Manifestation is a practice that taps into a type of cognitive bias, training yourself on a subconscious level to work towards a specific goal and buy into any minor step toward that goal as a spooky reaffirmation of whatever god or spirit or simply your will as powerful and mystical.

It really isn't. They arent real. And whats funny is, this ability does lose power once you understand it and work to consciously see it. Ive worked "real" occult power. It was nothing beyond a bunch of weirdos performing a type of self hypnosis.

>>96053181
Half of everything in this seems like filling in the blanks of things DnD never explains. Which is just you convncing yourself of the fluff you use. That said, fair enough. Folding a precast spell in to your brain through specific measures is comprehensive enough as any lore. As far as 3.x was concerned, you just study the spells you want for the day and it just works. Vague somethings about the weave too. Though that's very setting dependent.

Also that's only for setting spells initially. If you aren't intent on changing your prepared spells, you just need to rest. Which doesn't even need to be sleep. Any sufficiently light activity counts. The spells then become ready on their own, it seems, according to the rules. You could lose your spellbook and be fine. The spells presumably wind themselves back up over time.

>>96050509 (OP)
It's to do with pop culture at large. Psionics or psychics appeared not as a reference to the past, like magic and wizards do, but are often attached to the future. There's a regular theme of psychics being "the next step in human evolution", and lots of sci-fi uses them instead of wizards for this reason.

Basically, magic is old, psionics is new. They're the difference between a bow and arrow and a gun (not in terms of tech development, before some autist gets confused, but in cultural associations with time periods), or a horse and a car, or a book and a computer.

>>96053247
>The spells then become ready on their own, it seems, according to the rules. You could lose your spellbook and be fine. The spells presumably wind themselves back up over time.
No.
In 3.x (and 4e) a wizard literally needed that spellbook to cast any spells ever, as the class had functioned since inception. Without it they must rely on whatever they have in their head, and any expended are gone completely. They renew their spells by performing the long form rituals that are spells. While a long rest didnt necessarily lose spells, it didn't refresh them at all. It simply carried over the previous days allotment of precast spells. Any lost could be recast and re"memorized" but there was no spell refreshing without that book or books.

If you are talking about a 5e thing, I have no response beyond that it is shit and the class was changed in some very stupid ways that make it too powerful.

>filling in the blanks of things DnD never explains
Simple extrapolation from presented mechanics is something any reasonably bright midwit could do. Too many people are not bright midwits.

>>96050509 (OP)
Depends on the system. Which is?

>>96053314
Being a midwit who makes things up that aren't said is honestly 90% of the problem I have with people.

>>96053247
>Half of everything in this seems like filling in the blanks of things DnD never explains.
Actually, such explanations show up in novels and some of the non-core fluff text. Really scattered and not at all standardized.

>Also that's only for setting spells initially.
Only in 5e and maybe 4e, the rest are per-slot prep.

>>96053314
>Without it they must rely on whatever they have in their head, and any expended are gone completely.
Not quite:
>A wizard can use the procedure for learning a spell to reconstruct a lost spellbook. If she already has a particular spell prepared, she can write it directly into a new book at a cost of 100 gp per page (as noted in Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, above). The process wipes the prepared spell from her mind, just as casting it would. If she does not have the spell prepared, she can prepare it from a borrowed spellbook and then write it into a new book.

And there's a staggering amount of refresh shenanigans, like wands of Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer (which mostly matters for refreshing utility spells).

>While a long rest didnt necessarily lose spells, it didn't refresh them at all.
The "Long Rest" mechanical term didn't exist, just a mostly-standardized eight-hour rest period to refresh the slots themselves. Then another hour to prepare in full, or 15 minutes per "quarter" of slots, or 1 minute per individual slot. The last one's a really nasty thing on DMs shy about targeting the spellbook.

>>96053434
>The "Long Rest" mechanical term didn't exist
I know, I played 3e when it released. I simply used the now standard term for sleeping and resting for 8 hours to refresh daily resources. Hell, my current system doesn't have short rests and yet the community still calls them that because of precedent set by 4e.

As for the spellbook, I know. I didn't want to add any superfluous details like remaking the book for a correction to daily refreshing of spells. A wizard without a spellbook is up shit creek until they remake it or find another spellbook.

>>96053434
I thought the spell book and memorization steps were only needed if you wanted to change spells. Otherwise you just wait. You'll be stuck with the same spells, and can't get new ones in slots you gain later, but what you have you just need to rest to regain.Or am I mixing up my editions? Maybe with pathfinder or something?

Being the DND version of this archetype really sucks.

>>96053247
Anon, this makes it very clear you have never read the book, and only know all of this by lurking forums and watching tv (Big Bang Theory is standing out here).

>>96053517
It's just been some time since I used DND itself. Because it's bad. Also, as another anon noted, the rules themselves don't actually explain how spellcasting works in a real sense anyway. That lore is in random locations. Which is a great shame upon DND for doing so. Knowing how your abilities function in a lore sense is pretty important for actual RPing.

>>96053562
>Knowing how your abilities function in a lore sense is pretty important for actual RPing.
And also useful for homebrew, which is one of the major things that sets TTRPGs apart from vidya.

>>96053607
What people need to realize is how trivial a system is to replace even with incredibly basic rules. Rules which would probably work better for most tables like that anyway. What can't you replace with trivial ease? Lore. If you can't visualize what your character is even doing, why are you here? How terribly pointless.

>>96053501
>I thought the spell book and memorization steps were only needed if you wanted to change spells.
Nope. Pre 5e all wizards needed to memorize their spells daily from their spellbook, if they hadn't used up the previous days spells. They carried over but if you wanted new spells in the empty slots you needed to memorize them.

I have no idea were you got this wrong idea. Possibly confusion with the difference between sorcerers whose spell slots automatically renewed everyday but had a select few spells they could spend at will, and wizards preparing everyday but not losing prepared spells unless used.

5e wizards still follow 3.xs spell style but now can, once per day, recover some spell slots and prepare new ones after a short rest. (A stupid idea that empowers them too much)

Psionics is just sci fi magic, that's literally all there is to it.
I guess if you really want to differentiate them, maybe psionics is consciousness influencing reality, whereas magic is consciousness interacting with another reality, and using that interaction to change this reality.

>>96053247
... You know all of this is extremely explicitly explained and described in each player's handbook in each edition, right? You do know that, right?

OP has been triggering some autist endlessly like in the other thread and I appreciate that

>>96053898
Theres at least three different people refuting his bullshit. And its easy to trigger people, just spout idiocy and misinformation.

>>96053916
LMAO he’s just speaking basic logic my dude: “magic depends on the author”

>>96053927
Dont be this retarded. That is absolutely not what he's saying. And its not basic logic, but a weird twisted reasoning born of certain autistic patterns.

>>96053936
That’s exactly what he’s saying and it’s hilarious how you think it’s not LMAO

>>96053562
>That lore is in random locations
You mean the PHB.
You are mixing in random bits of Forgotten Realms magic and Greyhawk bits together.
You really should be typing less, and reading more, or at least asking questions rather than swathes of objectively incorrect statements.
You are either autistic, a troll, or just that dumb.

>>96053945
>t. Another autist

>>96053955
So you’re saying magic isn’t what the author wants it to be?

>>96053945
Except he isnt. Hes arguing that magic doesnt exist anywhere in any reality and is purely a psychological phenomenon with no actual thing to it, even in worlds where magic exists and is a quantified thing. And his arguments depend on a weird sophistry that ignores how language works.

A computer would be more magical to anyone from the medieval period than any of their hocus pocus circles. Math diagrams today would blow their mind.

Math was seen as magic for thousands of years. If math, fucking numbers, were seen as magic for that long, then I don’t see why anything else can’t be seen as magic too, from some angle.

Too bad this sort of thing is lost to morons on this board. What, do they think fire wasn’t magic to cavemen when they first discovered it? Magic is all exposure.

You can argue magic can’t even exist in fiction since fiction is existent within itself and as such magic can hypothetically be deconstructed, even if only hypothetically.

>>96053968
>Hes arguing that magic doesnt exist anywhere in any reality and is purely a psychological phenomenon
Well yes since that logic can be applied in fiction. What is magic to one is not going to be magic to another. Simple as! Even something completely woo woo might not be seen as woo woo by the woo woo folk.

>>96053968
>And his arguments depend on a weird sophistry that ignores how language works.
You’re ignoring that magic means different things to different people, which is what they’ve been trying to explain to you in the other thread. Too bad you’re retarded, eh?

>>96053990
>computers are magic
>mathematics are magic
>cavemen are magic
>fire is magic
>air is magic
>eating is magic
>breathing is magic
>words is magic
>thoughts are magic
>people are magic
>anon is magic
>fiction is magic
>not-magic is magic
>magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is magic is

>>96054054
Yes. Magic is quite literally a point of view. Often the capital-w wizard don’t even see themselves as a capital-w wizard. They’re far too transcendent for that. They see things greater than themselves. They’d sooner see why a thing is seen as magic. They’re only wizards when they’re in that position to be one. Gandalf isn’t a wizard back home in Valinor, the urSkek in the Dark Crystal are from another world, etc.

>>96054054
Yes, retard. Drop a candy bar into the past and it will be seen as a magical phenomenon.

>>96054069
>>96054098
The absolute refusal to stick to a solid definition of what the word "magic" is and what the concept is supposed to represent renders further discussion on this topic beyond pointless, not least that it now means literally anything anyone wants. Which is of zero help to anyone trying to play a game where they're some kind of manipulator of the ethereal and they don't have a clue what they're allowed and not allowed to do within the limits of said game.

>>96054129
Wow. The other guy was right. You are stupid.

>>96054156
Complimenting yourself is rather pathetic

>>96054129
Which is of zero help to anyone trying to play a game where they're some kind of manipulator of the ethereal and they don't have a clue what they're allowed and not allowed to do within the limits of said game.
> some kind of manipulator of the ethereal and they don't have a clue what they're allowed and not allowed
You just admitted that magic is basically “idk” and that’s precisely psychological.

>>96050509 (OP)
>Why are psionics treated as different or separate from magic
Because the purpose of psionics is to not be magic

>>96054129
>Which is of zero help to anyone trying to play a game where they're some kind of manipulator of the ethereal and they don't have a clue what they're allowed and not allowed to do within the limits of said game.
> some kind of manipulator of the ethereal and they don't have a clue what they're allowed and not allowed
You just admitted that magic is basically “idk” and that’s precisely psychological.

>>96054174
You're outright trying to hallucinate people are agreeing with you now, aren't you?

>>96054183
You’re too stupid to know what you’re even thinking.

>>96054208
Rather mean to say that about yourself, but alright

>>96054054
Still mad that elves aren’t magical eh

>>96054218
Which elves from what setting?

>>96053990
>You can argue magic can’t even exist in fiction since fiction is existent within itself and as such magic can hypothetically be deconstructed, even if only hypothetically.
Again with asserting monism and reductionism based on IRL success as an essential part of your argument... Logically valid constructions disproving these are outright trivial.

>>96054002
>You’re ignoring that magic means different things to different people, which is what they’ve been trying to explain to you in the other thread.
No, they've been trying to "explain" that because it means different things to different people the overarching "concept" is a wibbly-wobbly nothing and so insisting upon a narrower one is ironic/contradictory/nonsense/etc. They have been constantly trying to exclude any possibility of settling on a particular meaning for game rules.

>>96054069
>Magic is quite literally a point of view.
According to your retarded construction, some soft science jargon, and a few polyglot linguists lost in the sauce. As definitions are descriptive, the word "magic" written in those letters in the English language far more often refers to meaningful categories of supernatural phenomena, especially those involving diagrams and incantations.

>>96054156
>>96054208
It does not matter how many ivory tower or Great Man citations you make, a large enough mass of retards disagreeing on what the words mean actually does make you wrong.

>>96054181
>You just admitted that magic is basically “idk” and that’s precisely psychological.
No, the point being made is that your construction of "magic is idk" doesn't function for a game.

>>96054303
lol

>>96054303
It sounds like you just want magic to be magic no matter what. That’s sort of impossible.

>>96054395
>It sounds like you just want magic to be magic no matter what.
Within the context of a counterfactual so that the associated game rule applies to the effect no matter what.

>That’s sort of impossible.
Such is the point of a counterfactual.

>>96051149
Hmm, what did Chinese dragons need to protect their people from? Ass demons?

>>96054395
Trying to answer a question like "Why are psionics treated as different or separate from magic " is kind of hard to do when there's no solid explanation for what "magic" is and what it can/can't do. Going "but magic can be anything I want it to be" is the equivalent of intellectual tiddlywinks, since you're as far away from answering the question as feasible.

>>96054481
Mongolians that keep trying to break down their walls

>>96054505
>Going "but magic can be anything I want it to be" is the equivalent of intellectual tiddlywinks
Not really. That show magic worked in history. It’s whatever the culture wanted it to be. As another said, even math was seen as magic.

>>96054395
>It sounds like you just want bread to be bread no matter what. That’s sort of impossible.
>It sounds like you just want cars to be cars no matter what. That’s sort of impossible.
>It sounds like you just want ducks to be ducks no matter what. That’s sort of impossible.
How retarded you are should be impossible, but apparently not.

>>96054516
>That show
That’s how*

>>96054518
Whether a car is seen as magical depends on the person. Is the point. You don’t think automobiles are magic? Cool.

>>96054516
How does that get anyone closer to answering the question of "Why are psionics treated as different or separate from magic " though?

>>96054535
The answer is “it depends on the culture”. Plenty of magic made use of innate mind like abilities, like shamanism, which had to do with bloodlines, or just traditional ‘will working’ like typical Crowley-esque or Levi-esque crap. There’s fundamentally no difference between the spirit and the mind.

>>96054616
That's not an answer though, that's a cop-out. Like, yes, it depends on what the prevailing culture believes regarding psionics and magic, but WHAT does the prevailing culture BELIEVE about psionics and magic?

>>96054054
congratulations, you are now initiated
you'll be receiving your complimentary boy-bride in six to eight weeks, at which time you will also receive your foreskin rations

>>96054638
>That's not an answer though, that's a cop-out
Take it up with the Christians who did this shit regularly.

>>96054729
Fuck off

>>96054735
No? You keep saying this shit doesn’t matter when humans have made it matter for thousands of years. Using your words differently was enough to get you killed.

>>96054750
You're an insufferable little twerp who thinks citing vague histories makes himself sound smarter when you can't even answer the goddamn question of "what does the prevailing culture believe regarding psionics and magic so we can understand why they believe the two to be different"? Cause you have your head so far up your ass that you need to fart to breathe

>>96054638
>but WHAT does the prevailing culture BELIEVE about psionics and magic?
One culture treats them separately the other neighbouring one doesn’t. Kind of like how some priests saw their workings as miracles, not magic, while other priests didn’t care to distinguish (Shinto priests call their workings spells, not miracles). Kind of like how some isles in Indonesia treat shamanism and sorcery separately while neighbouring isles call them retards (“you’re no true shaman if you don’t know some sorcery and you’re not a true sorcerer if you don’t know some shamanism”) for not taking it as a whole. Words like “witch” or “sorcerer” in places like Siberia or SE. Asia was often just a pejorative to refer to someone prone to darker pursuits, or heretical or taboo workings. Wicked shamans were called witches, sorcerers, etc. Even in China you had martial artists taken to forbidden heretical techniques being called sorcerers, or witches if they were female. Why not?

>>96054776

>>96054534
Nobody said about cars being magical, dumbass.

>>96054788
I’m answering the question by giving you examples. Words have different meanings, even the same word, to different persons. That’s semantics for you.

>>96054796
These "examples" are a fully irrelevant non-sequitur, you dingus

>>96054789
A car is a car. Someone considering something magic is basic brain chemistry. Magic isn’t external beyond phenomena to reinforce that chemical sensation.

>>96054801
Nope. You’re just an idiot.

>>96054054
The 21st century would be blatantly magical to a person from a hundred years ago. You clearly don’t understand that magic is just internal psychology butting heads with external phenomena. Imagine if you never saw a snail. Can you do that?

>>96050509 (OP)
>same with the divine. It’s all occult.
It's not.

>>96050520
>this gay shit again
You got BTFO the last time you tried this, and I'm certain you were BTFO again itt. Go back, reddit awaits. And take your fedora with you.

>>96054818
>What does the culture believe?
>These other cultures believed...
>No, what does the one in this specific culture we're talking about in context to this question believe?
>You're an idiot.

>>96054831
That is literally as irrelevant to the actual question posed as anything else in this troll thread has been.

>>96054831
Everyone always says fag shit like this with no evidence. Your claim is baseless.

>>96054804
>A car is a car.
And magic is magic, you mouth-breathing retard. It doesn't matter whether you or some equally useless piles of shit want to pretend it's something else, it's still magic, just as a car is still a car even if you call it a wheelyfastbox like you draw with your crayons.

>>96054836
So it includes the divine? Thanks for agreeing with me. Western esotericism has long been obsessed with uniting with the Godhead. Hermetic we’re obsessed with God.

>>96054836
…mysticism is a divine pursuit…
>>96054863
yes, magic is magic (psychology is psychology) …

:^)

>>96054836
All religion incorporates elements of mysticism, which is itself a mystery, which is occult.

Love how you morons can’t into words.

>>96054863
You shouldnt bother. He's one of those retarded fucks that just wants to argue for argument's sake. Sciencefag has been utterly disproven in countless threads but continues to spam the board without cessation.

>>96054906
The fucker really needs to just grab a blog and post these shitty ramblings there. He'd probably find a more interested audience.

>>96054906
>>96054914
>abloobloobloo
LOL

>>96054852
>with no evidence
All of human history isn’t evidence?
Inb4 “how does human history relate to games?” Sigh

>>96054918
Get a blog, you fat fuck

>>96054924
Sir, this is a Wendy's

>>96054914
I read a blog by a Jewish rabbi the other day that agreed with him. Miracles and magic are the same. Moses was a wizard.

http://ejmmm2007.blogspot.com/2009/01/moses-magician.html?m=1

>>96054887
And never the two shall meet.

>>96054906
I'm 100% willing to bet he's eastern European. I've only seen this level of idiocy in them or Indians, but he's not said a few keywords so far to suggest the latter. Guaranteed, an eastern Euro autist.

>>96054933
I do like a baconator… but I do like seeing you squirm even more…! Why not both? You have me a good idea. There’s a Wendy’s not even five minutes from where I live. I’ll go get a snack right now and continue phoneposting @ u.

>>96054940
The guy arguing with him already confirmed himself to be Chinese. That’s a lot worse. Even called him a “dumb gweilo” months back. I’d rather an ESL European than a Chinaman who can’t into semantics! You freaks read from right to left. What the fuck do you know?

>>96050509 (OP)

>>96054937
>>96054940
So he's eastern Euro or worse, jewish.

>>96054951
The guy arguing with the ‘magic is psychology’ fag is indeed a slanty eyed bug person. It’s for this reason that I don’t take either side.

>>96054951
...What kind of freak remembers random anons from 4chan threads months ago unprompted? Do you not have any friends to fill that space with? Is this your form of socialization?

>>96054966
Being a centrist is gayer than gay

>>96054973
I’m just pointing it out. Chinese struggle with words since their language is more meaning based than pronunciations.

>>96054951
...If you're referring to the multiquotes like >>96054303, you either took a turn of phrase I have forgotten using far too seriously or mistake me from an instance of one of these threads I declined to participate in.

>>96054973
>this retarded bug has limited space for information and has to manually process it
Kek, brainlet confirmed.

>>96054986
You're...pointing out that you're a racist who has so few social connections that he views random people he argues with on a bangladeshi kite testing forum?

>>96054994
I generally have more important things on my mind than 4chan, is the thing

>>96054986
What is the reason that some languages are phonetic and others are not? Is there a reason why every language cannot be like English, where the spelling of words is very much dependent on how they sound?

>>96055008
Racism is just another term for pattern recognition. Also he was racist to me first.

>>96050509 (OP)
"Magic" in D&D only refers to Vancian magic I thought.

>>96055014
All languages technically are phonetic. People just have different ways of interpreting them. Look up how many languages use different ways to express what they think a dog bark sounds like, it's weird.

What is it about the subject of magic that attracts autistic people? Serious question. It's a running theme on /tg/ that all the worldbuilding threads feature a lot of noticably autistic people with a hyperfixation on magic.

>>96055014
It’s always historical to a large extent. Some languages (like Chinese) write the meaning of the words with only secondary consideration to pronunciation. Others (like Spanish) try to keep the language phonetic by standardizing spelling with respect to pronunciation; gradually, changes in pronunciation require new spelling rules. English mostly spells words according to the spelling-sound correspondence when Caxton started printing English; there have been major changes in pronunciation so the correspondence diverges English does have some other tendencies such as indicating meanings in spellings (bomb and bombard, debit and debt, etc.), and using some borrowed terms with the original plurals and pronunciation (Italian music terms, many French cooking terms); others simply spell the words as closely as possible to the original language but pronouncing them as in English.

It’s a mixed bag. Chinese characters can get read in fairly un-related languages. English words (except for the very common and old words just like in other languages) often have their meaning guessed even if the pronunciation isn’t obvious.

Chinese is a tonal language, however, while English is not. Chinese is tricky due to one’s tone changing things.

>>96055008
>n-n-no, I can do it, I j-j-just... h-h-have more important things!!!1!
No one is buying it, brainlet bug. For intelligent people, information retention is automatic, you don't get a say in it happening, but you don't even know that.

>>96055014
Phonemes are surprisingly difficult to pin down for writing, especially in languages with complex inventories of them like the tones in Chinese, whereas direct pictographic representation straightforwardly develops into logographic writing.

Another reason for the persistence of logographic writing is that it doesn't suffer from the spoken language changing over time causing either a loss of intelligibility of old writing or a break in the correspondence of written symbols and spoken sounds.

>>96055036
Seems pretty clear to me that anon was referring to the written forms alone.

>>96055039
Another point OP made is that magic is indistinguishable from religious behaviours. Arguing over magic is much like arguing over gods.

>That’s not a god, THIS is a God! With a capital G!
>That’s not magic, THIS is Magick! With a capital M and a k at the end!
>That’s not magic, it’s a miracle! Capital M optional!

It’s actually kind of hilarious. So many grognards are doing it. “Well, in MY setting!”, “Your setting stinks, Carl!”, etc.

>>96055039
I'm guessing cause magic involves imagination. Meaning there will be those who want to "quantify" it down to the last made-up detail to the point of uselessness, and those who think it means it can be literally anything they desire and overinflate what it means or represents to the point of worthlessness. Both of which are fine for if you're bored as shit on the internet, but very unhelpful for a game with rules and structure

>>96055047
"Automatic" information retention remains subject to interest levels. Comprehensive retention of minutia in a low-priority area is not exactly a sound expectation.

>>96050509 (OP)
An age old answer, but still true: it depends on the setting.

In a lot of D&D settings like the Forgotten Realms, for instance, Arcane Magic is about manipulating the Weave of magic, an almost ubiquitous structured external impersonal power source.
Divine magic is magic that comes from specific entities or groups, like a god or the collective of nature (and frequently the power of gods by their turn comes from belief).
Psionic is pure reality warping power that comes from the self, in general.

In turn this creates certain conditions where one type of magic is affected but not the other. Like a place where the Weave is damaged, or a God refusing to back up one of his followers anymore. And then you have specific individuals/classes that are about trying to bridge these differences, like Geomancer.

>>96055083
>brainlet tries to argue how information retention operates without ever having experienced it
I remember lyrics to songs I don't even like and have only heard in shops. I remember a kid at school that I didn't even talk to really liked watching the Ghostbusters cartoon, which I didn't watch. I remember the exact location I saw a pebble that briefly looked like the top of a mushroom, and I don't even like mushrooms. Despite me not caring about any of it, I still remember it, because I'm not a low-IQ, low-storage bug retard that has to actually try to remember even something he's interested in.

You're an embarrassment.

>>96055127
>Despite me not caring about any of it
Cared enough to brag about it. Clearly shows they hold significance to you

>>96050509 (OP)
Former occult nut here, the will in magic is making various forces/energies do your bidding through both willpower and knowledge.
Most IRL occult magic systems actually revolve around calling upon external beings; you just know the methods and tools to contact/appeal to/bind/force them, you yourself don't have any power but your knowledge, tools, sometimes purity, and *will to to act*.

Psionics however is pretty much entirely internal, aside from some settings where you can draw upon a universal subconscious.

They differ pretty radically in approach as well, for starters psionics pretty much never requires any sort of elaborate gestures ever, usually none or only minor ones, while a lot of spellcasting systems involve a bit more.

>>96054903
Eh, occultism and magical beliefs in general IRL is best understood as largely a spinoff from religion, humanity's tendency towards ritual behavior, and/or a sort of alternative cause and effect; a rain dance ritual to make water come out of the sky performed by a tribe may have no actual connection to their religious beliefs or their beliefs came after the ritual.

Vast majority of occult shit is like really bizarre esoteric versions of some religions or schools of thought, and/or stuff cobbled together from various beliefs. You know the Lemegeton, the book that's largely responsible for magic circles in fiction? Summoning demons was supposed to bring you *closer* to God. (Something about seeing His majesty in the arts and overcoming temptation, I don't remember it in full)
Yeah, try not to think about it too hard.

On a side note, every damn occultist of note has their own Personal Conception of the Universe's Secrets That is Absolutely True and basically every dabbler does the same.

>>96055066
While the line can absolutely be blurred and at times identical, there's a pretty huge difference between pleading for a higher entity's aid and forcing mindless or nigh-mindless external forces/energies to do shit.

>>96055148
>Eh, occultism and magical beliefs in general IRL is best understood as largely a spinoff from religion
It’s a spin off the same way a religion is a spin off of a cult. Yes.

>>96055137
Yes, I care about bragging about having infinitely great mental capabilities than you do. But you, being a brainlet, misattributed that to mean I'm bragging about the memories themselves, because you're an idiot that can't figure out context. Thanks for reconfirming.

>>96055066
Yep. All religion is a game of Star Wars. Old Testament and New Testament. Rey Skywalker is Jesus. In a thousand years she will be remembered as canonical. Jesus was a Gary Stu. “And he’s like, the son of GOD, and SO awesome, haha”.

>>96055164
You're still trying to stroke your ego over the internet that you remember shit you consider irrelevant, in a thread about some autist doing the same regarding calling magic "philosophy", both things he refuses to define because he doesn't understand either subject. That's not something to brag about, that's something to feel ashamed for.

>>96055127
The relevant point is "comprehensive". How many of those songs can you write out the ENTIRE lyrics of, not just the chorus designed to be memorable? How well can you fill out that ENTIRE class by seating position? You specifically state that minutia like a one-off comment identifying something about an ANONYMOUS 4chan poster from months ago is the ASSUMPTION for anyone of decent mental competence, when the prerequisite of assembling a profile on them in the first place is already a notable outlier case as per the purpose of us being anonymous in the first place.

And no, this is not "great mental capabilities", this is just assuming that the trivia that bubbles up is indicative of a deep and nuanced well of reliable and thorough recollection. I myself have very distinct memory-of-memory experiences, where I KNOW that the recent recollection is missing detail from previous ones; this is what neurologists assume to be standard.

Castards are the worst sort of players and this thread demonstrates it perfectly.
>NOOOO MY ELF GAME MUST MAKE LOGICAL SENSE

>>96055184
Did you mispell custard?

>>96055184
Internally, so that it can be consistent and thus extended without reducing to Calvenball.

>>96055192
I assume a portmantu of "caster" and "retard".

>>96055164
>I...I... don't care! Look how much I don't care!
Jesus anon. This is embarrassing.

>>96055148
>there's a pretty huge difference between pleading for a higher entity's aid and forcing mindless or nigh-mindless external forces/energies to do shit.

There honestly isn’t, if (and only if) said powers are far too convenient to have come out through unintelligent evolution alone. Often the powers people ascribe to magicians are from higher powers-that-be. Whatever you want to call them.

Superpowers make no sense evolutionary speaking.

>>96055178
No, again, you're little smooth brain is confused. I'm not stroking my ego, I'm laughing at yours. See, you don't understand that intelligent people can remember all sorts of things, from big important things to tiny pointless things, because that's just how we function. It's making you so upset to discover this, and I find that funny, because you're not just a retard, but an arrogant retard. So, once again, thanks for confirming you're a retarded bug autist.

>>96055183
>>96055211
See, doing this weak samefagging doesn't stop you from being a retard.

Why are bugs so autistic

>>96055227

>>96055244
>thinks this is trolling
No, it's genuine, you really are a retard and you really are being called out for it.

>>96055240
Your a mental midget and you are embarrassing yourself. Just stop.

>>96055255

>>96055258
>see, I'm phoneposting about something only 1 poster would be upset about... I'm definitely not me!!!
Nice try, retarded bug.

>>96055243
He’s been told time and time again that magic isn’t anything but perception and he is losing his mind over it lul

>>96055267
...Traditional games?

>>96055264
I'm glad you remember where you saved that, it must've been a real challenge for you.

>>96055212
>Superpowers make no sense evolutionary speaking.
And typically reside in worlds that thumb their nose at the IRL science of evolution.

>>96055227
Recall is not processing is not intuition quality is not socializing. There are strong correlations between some metrics of cognitive functions, but also giant gaps between others.

>>96055240
>assumes samefagging
No, you're just enough of a shitter to get two people shitting on you. Now answer the fucking question, how thorough is this "impressive" recall?

>>96055265
Nope, desktop here and wildly divergent posting style to back it.

>>96055273
Just like your cat must be very impressed you remembered that pebble on the road or that you can find your ass with both hands, I'm sure

>>96055274
>Nope, desktop here and wildly divergent posting style to back it.
Oops, you made a mistake. You see, I replied to the post of the screenshot on a phone, which you claim isn't you. And yet the only reason you would is because you've forgotten which post chain you're supposed to be on which device. Which, again, is back to your inability to remember things properly.

Well done outing yourself, samefag.

>>96055286
I don't have a cat, so I guess I'll just have to make do with your seething over my memory capacity > your memory capacity. You can stop the samefagging now and stick to one chain, it'll be easier for you to keep up.

>>96055274
>And typically reside in worlds that thumb their nose at the IRL science of evolution
It’s one or the other. Something either progresses unintelligently or intelligently. Unintelligent evolution is an overly sophisticated blind idiot. It doesn’t give a fuck if it causes bottlenecks. It doesn’t give a fuck that eighty-percent of giraffes are gay, or their laryngeal nerve is all fucked. Blind cave fish sucking on rocks. Etc.

Nature that entertains shit like sacrifice is too good to be true, unintelligently speaking.

>>96055295
You're the one who can't consider that maybe multiple people think you're a self-absorbed douchebag

>>96055309
Multiple people wouldn't because the "offence" occurring is that you personally have been outed as a brainlet bug retard. No one else is going to leap to your defence so rabidly over it.

>>96055288
>And yet the only reason you would is because you've forgotten which post chain you're supposed to be on which device.
Or because I'm a different person focused on shitting on your egotistical assumption that your trivia-brain is a sign of noteworthy intelligence built on the near-certainly wrong premise that it's at all thorough, I didn't bother to carefully review what you were responding to.

The second point regarding the posting style diverging remains, no matter your conspiratorial thinking. That's a pretty big sign of midwitery or select functions wildly exceeding the ability of others to cope, meaning you are either not smart or in the process of going mad.

>>96055300
>Nature that entertains shit like sacrifice is too good to be true, unintelligently speaking.
IRL nature, but Elfgame is about counterfactuals. The fundamental premises in IRL science you keep insisting on applying to it can be exhaustively excluded by the demonstrable breaks from our reality.

>>96055321
Have you considered that another can find your position objectionable without being concerned about the one you intend to mock?

>>96055321
>you personally
>checks name
>Still Anonymous
You are outright spinning your wheels at this point, aren't you?

>>96055338
>IRL nature, but Elfgame is about counterfactuals
Okay. That’s fine. You just assume that nature is alive in some way. That’s even neat. Again, it’s either intelligent or it’s not intelligent.

>Psionics
Brain Powers
>Magic
Supernatural Powers
>Miracles
God Powers
>Science
Natural Powers

I won't be taking any questions at this time.
If you have any problems with this paradigm you have terminal gay.
Debate at your own peril.

>>96055338
>I didn't bother to carefully review what you were responding to.
Because you didn't have to worry about if it was to you or not, because it's just you samefagging. Any response is going to be for you.
>Have you considered that another can find your position objectionable without being concerned about the one you intend to mock?
You'd have to admit you're a brainlet bug retard if you find my position of "intelligent people can remember even minor things without trying" objectionable. Chances are higher you're just a samefag.

>>96055339
Which then leads us to this continued desperate samefagging. You're actually too stupid to know how you're so easily indentifiable, you make being anonymous redundant.

>>96055400
If you've identified me, what's my name then?

>>96055399
If you aren’t an idiot and you can think holistically that’s all the same thing.

How is the brain not biology? How is the supernatural not misunderstood nature? How is god not a giant ass alien? How is nature not everything that is? How is a wizard casting a spell not science?

Jesus Christ.

>>96055399
It's close enough to how I set it up for my settings, so it seems reasonable enough

>>96055406
>thinks being identifiable in posts means you know their exact name
Holy shit, I knew you were bad with context and struggling with autism, but fuck, you're actually crippled by it. Poor Zhang.

>>96055414
Terminal gay

I'm afraid it's untreatable.

You'll be consuming phalluses for the rest of your very brief life.

damn shame

>>96055321
Watching a mental midget meltdown in real time is entertaining.

>>96055424
I'm American. The hell did you get Zhang from, freak?

>>96055432
>midget
What an odd thing to bring up out of nowhere. Sadly, incorrect. You may have inadvertently revealed your insecurities, but don't worry, I won't mock you for it, you being a retard is more than enough.

>>96055434
You can stop samefagging now, Zhang.

>>96055461
Why are you replying to multiple posts? Were all the same poster. One reply will do.
It's almost like you know you are not conversing with one person.

>>96055392
>You just assume that nature is alive in some way
No, I assert that a logically-coherent construction where it is exists, even if this is at odds enough with real life that little of the underlying processes

>Again, it’s either intelligent or it’s not intelligent.
Emergent teleology can create very insistent directionality with no intelligence required.

>>96055400
>because it's just you samefagging
No, because it's irrelevant to my shitting on you.

>You'd have to admit you're a brainlet bug retard if you find my position of "intelligent people can remember even minor things without trying" objectionable.
I speak as another with spectacular trivia-brain, it has nothing to do with ability to process the information retained, nor does it entail thoroughness in recall of actual value. As you continue to insist upon conspiratorial thinking of two different posters being one, I entirely informally diagnose you with schizoidal midwittery.

>>96055414
>think holistically
But the subject isn't holistic, it's highly specific.

>How is the brain not biology?
Trivial to propose a counterfactual where much of cognition resides in a distinct immaterial soul.

>How is the supernatural not misunderstood nature?
Because the entire reason the word exists is that it was the common assumption that things beyond nature existed. In the counterfactual where these disproven to our world assumptions are correct, there's no reason to reduce the notion out of possibility.

>How is god not a giant ass alien?
Local origins.

>How is nature not everything that is?
Literally every other definition from the one you retardedly insist upon.

>How is a wizard casting a spell not science?
By presupposing that it cannot be reduced to underlying principles through empirical study.

>>96055461
>What an odd thing to bring up out of nowhere.
It is merely a different diminutive from your "-let" affix, a "no u" of the retardation claim.

>>96055487
>No, I assert that a logically-coherent construction where it is exists, even if this is at odds enough with real life that little of the underlying processes
So you’re applying a living mess to causality. Okay. That’s the same thing.

>>96055495
>So you’re applying a living mess to causality.
Your blinkered nonsense form of "causality" that insists many highly derived features of IRL intellectual progress are immutable when they spent centuries in contention because they very much aren't.

>>96055487
>Emergent teleology can create very insistent directionality with no intelligence required.
No. Ever hear the phrase ‘nature doesn’t work in right angles’? It’s like arguing that a perfectly carved and signed statue of Jesus having gay sex with Buddha would just naturally form unintelligently. It would not. The 21st century wouldn’t form if it didn’t have the required intelligences, or intelligent life, to conceive and build it.

There are layers to causal phenomena.

>>96055424
>>96055461
You should probably retreat back to /pol/ if you’re this upset about China men boogeymen

>>96055479
I'm using a single post to reply to your samefagging multiple posts. If it were multiple people, I'd make multiple posts, retard.

>>96055487
>It is merely a different diminutive from your "-let" affix, a "no u" of the retardation claim.
More confirmation that you're the same person, you don't seem to understand that "brainlet" means to have a small brain. It is not the same as "midget". A classic continuation of your weak grasp on English definitions.

>>96055524
Are you begging me to stop revealing what a retarded brainlet bug you are? That's sad, but you're free to leave.

>>96055487
>But the subject isn't holistic, it's highly specific.
Cope. Everything meets in the end. Always. There is always a background to the foreground. Always.

>Because the entire reason the word exists is that it was the common assumption that things beyond nature existed
Cool. That’s still based on ignorance, thobeit. Things that were thought of as supernatural or magical back then certainly aren’t thought of as such how.

>Local origins.
Nope. God is not local. He in fact predates His creation of Earth. He is external to the terrestrial sphere. He is by default an alien. An extra-terrestrial.

>By presupposing that it cannot be reduced to underlying principles through empirical study.
Nope. Can’t be done. The fireball still happened. It’s still fire. Science.

:^)

>>96055505
You don’t know what causality is. Loool.

>>96055532
You’re the one treating multiple people like the same boogeyman from a troll thread from months ago, though

99.99% of magic systems in fiction can be chalked up to sufficiently advanced technology indistinguishable from nature. Magic is always far too convenient or far too constructed. Artificial. The variables and parameters are too much.

Fantasy is more advanced than science fiction proper. The more advanced and sophisticated something is, the smaller it becomes. Computers once took up whole rooms. What if technology eventually becomes indistinguishable from nature? What happens when nature takes shape in ways evolution wouldn’t originally allow for? What if evolution -wasn’t- a blind idiot and didn’t cause evolutionary dead ends or bottlenecks? What if nature responded to your actions? What if it entertained religion? Human sacrifice?

Consider that AI is much less complex than biological life and can still absolutely wreck the best humans at chess. Extend it to hypothetically biologically supported technology and you’ve just created a true fucking monster.

>>96055569
Noooo shut upppp

>>96055552
And?

>>96055578
No. Floating rotating magic circles that appear in mid-air while you cast your spells is just too much. Anime is gay.

>>96055512
>Ever hear the phrase ‘nature doesn’t work in right angles’?
Ever heard of the Golden Ratio being spat out by an enormous variety of phenomena for no discernable reason? In a world where the Vitalist hypothesis and some variety of deontological ethics are objectively verifiable per most every D&D setting, rituals of ill moral character granting power for sacrifice is a rather blunt utilization of the forces in effect. They simply do not conform to your monist materialism

>More confirmation that you're the same person, you don't seem to understand that "brainlet" means to have a small brain. It is not the same as "midget".
MENTAL midget. Two-word phrase instead of affix modifier to construct a depreciative statement regarding cognitive ability

>>96055542
>Cope. Everything meets in the end. Always. There is always a background to the foreground. Always.
Not necessarily. Reductionism is in no way proven

>That’s still based on ignorance, thobeit.
In real life. But inside the Elfgame context, it's factual.

>Nope. God is not local. He in fact predates His creation of Earth.
>assuming the late omni-everything interpretation of YHWH as the only meaning of "god"

>Nope. Can’t be done. The fireball still happened. It’s still fire. Science.
And if there is no amount of observation that reduces the properties of the fire and ritual actions taken to a common theory of causation?

>>96055550
"Causality" is merely "X leads to Y", you keep asserting an extremely derived construction synonymizing it, physics, nature, and assorted other concepts that are not at all synonymous in the common usage that determines the meaning of words into an all-encompassing top-order tautology

>>96055569
>Magic is always far too convenient or far too constructed.
There's this thing called the "Anthropic Principle" highlighting how specific natural laws and the arrangement of matter must be to permit humans to exist that makes this argument synonymous with creationism

Right, that's my (>>96054994) time up again, off to the pub this time. Glad to see I've caused the same retard more assblasting, I'll let him do some more samefagging on his own now, it'll make him feel a little better. It's been fun!

>>96055588
Sounds gay, frankly

>>96055639
I don’t know what’s sadder, that you’re trying this hard to act like you’re not upset, or that you’re a British fag

>like psionics as being different or at least distinct from magic
>thread on that exact topic
>complete shitshow

Every time.

>>96055639
Just look at him >>96055623
it’s incredible
He just argues for the sake of arguing

>>96055698
It’s really only one retard who can’t understand that magic is pure semantics and isn’t the same for everyone.

>>96050509 (OP)

E. E. "Doc" Smith. Early DND aped a lot of shit without any rhyme or reason.

Note that it's not anymore bizzarre than separating divine and arcane magic.

>>96055623
So you DO believe that a statue of Buddha having gay sex with Jesus is possible absent an intelligence? Doubt.

>>96055698
Thanks to one asshole who always hijacks the thread to whinge about magic being science or whatever and pretends this isn't a board about traditional games, since otherwise the question would be as simple as "Because the game manual states magic comes from a different source of power than psionics"

>>96055623
>Not necessarily. Reductionism is in no way proven
Yes necessarily. There’s information to everything. Assuming there isn’t is just assuming something doesn’t exist at all.

>In real life. But inside the Elfgame context, it's factual.
Even in fiction causality moving that way is far too convenient. Fantasy is basically a giant video game. Video games have intelligent intent invested into them. They are not actual unintelligent evolutions.

>And if there is no amount of observation that reduces the properties of the fire and ritual actions taken to a common theory of causation?
Impossible. The fireball happened. If it defies the conservation of mass you just have to chalk it up to spaces unseen. It’s coming from somewhere.

>>96055849
You’re the problem, though. His argument was only ever “magic to one isn’t magic to another”. You’re throwing a huge tantrum because you seem to want magic to be magic no matter what, even in fiction. That’s impossible!

>>96050509 (OP)
Typically magic is depicted as a phenomena of the world and pisonics are depicted as a phenomena of the mind

>>96055849
>"Because the game manual states magic comes from a different source of power than psionics”
Imagine, if you will, two cultures that use these two words in opposites. What if what they consider to be psionics is considered magic by the other culture, and what if what they consider to be magic is considered to be psionics by the other? D’oh!

>>96055883
Daring to throw my piece into the ring. It's just Plato vs Aristotle all over again.

>>96055871
Anon, have you ever played a tabletop game before? Like, for real? Do you not understand why having clear definitions about the forces and concepts at play inside the game to begin with matter?

>>96050537
>science is a very narrow thing that simply happens to work excellently in our world

Science is a the study of empirical observations of the world not something that can work/not work.

>>96055892
How many games have you played where they do that? What was the experience like?

>>96055897
Those definitions are allowed to be ironic and even flawed (especially to the reader) in an environment that is more or less one of medieval-esque ignorance.

What, do you really think wizards already know everything and wouldn’t eventually realize that fire and cold magic are the same magic?

Magic is allowed to update itself. Wanting it to remain the same is retarded.

mfw have in-game proof that psionics and magic stem from the same root in D&D but prefer them to be different and the source is so obscure that nobody else will think to mention it, so I'll just leave it unsaid

>>96055826
No, it's one person vocally refusing your retarded constructions, and more people with different reasons.

>>96055837
In a sufficiently intensive counterfactual where the alternative rules self-organize such a shape, yes. The "magic" that breaks your suspension of disbelief and apparently basic worldview premises is a far lesser ask.

>>96055859
>There’s information to everything.
It being accessible and two-way correlated is not guaranteed, nor is it fitting the definition of "information" used in physics.

>Assuming there isn’t is just assuming something doesn’t exist at all.
No, it's assuming that it is fundamentally inexplicable to your poor comprehension of IRL science.

>Even in fiction causality moving that way is far too convenient.
No such thing.

>They are not actual unintelligent evolutions.
Not by the terms internal to the counterfactual.

>If it defies the conservation of mass you just have to chalk it up to spaces unseen.
Conservation laws are not a logical requirement for internal consistency. Their absence results in things like the proofs of the formulae having only one valid result ceasing to apply, but these do not demand internal incoherence of the counterfactual.

>>96055904
...Yes, that's my point. It HAPPENS to work, but it is not DEFINED by it working as the retard insisting that the success of reductionist monism must apply to Elfgame says.

>>96055929
>Those definitions are allowed to be ironic and even flawed (especially to the reader) in an environment that is more or less one of medieval-esque ignorance.
They're also allowed to be unironic and bearing less flaw than Victorian science in a counterfactual where the things born of IRL ignorance are the truth.

>>96055929
So if my Ranger has a skill that gives him an attack buff in fighting goblins, and I describe a goblin, and then tell him that he can't apply his attack buff because what I described is not a goblin but instead some yet-unseen breed of midget orc, is that fair?

>>96055932
They can be seen as different due to ignorance. There’s nothing wrong with that. Christians thought their miracles weren’t magic, while their priests and bishops knew the irony.

>>96055952
Except existence works. Everything in nature works. There is science everywhere. It’s unavoidable. Einstein saw it this way. Why can’t you? There’s music playing in the background whether you listen in or not.

>>96052303
>Because science is definitionally empirical while magic operates on skeptical epistemology.

Magic doesn't necessarily operate on skeptical epistemology unless we're speaking about magical creatures and innate magic present in the world, but wizards, alchemists, etc. That study and figure out how to be better at magic absolutely use empirical observations to become better at the craft.

>>96055954
I actually kind of like that people will fight over whether or not psionics are magic. It makes them somehow stranger and more exotic because neither the players nor the in-game experts can even agree what the fuck is happening. Arcane magic feels more 'solved' since nearly every setting has turned it into academic pursuit rather than fantastical experience.

>>96052303
>Because science is definitionally empirical while magic operates on skeptical epistemology
Not necessarily. The wizard stereotype came from natural philosophers and proto scientists poking at the unknown and lacing their understanding with arcane know-how for the time. The idea that magic is distinct from science is one of ignorance. Science is the magic of the future. It stems from it. The learned men of the past were themselves priests, more often than not. The foremost “wizards” in Europe were monks of the Catholic Church, like Roger Bacon and Albertus Magnus, etc. Astrology and artifice and alchemy played big roles in the stereotype. Machines were seen as magic all the way in Ancient Greece. The word magic was broad, and its meaning expanded to include astronomy, astrology, alchemy, and other forms of esoteric knowledge.

>>96055979
Yeah but this psychology is hated by the above autismo who wants magic to be seen as magic no matter what, or for miracles to be seen only as miracles no matter what, etc.

They can’t do it.

Congratulations, OP, your constant spamming earned you a nemesis just as autistic and obsessed as you are!
Now the topic is toxic and nobody will take it seriously, hope you're proud.

>>96056036
To be fair, morons like that guy aren’t all that dissimilar from morons who think psychology is fake Jewish nonsense. That he’s Chinese says a lot.

>>96056036
We could have just talked about the different interpretations of magic… like how magic is different in all sorts of settings… but instead he tried his hardest to argue is always magic no matter the subjective perception… he doesn’t want humans having their own perceptive agencies… lol…

>>96054518
The issue with your examples here is that magic isn't a tangible thing, just a concept

>>96056030
>>96056053
Wait. Does he not know what “it depends on the author” is itself admitting that magic is an opinion? He’s angry that OP is forcing his vision of magic as an opinion on everyone? How is it not that?

>>96056036
>>96056040
>>96056053
>>96056059
>>96056069
This samefagging is getting sad

>>96055954
>They can be seen as different due to ignorance
They can also just be different in a counterfactual, no "seen as", no "psychology", just the state of existence within it disagreeing with your premises.

>while their priests and bishops knew the irony.
Such a thing was rare because the entire reason it was pushed is that they gave rise to and actively enforced the official stance the difference was genuine.

>>96055968
>Except existence works. Everything in nature works.
Which have no bearing on the particulars of a counterfactual.

>There is science everywhere. It’s unavoidable.
Not in a counterfactual where its specific premises are incorrect.

>>96055970
No, the literature that breaks from "can't really know" still uses more rationalist than empiricist epistemology for judging the quality of the knowledge. The experiments aren't to reduce to common laws, outright divination is not exactly rare in the process.

>>96056018
>The idea that magic is distinct from science is one of ignorance.
No, it's at worst anachronism, the vast majority of people in pretty much every culture with both concepts have considered them separate things, if only from the divide between Natural Philosophy and their varying conceptions of the supernatural. From this, the entire rest of your post is bullshit.

>>96056053
Then actually discuss different interpretations of magic instead of backing a retard saying it all HAS TO BE one fuzzy subjective non-thing!

>>96056069
>Does he not know what “it depends on the author” is itself admitting that magic is an opinion?
It's not admitting that magic ABSOLUTELY MUST be an opinion EVEN INSIDE THE FICTION.

>>96055184
A game must make logical sense for it to be engaged with anon. Otherwise thinking about what actions you should take is pointless because no logic can be applied to something inherently illogical

>>96056069
Yes. He’s that stupid.

Person A: “magic is an opinion”
Person B: “no it’s not, stop imposing your of magic when others exist”
Person A: “but that’s my point? magic is anything seen as magical?”
Person B: “no magic exists in fiction”
Person A: “what if those in fiction persons don’t see it as magic?”
Person B: “no that’s not how the word works”
Person A: “how the word works is decided by the people, be they real or fictional.”
Person B: “no you don’t understand how semantics works”
Person A: “but that’s literally semantics - words meaning different things to different people!”
Person B: “no u”

Be mad at OP all you want. His opponent is still phenomenally dumber.

>>96056059
Death is also just a concept. It still exists, and you'd be retarded if you tried to argue it's subjective.

>>96056081
>It's not admitting that magic ABSOLUTELY MUST be an opinion EVEN INSIDE THE FICTION.
You’re arguing that magic is an opinion while also arguing that magic isn’t an opinion? Are you self aware at all?

>>96056097
But what traditional game is he discussing, not-OP?

>>96056078
>he’s gone full schizo
Meds.

>>96056081
>Then actually discuss different interpretations of magic instead of backing a retard saying it all HAS TO BE one fuzzy subjective non-thing!
See >>96056106
You don’t appear to be self aware

>>96056081
You want magic to exist 100% in fiction but for some reason you don’t understand that something is only seen as magic if it’s seen as magic? Weird.

Something can look and act 100% like magic and still not be seen as magic, like Tolkien’s elves, or indeed 21st century man.

>>96056141
And what game has that kind of setup?

>>96055623
>And if there is no amount of observation that reduces the properties of the fire and ritual actions taken to a common theory of causation?

You don't need to reduce the fire and the ritual into smaller components to establish a common theory of causation. If the ritual caused the fire to happen, that's a theory of causation

>>96056085
And the "logical sense" is only a narrow one of internal consistency, not consistency with a militant monist materialist.

>>96056097
You're glossing over the outright nuthouse-worthy constructions that OP is asserting magic is ALWAYS a subjective opinion based on a specific soft-science jargon.

>>96056106
I'm arguing that "magic" is a word with a wide range of definitions, very few of which are subjective. The disparity between the definitions is distinguished by context rather than reduced to one fuzzy non-thing, with the internal context of the fiction fundamentally relying on picking a set of them.

>>96056141
>You want magic to exist 100% in fiction but for some reason you don’t understand that something is only seen as magic if it’s seen as magic?
...Because your statement only makes sense with specific soft-science jargon consuming the long list of other definitions throughout the history of the wandering word. Picking out exactly and only the initial Greek adoption as the definition of the word in the context internal to the fiction wherein that definition is a readily observed and used phenomenon means it 100% exists AND remains magic even if somebody in the fiction insists it is not.

That is the nature of a counterfactual. It is a conditional hypothetical where at least one true thing is declared false. This is why your constant reference to our reality is Not Even Wrong, because the fundamental basis of the discussion is disregarding elements of it.

>>96056171
But it is not a SCIENTIFIC theory of causation because it can neither generalize nor be reduced, leaving only an isolated causal statement.

>>96056199
>But it is not a SCIENTIFIC theory of causation because it can neither generalize nor be reduced, leaving only an isolated causal statement.
That’s still causal, thobeit.!

>>96055952
>...Yes, that's my point. It HAPPENS to work, but it is not DEFINED by it working as the retard insisting that the success of reductionist monism must apply to Elfgame says.

Anon you completely ignored my post, science isn't something that can be described as working/not working. Science is a description of how we observe the world to work.

If we can observe that doing a specific ritual has a specific effect, that's science. The only for this not to be true is if causes are no longer be associated with effects, but in that case magic can't be used since magic is no longer be depended on.

>>96056199
You’re still essentially arguing that magic can exist even in fiction beyond the brain, it can’t. Look at the Force in Star Wars. It is blatantly magical but it isn’t necessarily seen as magic.

>>96056248
Is this a thread about Star Wars now?

>>96056232
>That’s still causal, thobeit.!
Which doesn't make it science.

>>96056235
>If we can observe that doing a specific ritual has a specific effect, that's science.
No, there are in fact further requirements to be "science". It's not just writing shit down after you fuck around, it's a quite specific empirical reductionist approach to study. When an observation gives you no new information, you have merely attempted science rather than truly done it.

>>96056248
>You’re still essentially arguing that magic can exist even in fiction beyond the brain, it can’t.
It can, because every single reason you could ever possibly give for why it cannot can be declared untrue within the counterfactual.

>>96056255
Examples really piss you off, eh? You love screaming “what game?”. You’re likely the same idiot who does that in every goddamn thread. “What game?”. You’re the “no games” shitter or something. You only ever want to talk about Dee en Dee.

>>96056248
That's a really fucking bad example, because the Force can be measured based on midi-chlorian count.

>>96056199
>But it is not a SCIENTIFIC theory of causation because it can neither generalize nor be reduced, leaving only an isolated causal statement.

I don't see where you're getting the idea that science needs to be able to be generalized or reduced, science as we know it is can be generalized or reduced because that's true for our reality.

What if blatant bait isn’t seen as bait?

>>96056259
>Which doesn't make it science
If something happens, there will be science to it. Evolution isn’t limited to life.

>>96056259
>No, there are in fact further requirements to be "science". It's not just writing shit down after you fuck around, it's a quite specific empirical reductionist approach to study.

I would love to see where you're getting this from, no definition I can find on science stats it has to be empirically reductionist

>>96056259
>No, there are in fact further requirements to be "science".
Science is as simple as fucking around and finding out. “Remember kids, the only real difference between proper science and fucking around is writing it down”. Making a fire, is science. The stick is a form of technology. Even the wheel.

You hate science or something if you seriously think there’s more to it.

>>96056235
Science requires a systematic methodology. There were no cavemen scientists. If your definition was correct there would be no point to academic terms like "protoscience".

>>96056266
No, cause if this were a Star Wars thread, that would lead credence to the whole "magic to some, not to others" for the fact most Starr Wars media does not hard define if it is or isn't, and whether or not you might believe The Force is magic or not depends on whether or not you consider it an inherent part of the universe as espoused by the Jedi and Sith or you take the side of those who aren't force sensitive who are rightfully skeptical of something that can't be interacted with except by those who claim they're "special" enough to control or be guided by something they can't prove exists beyond "it just does". Especially since we as an audience are privy to the fact it DOES actually tangibly exist.

>>96050509 (OP)
psionics and magic are different because the GM said so.

>>96056267
It’s not a bad example when there’s going to be particles to a magic missile. A fireball conjured by a wizard is still fire. It’s all physics. The hatred against Midichlorians was always silly to me. The quantum world is incredibly esoteric - magic.

>>96056267
>he thinks Star Wars isn’t cosmic horror
Lol, think again; Lucas was going to touch upon God. Disney fucked it up.

>>96056311
It’s almost like magic is an opinion…

>>96056298
>Science requires a systematic methodology. There were no cavemen scientists. If your definition was correct there would be no point to academic terms like "protoscience".

A systematic methodology doesn't require it to be empirically reductive, a systematic methodology can literally be any kind of system of recording and comparing information.

Also, "protscience" is part of the scientific method

>>96056298
>There were no cavemen scientists
They weren’t self-acknowledged scientists, but they still did go through scientific processes. The history of science goes all the way to ancient Egypt.

>>96056314
That's a different point, though. You said magic can't exist beyond the brain, as if it's only conceptual, and used the Force as an example. Midi-chlorians disprove that.

But on your separate point "A fireball conjured by a wizard is still fire", it's fire without any fuel or source of heat. Even a schoolkid knows you need oxygen, heat, and fuel for fire. A wizard conjuring fire and maintaining its existence isn't physics if it runs counter to physics.

>>96056266
No, there's quite a number of people sick of how many threads on /tg/ get dragged away from actual games over recurrent bullshit autism. It's more typical to just stop coming to the board, hence the declining traffic.

>>96056274
>I don't see where you're getting the idea that science needs to be able to be generalized or reduced
...The point of it is substantiating theories explaining distinct events. This does in fact require the theory generalize or be reducing others.

>>96056278
>If something happens, there will be science to it.
Not if you use any of the definitions of "science" that are not synonymous with "causality", which are the decided majority and far more common than your retarded construction.

>>96056282
Empiricism at least is baked in by experimentation, while I see reductionism as unavoidable with the rabbit-hole of the practice.

>>96056293
The pithy reductions do not generate the strong trend of continually improving explanations. The specific framework of empirical reduction is in fact required for that. To dismiss this nuance is to ignore why human advancement exploded after its creation.

>>96056314
>It’s not a bad example when there’s going to be particles to a magic missile.
And if the counterfactual declares there don't need to be?

>A fireball conjured by a wizard is still fire.
But with the standard causal connections all missing.

>It’s all physics.
Not necessarily. All that is required for it not to be is for any one of the very many steps in your construction rendering that synonymous with "existent" to be declared false for the counterfactual.

>>96056333
Not unavoidably when you accept a word can have more than one concrete meaning that must be distinguished by context, as is the standard in linguistics.

>>96056344
>But on your separate point "A fireball conjured by a wizard is still fire", it's fire without any fuel or source of heat. Even a schoolkid knows you need oxygen, heat, and fuel for fire. A wizard conjuring fire and maintaining its existence isn't physics if it runs counter to physics.

It isn't possible according to our understanding of physics, but if this fireball actually occured irl we wouldn't say it "runs counter to physics", it would just mean our understanding of the way to world operates (physics) is incorrect

>>96056333
Not if you're playing a game with rules you agree upon.
>You rolled a 1, you get your arm chopped off
>I don't agree, I say I rolled a 20
>We can see the die, it's right there
>Seems I'm just *snnorf* intellectually superior to you then

>>96056344
>You said magic can't exist beyond the brain-
Yes, because magic is quite literally the chemistry in the brain leading up to “wow it’s like magic!”.
>as if it's only conceptual, and used the Force as an example.
Concepts exist in the brain.
>Midi-chlorians disprove that.
How? They’re incredibly magical.

>>96056354
>...The point of it is substantiating theories explaining distinct events. This does in fact require the theory generalize or be reducing others.

You can explain events without creating a theory that generalized or reduces others, it just would be a weaker theory than one that does. However in the absence of the possibility of one that does existing, it would be servicable.

>>96056354
>Not if you use any of the definitions of "science" that are not synonymous with "causality", which are the decided majority and far more common than your retarded construction.
This moron thinks causality has nothing to do with science lmfao

>But with the standard causal connections all missing.
That doesn’t mean it’s not magic, and it’s like claiming probabilistic takes on physics are magical. People like Bohr seriously thought that physics arises from a state of nothing. Conjuration.

>>96056365
Nope. It’s 100% an opinion. If you make a magic system and someone says “no it’s not magic”, then that’s that.

Magic has always been personal. Magic can absolutely not be good enough to be magic to another. “Nope not magical enough”. Sorry.

>>96056354
>Empiricism at least is baked in by experimentation, while I see reductionism as unavoidable with the rabbit-hole of the practice.

Empiricism is, but empiricism is just observation anon. The only way for magic to not be empirical is for it to not be observable.

Reductionism is unavoidable in our practice of science irl because reductionism works irl, absence of reductionism working you could still have science it just wouldn't look like our science.

>>96056354
Just because we don’t see how something happens doesn’t mean it “lol defies physics”, you twat. We don’t know what causes gravity. It’s borderline magic to us. But it’s still physics.

Please fuck off.

>>96056357
>It isn't possible according to our understanding of physics, but if this fireball actually occured irl we wouldn't say it "runs counter to physics", it would just mean our understanding of the way to world operates (physics) is incorrect
Or we'd say it's magic.

>>96056367
>Yes, because magic is quite literally the chemistry in the brain leading up to “wow it’s like magic!”.
No, it's an event that occurs. It's not just in your head.
>Concepts exist in the brain.
And events occur outside of it.
>How? They’re incredibly magical.
And they're not just in the brain.

A fireball isn’t made of fire according to the autismo. Gravity isn’t physics according to the autismo since we cannot see where it comes from.

I’m genuinely, sincerely perturbed by this level of intellect.

>>96056402
>No, it's an event that occurs. It's not just in your head.
Yes, it’s an event that occurs that makes you go “wow, it’s like magic!”, not the event itself, since the event itself might not be seen as magic at all.

>>96056333
no actually my GM said "magic" is anything that manipulates mana. while "psionics" is the use of sheer willpower to shape reality. it's a pretty objective, concrete definition.

>>96056402
>And they're not just in the brain.
Do the Midichlorians see themselves as magic? Does God see Himself as a god the same way his followers do? Are you a god to an ant? Do you see yourself as magical to a mouse? This is the point they’re making.

>>96056442
Cool. Another GM says the opposite. It’s an opinion.

Please continue show us how stupid you are though.

Magic “depends on the author/setting” is a very common answer. That you nards can’t parse it as opinionated is hilarious.

It’s religious.

The Fireball example is especially dumb because it actually tells you what happens in the spell's description: you siphon off a tiny ember of the Elemental Plane of Fire, contain it as a bead in the palm of your hand, and then throw it to a point where it decompresses and spills all its elemental energy out in an area.

Which is dumb in its own way because that means it should be Conjuration instead of Evocation, but whatever.

>>96056420
He’s Chinese. They can’t do physics as well as white people.

>>96056357
>it would just mean our understanding of the way to world operates (physics) is incorrect
And it's entirely possible for this to mean that "physics" itself is incorrect, because that framework has been specified in a theoretically falsifiable manner.

>>96056367
>Yes, because magic is quite literally the chemistry in the brain leading up to “wow it’s like magic!”.
Only in the definition associated with the adjective "magical" and worlds where consciousness is emergent from brain chemistry in the first place. Neither is assured in the counterfactual.

>Concepts exist in the brain.
Only under the information theory assumptions building on neuroscience, which is outright declared false in a great many works of fiction. Namely, every single one with a disembodied spirit that continues to think.

>>96056379
>This moron thinks causality has nothing to do with science lmfao
It's not moronic, it's that the word "science" very rarely means what you think it means. Per definitions being descriptive, enough morons disagreeing makes you wrong.

>>96056389
>Magic has always been personal.
No, it's a broad category of cultural ideas defined collectively, even if the "collective" is a specific authority group as with the Catholics. The angry mob coming to burn you for witchcraft certainly aren't changing their minds because of your ridiculous reduction of the very long list of definitions arising from such.

>>96056398
>Empiricism is, but empiricism is just observation anon.
No, empiricism is the acquisition of knowledge by observation. When the observation is INCAPABLE of teaching you anything, empiricism fails.

>it just wouldn't look like our science.
...Then it's not what we call "science".

>>96056467
>Another GM says the opposite
yea but he's not my GM is he?

>>96056402
>>It isn't possible according to our understanding of physics, but if this fireball actually occured irl we wouldn't say it "runs counter to physics", it would just mean our understanding of the way to world operates (physics) is incorrect
Or we'd say it's magic.

People would say its magic due to it being beyond our knowledge much as people have done in the past or may call a modern day illusionist's illusions magic but even if it were completely unexplainable from a meta-context we would have no way to know ourselves whether or not it is unexplainable no matter what or just not explainable with our current understanding.

>>96056453
He really got brain damaged the moment you explained to him that Tolkien’s elves don’t see themselves as magical beings, lol. That was the beginning of the end. He can’t handle it. “What do you mean the immortal fairy people in the woods aren’t magic? What do you mean the machines of Mordor are sorcery?”. I’ve seen this level of behaviour time and time again from underage people on the internet who put too much investment in fantasy concepts and can’t use higher thinking to see how it all connects in the end.

>>96056486
The fact that him not being your GM makes a difference to whether or not it's a fact kind of proves it's an opinion. Facts aren't dependent on who says them to be factual.

>>96056486
So one GM says one thing and another GM says a different thing. Magic is an opinion.

>>96056389
Cool, next time I'll tell my GM that the next time his Devil shoots lightning at my character, then it doesn't work because it's my opinion that he's not using magic

Fuck right off, r/atheist twat

>>96056483
>No, it's a broad category of cultural ideas defined collectively, even if the "collective"
Yes, it’s personal, and it extends to culture, which is built off of persons. Good lord you can’t think in steps. Magic is absolutely personal to the culture.

>>96056522
Anon I'm not sure you understand what a fact is whether or not the rules are a fact or an opinion don't matter in the context of a game you're choosing to play.

>>96056522
I don’t consider myself a theist or an atheist.

What is a god is just as much a matter of subjective perception as magic is.

The same way religion is a proxy, or a stand-in, for understanding. It can’t be helped. The ancients didn’t know what the stars were, so they interpreted them as the gods. That’s no different from magic as a stage. A curtain. A veil. Yes, a fucking proxy.

Those who want magic to be magic no matter the perspective are a religious sort of brain. “No, God is God!”. Yeah, well, even had that God existed, he is still just a sufficiently advanced/godlike alien being, likely higher dimensional, to the physicist. God wouldn’t see Himself the same way his followers do. He wouldn’t be accurately portrayed in the Bible.

Listen…

Atheists don’t like to acknowledge that a sufficiently godlike alien being can totally be worshiped as a god or something.

Theists don’t like acknowledging that their god is just a big alien and believing in gods is a variant of believing in aliens.

The theist, faith oriented outlook is still the one that doesn’t rely on hard truth—it’s not empirically scientific. It’s using words to describe, not to define. Magic is just that. The Christian sees God as “He”, or “Jehovah”, or “the One”, while the physicist is “clearly a higher dimensional being of some kind, powerful enough to start a religion. Not sure if for better or worse though”.

It all connects. These are just different ways of looking at the same thing.

>>96056510
>>96056515
you're losing me

I see now that OP gets away with shitting out these threads daily because they contain OP alongside all the other mentally deficient Less Wrong posters. Maybe one day you guys will get play games... one day...

>>96056558
That is the logic you're espousing, numbnuts

>>96056563
Your play group mutually agreeing to a set of opinions on how the game should be run doesn't somehow make them facts anon

>>96056569
It's pretty much a circlejerk of OP, himself, and they against the world, yeah, and the mods seem content to let it happen

“What is magic?”
“It depends on the setting, or the author”
“No it doesn’t”
“…Yes it does?”
“No magic is what I say it is”
“…lol”

Basically this thread. OP is a lantern attracting the retarded flies/bugs.

>>96056570
Just because something is an opinion doesn't mean it doesn't matter or isn't useful especially when you're amongst a group of people have agreed to the opinion.

>>96056602
Okay, but I think that me and the GM only care about if I'm required to roll for damage or not if my character is hit by magic lightning. And if we can't agree if it's magic or not, then that's a breakdown in communications which means we have bigger issues than some gay "what doth life" tier rumination on this shit.

>>96056401
>Just because we don’t see how something happens doesn’t mean it “lol defies physics”, you twat
Were it to directly violate incredibly commonly used and important premises like conservation laws and require numeric descriptions violating the mathematical axioms or proofs large chunks of the theories rely on, it would in fact be sound to say it "defies physics".

>But it’s still physics.
Genuinely not a sure thing with regard to the definition the scientific field of physics uses because it doesn't behave according to the energy, force, or matter parameters of any of the other fundamental "forces".

>>96056420
>A fireball isn’t made of fire according to the autismo.
No, it's a fire that skips the typical intermediary requirements like something to combust. It may even be entirely immaterial, burning solely through excitation of the air and emitting light entirely without thermal radiation from soot.

>I’m genuinely, sincerely perturbed by this level of intellect.
No, you're perturbed by the refusal to concede to your incredibly warped and obnoxious worldview.

>>96056467
>Cool. Another GM says the opposite. It’s an opinion.
What you keep missing is the concept of "jargon", highly specialized definitions used in very limited contexts. They cannot be mere opinions because they NEED to be shared by participants in the context for their role in communication.

>>96056469
>The Fireball example is especially dumb because it actually tells you what happens in the spell's description
What happens in D&D's standard cosmology instance of the spell.

>>96056505
>how it all connects in the end.
It doesn't have to in the counterfactuals.

>>96056527
>personal to the culture.
...There is no such thing. "Personal" refers to the individual, "culture" refers to the aggregate of many. These are genuinely contradictory.

>>96056621
>And if we can't agree if it's magic or not, then that's a breakdown in communications which means we have bigger issues than some gay "what doth life" tier rumination on this shit.

Right but whether or not it's a fact or opinion is irrelevant to this. Two people can disagree on a fact, they can also disagree on an opinion. I would think if you both sat down to play a game with eachother that would start or imply that you both agree to follow a set of rules that are an opinion on how the game should operate.

>>96056650
Anon, I'm not there to hold a debate club on whether or not his idea of a demon is firing what I agree is my idea of magic lightning, I'm there to play pretend at killing lightning spewing demons. This "opinion" shit is just a sign you're a total nogames retard

>>96056581
OP doesn't seem to know the meaning of most of the words he's using, or what the sentences he forms actually say. Do you think it's because he's ESL, dyslexic, or autistic? Also reminds me of that recent study about how English Lit majors at some American university couldn't parse Dickens.

>>96056437
>Yes, it’s an event that occurs that makes you go “wow, it’s like magic!”, not the event itself, since the event itself might not be seen as magic at all.
It doesn't matter how it's seen, a magical event is still magic.

>>96056453
And it's not much of a point. If an entity can do magic, it doesn't suddenly mean it's not magic just because it's innate for them. It makes them magical.

>>96056490
Or, people would say it's magic because it's literally running counter to what established physics says. That's what magic is. It's not like you get to a point in science that's so advanced where suddenly all of the established facts of reality get tossed aside. Fire will always need heat, oxygen, and fuel.

>>96056691
Probably a combination of two or all three of them

Jesus Christ he just keeps going

>>96056710
>It doesn't matter how it's seen, a magical event is still magic.
Nope. If someone doesn’t see it as magic then it’s not magic. Simple as.

>>96056859
>Peasant confidently stands up to evil mage by shouting "I don't believe in you" as evil magus slowly fades out of existence
>OP still gets no bitches

>300 posts of pure autism in just a day and change
Glad to see the occasional glimpses of that old /tg/. I wouldn't say "stil got it", but it's nice all the same.

>>96056859
Why are we just throwing out the notion of someone just being fucking wrong.

If magic is a thing that exists in a fictional setting then it stands to reason that it's got some sort of rhyme or reason. (Even if it's unknowable on a human level)

So if someone argues against its use being magic they'd just be fucking wrong. They're not retroactively shaping the world itself.

Like somewhere along the way you've managed to convince yourself that the characters in a world are more of a relevant source of info on a world than the author.

Where is your mindset even coming from?

Besides you know shitposting of course.

>>96056859
>I don't see death as death, therefore I won't die when I down this bottle of cyanide!

>>96057148
Magic is only magic if we don’t understand it. Simple as. That, or wonder. Is it wonderful enough? Is it mysterious enough?

>>96057077
>So if someone argues against its use being magic they'd just be fucking wrong. They're not retroactively shaping the world itself.
This is correct, but I wouldn't waste your time with people like this. They'd never be able to bear admitting their entire foundational world view is incorrect. They function entirely off the assumption that reality does retroactively flex around their imagination. If they believe it hard enough. Any time it doesn't, it requires a laundry list of excuses why it didn't work THIS TIME.

>>96057270
>Man looks deep and longingly at a passing by butterfly
>He asks aloud "Is this a pigeon?"
>Therefore, the butterfly must be a magical pigeon

>nooo magic is always magic no matter what
That’s not how magic works sadly

>>96057279
If it’s the first butterfly I ever saw? Magic.

>>96057300
But you are clearly wrong, because I claim it is a magical pigeon, and my opinion on magic matters more than yours

That's how this works, right?

Psionics are different from magic because my character is psionic but doesn't use magic and you're infringing on my creative control of the character to claim otherwise.

>>96057316
It’s not a pigeon though and you’re retarded.

>>96057366
Ah, but you see, it is my OPINION that it is, therefore you cannot argue that

>>96057371
The opinion here is whether the pigeon (or butterfly) is magical, not whether it’s a pigeon or a butterfly.

Like, an elephant and a glue whale are both “giants”, but they definitely aren’t the same. They’re just both giant.

Magic is “magic”, and giants are “giants”.

>>96057399
Yes, and I assert that I perceive that it is a MAGICAL pigeon that looks like a butterfly, and therefore my viewpoint is equally as valid if not moreso than anyone who claims it to be a normal butterfly

>>96057270
That's your definition. Mine is that magic is anything that goes against the laws of physics.

>>96057399
>glue
blue* sigh

>>96057435
Then it doesn’t exist since nothing can truly defy nature.

I've finally figured these threads out.

>>96056510
the GM decides the facts of the world doesn't he? if he says it's so then it is?

>>96057482
Again, your definition. I say magic can defy nature.

>>96057736
And yet, existence doesn’t counter itself. It just works with itself. Existence is just… existence…

>>96057959
Exactly, existence isn't countering itself, magic is.

>>96057959
"Existence"=/="nature", no matter how many times you try to assert or justify or equivocate or whatever other bullshit construction.

>>96058028
>>96058279
>being this retarded
Stop. Stop it. Just stop it.

>>96058435
It's not us being retarded, its you insisting on being Not Even Wrong by shoehorning highly derived opinions about IRL into counterfactuals.

Tell me, how would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning? Because I am genuinely curious if you even understand what a conditional hypothetical is.

>>96058435
Nothing retarded about it, which is why you fell back to using an ad hominem as your only reply.

do any of you guys every get tired of arguing with anonymous internet strangers for days on end

>>96060082
It's 4chan, what do you think?

>>96055414
>If you aren’t an idiot and you can think holistically that’s all the same thing.
Because game mechanics say they aren't.
This holistic view of magic you've been arguing about is at the end of the day just pseudo-intellectual masturbation. I don't disagree with it, but its irrelevant to 99.9% of traditional games and causes nothing but circular arguments that neither educate nor assist anyone in running or playing games.

All you've been doing this entire time is wasting your own and other people's time and killing any possibility of actually helpful or productive discussion. Please kill yourself, thank you.

>>96056522
Anon, just because you disagree with something "being magic" doesn't mean it stops existing. That lightning bolt may not be magic anymore to you, but it's still perfectly real, as is your ass being fried by it.

>>96060082
Not if I'm right, no.

>>96050509 (OP)
It's a different flavor. As well as coming from a different source and fuel by a different power. It all depends on the story

>>96062257
>Because game mechanics say they aren't.
Games aren’t meant to emulate realism. They’re games for the sake of being games. They’re a stand-in.

>>96052303
the magic of mathematics is weak, what powers does this "science" have to repel the undead or to commune with god himself? arithmancy for it can only lead you astray.