How does magic work in your setting?

>>96277937 (OP)
It doesn't, I don't like magic in my settings.

>>96277937 (OP)
those two are different things, yes, magic in a particular setting isn't whatever the fuck any rando says

>>96277951
Idiot.

>>96277937 (OP)
Lean close, and listen well:
*rips the most disgusting greasy pepperoni fart ever directly down your throat*
Suck it down, faggot. Suck it doooooooooooown!

>>96277953
no argument? i accept your concession

>>96277937 (OP)
Hello newfriend. I see you're new on /tg/, We are very comfy community and we support productive conversation. I feel the topic of this thread would be most useful if you started it in an already existing worldbuilding thread (right here >>96080428) because over there are a lot of storytelling enthusiast who share your wish to create a wonderful world for yourself. I hope you continue your conversation there and find it most inspiring for the world you're trying to create

Good Luck!

Amazing thread

like magic

>>96277937 (OP)
Got tired of being called a faggot in all those other threads you had to start yet another one, eh?

>>96277954
The KANG of /tg/ returns
I kneel

Magic has science to it, but whether it’s scientifically assessable is the nuance that is necessary.

>>96277937 (OP)
Wait for the other thread to finish and a day first, redditoid summertroon

>>96277954
fpbp
fart post best post

>>96277937 (OP)
Magic comes from infernal sources.
All magic. No exceptions.
It works great. The people rely on it not knowing it comes from infernal sources. Society revolves on it always being there. Mundane methods for necessary survival are pretty much all handled by magic now.

So, demons cut off all access until you sign your soul over. Nobody knows how to do shit anymore without magic and even magic infused tools and tech don't work unless you sign your soul over to use them.

That's made the world interesting.

>>96277954

>>96277954
How does he do it? It's beautiful and fresh every time...
>SH4T
Even captcha agrees

Kys op

>>96277954
I love you pepperoniposter

Crazy how people hate where magic comes from. It aligns with their hatred of materialism.

>>96277954
I thought we didn't have any mods left but apparently they only delete good posts now.

>>96284133
Considering they left this thread up to begin with, I think it's a sign they actively want this place to be a shithole

>>96284138
No. They probably find it funny how you retards can’t accept that magic is “it depends on the author”. The people who hate on OP are basically claiming that their idea of magic is superior. “Define magic at your own peril to the detriment (exclusion) of anything else out there that can be described as magical”. That’s literally fiction. “I’m going to imagine something as magic!”. Magic is literally just an angle. A position. A point of view. The mind’s eye. Fuck. That’s why the image in OP is so fucking funny. You’re all fucking blind.

>>96284148
They’re mad that they didn’t see it sooner lol. Magic being “magic” really annihilated their anuses.

>>96284148
I considered saying something pithy, but >>96277954 already said everything for me

>>96284159
Whatever helps you sleep at night

>>96284159
No, they do see it, they’re just more willing to argue than to agree.

>>96284148
Alan Moore approves of this post. Magic to him is just Art—and just considering a thing magic is a form of Art.

>ignorance leads to retarded religion
>ignorance leads to retarded superstition
>ignorance leads to retarded hocus pocus

Yeah I’m pretty sure the core of magic is just mystery/wonder(“I wonder…”) and it extends into enchantment(“how wonderful!”) and this really agitates some for some reason; and my only concession is that something doesn’t necessarily lose its wonder or enchantment just because it’s understood (look at biologists finding new forms of deep sea life; it’s magical to them even if they don’t use the word).

>>96284185
Alan Moore is also a brainfried self-proclaimed anarchist who is still angry that comic book readers ever liked Rorschach and got butthurt over Harry Potter being more popular with dumb kids than Orlando.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

>>96284205
Ignorance is a form of art, anon. Look at religion. Look at all forms of superstition and other accusations of hocus pocus. It is an art form.

>>96284202
yes, it's a good thing we've figured out everything these days and can't fall for that sort of thing anymore

>>96284213
I'm saying that you're trying to present a bitter old man who stuck to comic books so long cause he couldn't hack it as a novelist and spends more time being butthurt that kids today enjoy their animangas more than ancient screenplays and his 19th century penny dreadful crap as your so-called biggest proponent of...whatever the fuck it is you're gurgling about.

When frankly, he'd call you a cocksucking faggot just like the rest of the world would.

>>96284223
What? You think there isn’t mystery out there still? Gravity is borderline magic to this day. Scientists are in denial about all the magic surrounding them. Anything we don’t know is everything else out there.

They hate the word because it empowers the unknown.

>>96277937 (OP)
It's just just the results of genetic experiments from a bygone era. As are all monsters in the setting. If magic exists, it's extremely rare (like 1 in a Quintillion) and is evil in nature.

>>96284235
>When frankly, he'd call you a cocksucking faggot just like the rest of the world would.
And I’d respect him for it.

>something doesn’t necessarily lose its wonder or enchantment just because it’s understood
I do agree, but, ask a zoomer how their phone works and they won’t be able to tell you, and they’ll call you a dumb idiot for suggesting it’s magic because of that, even though it’s borderline magical criteria

>>96284202
>>96284309
Magic is all about exposure. Entering the gates to Wonderland. Yes, Enchantment.

A new technological device is magical by any other name/word used to describe it.

>>96284309
because that's not what the word magic means in a normal conversation that isn't twisting its logic through several gymnastic routines simultaneously

>>96284344
>because that's not what the word magic means in a normal conversation
What magic means in a normal conversation depends on the people involved. “What is magic to you?”. They’ll say different things. It’s usually two or three different options.

>>96284351
it wasn't an invitation to do another backflip

>>96284361
“It’s science we don’t understand”
“It’s supernatural; it goes against nature”
“It’s artsy fartsy hocus pocus!”
etc

>>96284379
buddy, if you call a phone magic in a casual context you are retarded because that's not what the word magic means in that context, end of story

>>96284392
A phone is magic, though. How else do you explain the ability of silicon and electricity to produce a persistent illusion? Sounds like you're just taking it for granted.

>>96284404
>Me Grug
>Me put hand over ear
>Me hear things from further away that me no see
>Brain tells Grug this am magic because noise get louder without object being there make no sense to Grug Brain
>Walk proudly to tribe tell all Grug am now magician
>Tribe call Grug stoopid neanderthal no understand anatomy
>Magician Grug go to mongolian cavepainting wall
>Magician Grug tell world truth about wonderous magic spell Grug learned
>Stoopid cro-magnans draw Grug as neanderthal in response
>Magician Grug call them stoopid in response
>Magician Grug very much not mad at all

>>96284460
You’re retarded lol

>>96284475
Sorry we can't all be magicians, Grug

>>96284460
It's very telling that you think sound waves are as complicated as a functioning computer. Makes me wonder how you've even managed to make a post in the first place, you're clearly retarded.

>>96285384
>How is it nobody understands my retarded analogy despite clearly explaining that anything I don't personally understand is always magic?
>Perhaps my analogy was................incorrect?
>No, it's the other posters who are clearly in the wrong
>Clearly I am so smart that I even bamboozle myself, oh how much of a genius am I

>>96284202
Does not function inside the context of the fiction where there are frequently objective criteria discussed with phrases that require a noun meaning, therefor it is not a valid meaning for /tg/ that routinely discusses such fiction.

>>96284213
>Look at religion. Look at all forms of superstition and other accusations of hocus pocus.
Lack of information resulting in poor answers is not "ignorance is a form of art". It is perhaps "ignorance is a cause of art", but the poor answers are fundamentally trying to fill the gap in knowledge, making the process one of attempting understanding rather than ignorance. That ignorance shaped the results does not make it definitive because truly base ignorance has very different results from the failed attempt at understanding.

>>96284281
"I don't know"="magic" is, again, not functional inside the context of the fiction that is the typical purpose of /tg/ discussion, nor for any discussion of the archaic beliefs about it. Reducing the particulars out of any possibility of a definite in-group makes the very long list of things relying on such illegible, and thus it fails the basic requirement of a definition of describing common use.

>>96284323
Nope. Breaks the grammar used by game rules, therefor invalid, therefor you are Not Even Wrong because you do not meet the basic requirements to have a chance of being correct.

>>96284351
And if you open Webster's English dictionary, you'll see yours reflected by definition 2 of 3 2b. This is an adverb. This is frequently not grammatically valid as a replacement for noun or verb uses.

>>96284404
With the very lengthy series of scientific theories that built it, of course. Just because YOU look at it with blank incomprehension does not mean that the awareness a well-understood answer exists has no impact on US.

>>96285649
lol

>>96285432
You're the only retard using analogies, though, and now you're undermining yourself. Just how retarded are you?

>>96277937 (OP)

>>96277951
Spbp

>>96286559
You don’t need to call yourself retarded anon, it’s already pretty apparent to everyone, but I appreciate how hard you’re trying

There's an entire fucking universe out there, man. My cock is almost blue.

>>96277937 (OP)
Spells are symbiotic spiritual organisms, which allow their host to cast magic. Once they've had long enough to mature in one person, they can "lay an egg" in another, but they mutate in the process, so no two people have the same spell.

>>96277937 (OP)
magic follows three clear rules

>1. magic requires the consumption and expenditure

>2. the ability to use magic is a literal autistic superpower, that lets you do your special interest supernaturally well
>>2.1. this means you can't use magic if you aren't autistic, unless you've are an intrinsically magical creature
>>2.2. you don't actually need to understand your special interest correctly to influence it with magic. Every scrap of information you've digested can be flat-out wrong, and you'll still be able to use it.

>3. how magic works is a compromise between what you believe and what others believe
>>3.1. this means that incantations, gestures, implements, and ritual circles make your magic stronger, but these can take any form that makes sense for you (e.g., a weeb might yell out their attack names and use shinobi hand signs, while a christian might put their hands together and quote scripture)
>>3.2. if your understanding of a subject directly contradicts public consciousness, it can hamper your ability to do magic. For example, if your interest is D&D optimization and you actually understand it, you're completely and utterly fucked.
>3.3. if you use an item as an implement for your spells, eventually that spell will become a part of the implement

>>96277937 (OP)
Who gives a single flying fuck

>>96277937 (OP)
This entire recurring argument is just narcissists slamming together, completely unwilling and unable to comprehend that other people don't share their exact mindset and definitions.
I don't understand why the fuck we're even still revisiting this shit.
Every "argument" just boils down to some autist screaming some variant of "Because I said so!"

>>96289109
>Every "argument" just boils down to some autist screaming some variant of "Because I said so!"
“Because I said so!” is precisely magic. “Magic!”

>>96289126
I don't share your mindset or definitions, and I'm not going to because I think that explanation is pithy and stupid.
Being able to just accept that and move on is a mark of maturity.

>>96289154
>because I think that explanation is pithy and stupid
The alternative is claiming magic is a specific something, or “I’m right and you’re wrong”. I’m not trying to be right here, I’m just pointing out that magic depends on the author, and this extends to culture, perception, etc.

>>96289178
My point would be that you're just dropping an empty platitude as an explanation.
Yes, it depends on the author. But so does every concept. Take another concept, like "justice."
The exact nature of what that means comes down to what the author discussing it wants it to mean too, but you'd have to be lobotomized to sit there and tell me that any definition is just as valuable as any other. Even if there's going to be some wiggle room, just throwing up your hands and deciding that anything can mean anything is--while technically correct--also broadly applicable to the point of meaninglessness.
It's an explanation that's not actually an explanation; I could say that you're just running from an answer rather than providing one.
That being said, my own opinion isn't all that different.
I don't think there's a perfect explanation of what magic is or should be, and because of that I don't really care what other people think except that I'm going to scoff at them for trying to insist on their own views just because their ego is so big they can't handle people not agreeing with their opinions.
If I had to pin down a definition, I'd just say magic is whatever does--or at least seems to--defy the normal laws of nature, being physics, conservation of energy, etc. The ONLY reason some retard is going to disagree with that definition is just because they're a chortling blowhard who needs to be God of the Universe and sit there yapping about what the laws of reality are or aren't.

>>96289258
I really feel like you’re typing far too much regarding something so simple.

>>96289109
That and the main issue is that the people who are so adamant about constantly bringing this subject up don't want to provide any actual context or discuss any specifics, they just want to confuse people with big fancy words. Cause how magic is depicted in /tg/ games is not universal. Like how magic in Legend of the Five Rings is the byproduct of the different spiritual entities directly affecting the world in various ways, making that setting's equivalent of spell-casters more like priests entreating other entities to do their work for them. Or how in say Genius the Transgression, a good chunk of how the Wonders or the mad science inventions work are specifically based on Genius, or pure belief in their given expertise that allows them to build devices that mess with the laws of physics as normal sane people understand it but work completely reasonably to the one who built it.

Making big bold claims like "magic is just how one perceives it" just doesn't neatly apply in situations like that. It works if you're being extremely reductive about form and function regarding that stuff, but it misses the forest for the trees. Telling a shugenja in Rokugan that he's really a "magician" and that his religion is just wishful thinking is just to get you a blank stare because his belief is based on something that he can actually see and interact with in his world that doesn't exist in ours. Likewise, telling a Genius that his understanding of reality is based on wishful thinking that might as well be magic instead of science is pointless because part of his madness IS believing they've found a new branch of science that nobody else has and are just exploiting it for all it's worth.

And neither of them are wrong, because that's how their abilities function inside their own setting, just not in our reality. But that's why you need context when talking about this stuff. Cause every /tg/ system will approach the concept of magic differently.

>>96289833
>>96289308

>>96290620
That's not the rebuttal you think it is, but sure kiddo

>>96289833
>Like how magic in Legend of the Five Rings is the byproduct of the different spiritual entities directly affecting the world in various ways, making that setting's equivalent of spell-casters more like priests entreating other entities to do their work for them
Most casters in history were just priests or other spiritual or religious leaders. The most wizardly were usually this. Moses wasn’t not a wizard to the Greeks or the Jews. The word magic itself came from an order of learned astrologer-priests. It’s also apparent that even without explicit external intelligences to draw power from, magic systems in 99.99% of fiction is far too conveniently constructed for the sake of the narrative to be anything but the product of some external intelligence, even if it’s just the author beyond the fourth wall (seriously, since all fiction can be deconstructed, no fiction can exactly avoid the existence of the fourth wall).

>Making big bold claims like "magic is just how one perceives it" just doesn't neatly apply in situations like that
What are you talking about? All those fictions were born of someone’s (the author’s) opinions, or perception. That’s just how it is. Even people in-setting may or may not see it as magic. The gods may or may not see themselves as gods. What you call magic probably won’t be magic to some hypothetical alien that’s capable of looking at it inside and out to the point where it’s just another facet of physics. Eventually things become inverted and magic is just a proxy or a label, or a description, not a definition. Even shamanism is mostly just charisma, or having good relations with the spirits. Is friendship magic?

>>96290714
>Most casters in history were just priests or other spiritual or religious leaders.
Okay, but that's irrelevant to the actual games, where there is no guaruntee of that.

>What are you talking about? All those fictions were born of someone’s (the author’s) opinions, or perception
Okay, but I'm not talking about [in history]. I'm talking about the settings of the games themselves. Moses doesn't fucking exist in Legend of the Five Rings, and you bringing him up means diddley fucking dick when it comes to the fact in that particular setting, magic is a verifiable fact because spirits are a verifiable fact and not an opinion. You quibbling that someone might not see it that way in-universe matters as much as the average stoner's opinions on astrophysics, because it's stated in the text that it IS a possibility that someone can disbelieve in spirits but that they are also 100% provably incorrect for the fact the book states that in Legend of the Five Rings, spirits are confirmed to exist. Not in real life, in the game of Legend of the Five Rings.

See what I mean? Shitters like this don't want to actually specify what system they want to talk about when it comes to magic. They want to make this /x/. God forbid they actually clarify they want to discuss how wizards and sorcerers in say Golarian view each other because that doesn't involve aliens that may or may not actually exist in the setting because they never want to actually make it clear what they're talking about. Fuck you, by the way.

>>96289258
>If I had to pin down a definition, I'd just say magic is whatever does--or at least seems to--defy the normal laws of nature, being physics, conservation of energy, etc.
Okay but to the physicist the laws of physics =|= physics as it is. This means that the thing that “defies” the laws isn’t defeating laws so much as utilizing some form or superior understanding of them.

What is impossible is relative, and what is impossible isn’t truly impossible if it’s possible at all.

>>96290777
>Okay, but that's irrelevant to the actual games
Ah, I see, gameplay takes precedence over roleplay, to you. You probably only play games where this sort of talk doesn’t ever come up. It does, in some games.

>>96290777
>Okay, but I'm not talking about [in history]. I'm talking about the settings of the games themselves
Who made those settings? Who made those games?

>>96290807
Name ten then. Give some actual proper context to this discussion you claim to be setting up.

>>96290714
>Most casters in history were just priests or other spiritual or religious leaders.
But he's not talking about history, he's talking about Legend of the Five Rings.

>Moses wasn’t not a wizard to the Greeks or the Jews. The word magic itself came from an order of learned astrologer-priests.
Neither of which exist in Rokugan, and thus are irrelevant.

>It’s also apparent that even without explicit external intelligences to draw power from, magic systems in 99.99% of fiction is far too conveniently constructed for the sake of the narrative to be anything but the product of some external intelligence
Your hangups about rigid adherence to our reality have no bearing on logical validity.

>even if it’s just the author beyond the fourth wall
Complete and utter incoherent lunacy because we are talking about the internal context of the setting.

>Even people in-setting may or may not see it as magic.
And they can be simply wrong, which is still better than your blank incomprehension of how your reduction is outright invalid to the context of the discussion.

>The gods may or may not see themselves as gods.
And have objective differences making it valid to self-identify as such, which refutes your point.

>What you call magic probably won’t be magic to some hypothetical alien that’s capable of looking at it inside and out to the point where it’s just another facet of physics.
No, because said alien cannot exist in the setting, because the setting is overtly non-monist and non-materialist.

>Eventually things become inverted and magic is just a proxy or a label, or a description, not a definition.
Not when the archaic particular meanings have trivially-demonstrated members.

>Even shamanism is mostly just charisma, or having good relations with the spirits.
Which is pointedly unrelated to any of your drivel about physics.

>Is friendship magic?
When there are in fact spirits to have good relations with, yes.

>>96290811
Certainly not you.

>>96290800
>Okay but to the physicist the laws of physics =|= physics as it is.
Again, that's not how the actual professionals frame it, "physics" is the study of the thing rather than the thing itself.

>This means that the thing that “defies” the laws isn’t defeating laws so much as utilizing some form or superior understanding of them.
When it violates the premises of empiricism, materialism, monism, and invariance of natural law, it is in fact sound to describe as such.

>>96290807
>Ah, I see, gameplay takes precedence over roleplay, to you.
Finish reading the sentence:
>, where there is no guaruntee of that.

>>96290811
Irrelevant because the context of the discussion is their internal context, where the author does not exist.

>>96290777
>You quibbling that someone might not see it that way in-universe matters as much as the average stoner's opinions on astrophysics, because it's stated in the text that it IS a possibility that someone can disbelieve in spirits but that they are also 100% provably incorrect for the fact the book states that in Legend of the Five Rings, spirits are confirmed to exist. Not in real life, in the game of Legend of the Five Rings.

You’re still not getting it. You can totally be an atheist, or a hard materialist, in a world where gods and spirits exist. See the Dwemer in Elder Scrolls. The Judeo-Christian God could exist irl but it doesn’t exactly prevent a physicist from seeing it as “just some sufficiently powerful higher dimensional alien who perceives time non-linearly and uses causality, evolution, like a tool”.

You saying “no, they are always seen as spirits no matter what” is like saying “no, slavery can’t exist in my world, and never has”, which is kind of retarded. The brain is a lot more complex than you think.

>>96290816
>Name ten then
Any that incorporate Christianity, or not!Christianity. Checkmate.

>>96290817
>But he's not talking about history, he's talking about Legend of the Five Rings.
Who made Legend of the Five rings? Alternatively, have you eaten breakfast today?

>>96290846
>Irrelevant because the context of the discussion is their internal context, where the author does not exist.
Is this a form of cope? No fiction made by a human could ever naturally evolve into being unintelligently. Sorry. By default the fourth wall exists.

>>96290846
>When it violates the premises of empiricism, materialism, monism, and invariance of natural law, it is in fact sound to describe as such.

Nope. Not to the hard physicist. Physics deals with what is real, and if it’s real in the fiction, then…

>>96290817
>When it violates the premises of empiricism, materialism, monism, and invariance of natural law, it is in fact sound to describe as such.

So you’re basically agreeing that magic is just a set angle, or set position, since you don’t want anyone to assess or analyze it to the point where it’s no longer magic.

And as I said here >>96290890 it’s still a form of physics if it’s real within a fiction.

Once something is understood, it’s not at all guaranteed it will still be considered a form of magic. Humans do hate mystery.

>>96290850
Anon, all that shit you are saying is irrelevant to the game of Legend of the Five Rings as presented in the books. Like, if YOU want your game of Legend of the Five Rings to be so that nobody is certain if magic is the byproduct of entreating elemental and divine spirits to do their dirty work, then by all means, go ahead. But that will be your game. It won't be my game, and it won't be the majority of experiences for people playing the game. It will be your presentation, and your presentation only.

That's why discussions like these without the proper context is meaningless. The game presents a world where people are given the ability to see and talk to the spirit of water to convince it to nourish a bush. You can either accept that at face value, or you can not. By all means, quibble about whether YHVH would object to how spirits are seen in L5R. Cause the fact that he's not an entity in the setting as it is written would make it an open and shut case to the average person, but if you're so keen on enacting your own fanfic idealization of someone else's setting, then go ahead. But you need to clarify that if you expect anyone to actually talk to you instead of butting heads pointlessly because you won't actually plant your flag in solid ground.

>>96290860
>He doesn't actually name any
I accept your concession

>>96290909
>he thinks there aren’t hundreds of games that use Christianity, or make use of some not!Christianity
I accept your concession. I accept your confession.

>>96290918
Again, name ten of them if there are so many.

>>96290909
Just say you think it’s possible for slavery to “never ever exist conceptually ever in any point of time” and you probably enjoy games like 7th Sea.

>>96290925
I shall take that non-sequitur as an admission you've got nothing else

>>96290931
That’s basically what you’re arguing when you argue “magic is magic no matter the perception!”, though? You hate the brain or something.

>>96290946
If you're unwilling to specify what traditional game we're couching a discussion in for the /traditional games/ board, then that's hardly my fault

>>96280317
>hurr durr magic is chthonic
Everyone knows that magic comes from trans-lunar matter stuck on fairy wings, you pure loon.

>>96290956
Keep deflecting.

>>96290962
And he's finally run out of excuses, fujos and fa/tg/uys

>>96277937 (OP)
It doesn't. /thread

>>96290850
>You can totally be an atheist, or a hard materialist, in a world where gods and spirits exist.
And that would either demand a very specific take on the gods and spirits or make you wrong. You keep ignoring that "the idiot taking the contrary position is wrong" is an option.

>See the Dwemer in Elder Scrolls.
Who have nothing to do with Rokugan.

>The Judeo-Christian God could exist irl but it doesn’t exactly prevent a physicist from seeing it as “just some sufficiently powerful higher dimensional alien who perceives time non-linearly and uses causality, evolution, like a tool”.
And he would be radically missing the point, as you keep doing.

>You saying “no, they are always seen as spirits no matter what”
We're saying "they always are spirits because "spirit" is an objectively demonstrable property of a thing in Rokugan". All your fuzzy bullshit you keep trying to drag in from outside the setting is Not Even Wrong, because we are not discussing comparative mythology or etymology, we are discussing Elfgames.

>Who made Legend of the Five rings?
I repeat:
>>96290817
>Complete and utter incoherent lunacy because we are talking about the internal context of the setting.

>>96290876
>No fiction made by a human could ever naturally evolve into being unintelligently.
Incorrect, unless you think ours is the only logically valid world.

>>96290890
>Physics deals with what is real
No, it deals with a specific list of properties according to the specific framework of study called "science". You equivocating between things because you don't recognize an extant out-group to distinguish them by does not make them the same, especially in the context of fiction where such can be easily introduced.

>>96290906
No I am not, because I am arguing that INSIDE THE CONTEXT the only applicable definitions are particular noun meanings of the word that no amount of understanding removes something from.

>>96290925
Provide a reason it's a logical impossibility first.

>>96291057
You’re still not getting it.

>>96291057
>Provide a reason it's a logical impossibility first
In a materialist world, the concept of ownership extends to flesh, like animals, extends to owning humans.

That you don’t understand this means you’re either a) a retard, or b) a retarded leftist.

>>96291096
You're the one who doesn't get it. You're the one trying to treat fluff and crunch as though they're interchangeable when they aren't. Someone could 100% be an atheist in Discworld, that's a part of the fluff. But Adventures in Ankh-Morpork still lists them as fact, that's a part of the crunch. If you want to talk about the fluff, you have to specify that, because trying to say that it's a "matter of opinion" that Offler has stats in the book is retarded. And frankly, you don't have the grounding to proclaim the gods don't exist in Discworld and survive the spontaneous lightning bolt on a clear sunny day that proves you wrong, nor the hordes of anons asking if you are capable of understanding that these are games of pretend where we know the gods don't exist irl but that they can be a fact inside the game.

>>96291147
You’re still not getting it.

>>96291159
Reported for spam

>>96291110
>In a materialist world, the concept of ownership extends to flesh, like animals, extends to owning humans.
Why does a materialist world imply ownership of living things?

>>96291162
>announcing reports
Thats against the rules anon
>>96291165
>being this stupid
LMAO

>>96291188
So is spamming, and yet here you are

>>96291165
A materialist world implies one can hold on to materials. This extends to flesh, you huge idiot. You genuinely can’t see why?

>>96291196
And why does holding a thing necessitate you can own it?

>>96291200
Please. You can’t be this dumb.

>>96291200
>that’s MY rock, Grug!

>>96291110
> b) a retarded leftist.
/pol/ niggers begone from this house of dorks

>>96291208
>>96291214
Still not seeing actual philosophy of ownership.

>>96291223
Okay, so you genuinely and sincerely are retarded, got it.

>>96277945
tell me about your setting anon.

>>96291231
he's a commie, a tanky, haven't you caught on?

>>96291165
>>96291200
>>96291223
>you vil own nothing and you vil be happee…

>>96291231
No, that's you if you really can't explain ownership beyond "I can hold it".

>>96291242
>>96291252
I personally am quite fine with extending ownership significantly further than many legal codes currently enforce, but am engaging in a "but why?" chain to try to pierce the repeated assertions of reality upon fiction.

>>96291297
Anon. Parents and their children is a case of ownership.

Mod thread.

Wonderfag…

>>96290961
>Trans
You will never be a real wizard.

>>96277937 (OP)
What are some good resources/advice for creating magic systems?

>>96292222
For fluff or for mechanics? Cause on the rare chance I freeform write this shit, I usually start with working out a primary underlying principle (ex. “Power always has a price to pay”, “you must understand something’s true name/fundamental nature before you can control it)” and go from there. It’s not exactly deep, but it at least gets me started.

>>96277937 (OP)
Once you learn how to perceive reality as the semi-malliable thing that it is you can learn how to manipulate it in specific ways.

The major limitation is the ability to expand your ability to manipulate things as well as a things (especially other sapient life) ability to resist being changed.

>>96277937 (OP)
My current setting has a strong systemic dislike of magic due to past events. 1000 years prior, only royalty was capable of performing magic. There was a bloody revolution thanks to the invention of guns headed by the church and their access to miracles (not magic). Royals were killed or enslaved. Over the decades, non-royal bloodlines mixed with the enslaved royals passing along the ability to cast magic but because of how much distain there is towards the practice anyone that can practice magic is a second class citizen.

The stuff my players haven't figured out yet is that magic was granted by chaos God's and kept in check by royals who made contracts with spirits that were envoys for the chaos God's. Without these contracts, magic users that cast spells are tapping into pure chaos which cause them to lose their sanity. Miracles were granted by a pantheon of new Gods that put the chaos God's to sleep, but the new Gods are like Outer One cosmic horrors trying to corrupt humanity. But comparison the old God's that granted magic were indifferent to humanity leaving things to their spirit harbingers who have since disappeared.

System is D6 fantasy. Heavily inspired by the video game Arcanum and the manga Magical Revolution.

>>96292274
>For fluff or for mechanics?
Either works. Also, thanks!

>>96277951
It is whatever the fuck any random says if thats how the setting treats it

If you don't have a sophisticated Laws of Magic like exist the Laws of Physics then you've simply got a system of "whatever the fuck" as there are no actual constraints - and often, even if there are constraints, the author just ignores it anyway and does whatever the fuck he wants in the moment

>>96297384
that's only the case in situations like where the rando is a gm and he's taking the setting over with subtle or overt homebrew, whether the setting is intended for that or not

but in that case the gm isn't just some rando, he's taking over the author spot, a player still can't just contradict the gm and the player is only halfway a rando in that context, a real complete rando would be some person who never played at that gm's table

>>96277937 (OP)
I like the pulpy Sword-And-Sorcery style of magic. It's very vague, rare and usually corrupting. Players rarely have chance to use it directly and even villains mostly use it in sneaky and low-profile ways. Using power of hypnosis and suggestion to force people and beasts to serve you yay, throwing fireballs and thunderbolts out of your ass nay (but making already existing fires larger or attracting thunderbolts during actual storm is fine?). It's a tool to give villains some advantage over players. Players can still use it through items, environmental elements or support from higher beings, but it must be earned.

Oh look, it’s another thread consisting of that one guy who can’t ever decide what magic is, since he juggles too many takes on magic in his head, and that other guy who insists that magic isn’t an opinion it’s in fact “whatever the author wants”, which IS what the former is arguing, just to the point where he can’t discuss actual takes on magic anymore, which the latter can’t handle because he only cares for games, not roleplay or logic. The other guy is so overly logical he probably can’t even play games at all, while the other guy’s just so fucking obsessed with games he refuses to play anything other than Dee en Dee.

Yes, magic is an opinion, but continuing to assert this means you don’t want to talk, or immerse yourself, in a given world with a specific take/opinion on magic.

>>96297384
Not really. It's mostly down to whether or not you place your own opinions above the story/game creator's. In other words, "it depends how you interrogate/use the work".

Say for example you're playing a game themed around xianxia, where "magic" is defined as controlling energy from the natural elements and "chi control" is defined as controlling the body's energy in ways an untrained person can't.

If you asked a non-chi manipulator if he's doing magic, he might go
>"Yes, because chi manipulation and magic are both supernatural bullshit"
Wheras if you asked a chi manipulator,
>"No, because what I am doing is not the same thing as that thing called "magic"."

Likewise,
If you ask a player, they might go
>"Yes, chi manipulation is magic, both are based in supernatural phenomena"
>"No, cause chi manipulation is an innate ability, which makes it biological over supernatural, as stated by the creator"
>"Who the fuck cares, it's whatever the manual says".
And if you ask the game's creator, he might give a definitive
>"No, in my game, chi manipulation is not magic, they are two separate power sets, and chi manipulation does not fall under magic".

At that point, going "magic is whatever the fuck", even in cases with an explicit answer, is equivalent to saying "I don't care what the creator says, this is what I think". And at that point, you're basically debating headcanons. Maybe that kind of back and forth is fine if you just want to talk about speculative fiction as fiction, but it's wasted effort for a game where you're trying to figure out if hitting a magic-resistant ogre with a chi punch means it gets resisted due to that punch being magic or doesn't because it's not. Nobody needs game time taken up by pointless debate.

>inb4 "but chi is clearly magic"
If you personally want to argue that's how you see it, cool. I'll stick to what the manual says.

>>96298758
Whether chi is not!mana or not depends on the setting, or the author(‘s lwn assumption), because whether something is magic, or not magic, depends on the viewpoint, which extends to authorship. Regarding history, chi/qi is the not!mana of Taoist magic/magicians.

>>96298831
Yes.

So are we talking about a particular setting, or just talking about the general concept, anon?

>>96298758
>If you personally want to argue that's how you see it, cool. I'll stick to what the manual says.
Considering magic is just the mind’s eye, or a psychologically substantiated angle, then you could argue, or roleplay, it as a form of magic, going by your character’s own view. Kind of like how you can make an atheist wizard who doesn’t think gods are actually gods, more so than bigger life forms. He might not even consider himself a wizard, if he’s the grey blob sort of atheist who can’t see beauty or wonder or surviving mystery within nature.

>>96298845
That's cool if that's how you want to fluff it, anon.

>>96298843
The concept of magic is “magic”. It’s just a viewpoint. A way of looking at a thing. It can be inserted into a setting if you don’t want total agreement on anything. You’re not required to have everyone be in total agreement over what magic is/isn’t, even if it’s totally indistinguishable like miracles or mad science—or sufficiently advanced science. You can have all the criteria for a thing to be magic, and still it may not be a form of magic, to some, or many.

>>96298758
>At that point, going "magic is whatever the fuck", even in cases with an explicit answer, is equivalent to saying "I don't care what the creator says, this is what I think".
So? Again. You can totally insert atheism into a fantasy world. The gods don’t have to be seen as gods. All you need to be a god is to be sufficiently godlike, and we’re not unfamiliar with talk of godlike aliens—and whether they’re worshiped or not is a matter of character.

>>96298880
...So, are we talking about a particular setting, or just talking about the general concept of magic, anon? Or are you just not interested in specifying at all?

>>96298898
Yes, you can do that. Said atheist could be 100% wrong, too. Really, you could do whatever you want with your own story, nobody's going to stop you.

>>96298916
>Said atheist could be 100% wrong
Not really. We’ve done this before. See the Elder Scrolls. See Lord of the Rings. “Atheists in a world where gods exist”. It’s seeing them as just bigger forms of life.

The Judeo-Christian God could exist IRL and it still wouldn’t prevent an atheist or a physicist that it’s “just some sufficiently godlike alien being”.

You want gods to be gods no matter what. You want magic to be magic no matter what. You don’t see that it’s all a relative matter. Does God view His miracles as capital-m miraculous? Likely he doesn’t. No.

>>96290850
>The Judeo-Christian God could exist irl but it doesn’t exactly prevent a physicist from seeing it as “just some sufficiently powerful higher dimensional alien who perceives time non-linearly and uses causality, evolution, like a tool”.
This argument has always been stupid. People think it's an argument, but it's literally just semantic autism driven by edginess and envy.
>"What? You say you live in a... house?"
>"What you call a "house" isn't a house to me, it's just a sufficiently protective cube of materials oriented to keep weather from-"
Do I even need to go on? It's just a dweeby and pathetic argument. Sophistry from a know-it-all blowhard who's just going to make up literally any stupid excuse to be stubborn.
Yeah, if you live in a setting with God or gods and you think that, you're some kind of idiot loser. Full stop. That's not a valid perspective, that's just being a sour grapes cunt.

>>96298933
See, anon, you're trying to hold this big debate this exclusively from a watsonian perspective, except you're not saying so and acting offended people are confused. Like, it's cool if you want to examine these kind of stories from that perspective, but you need to specify you're doing so to ensure we're all on the same page.

>>96298945
>>96298960
Listen. Your argument falls down to “no, atheism cannot exist in my setting”, which is downright re-tar-ded. Even other religious people denied other religious people their god rights. “Your god isn’t a god it’s just some lousy faggot”. Good Lord, anons.

You’re like fifteen years old or something if you can’t into basic subjection, or basic psychology.

>>96298714
/thread

>>96299025
They hate the whole disenchantment narrative. They also refuse to see the magic permeating the 21st century, which means they themselves have been disenchanted by the narrative, lul.

>>96298714
>which the latter can’t handle because he only cares for games, not roleplay or logic.
It's more being really anal about having SOME ludonarrative resonance, in that the three should be well entangled for their respective boundaries to reinforce eachother so a given TTRPG is penned in enough for ample discussion. Rules should say something about the boundaries of the setting and be a coherent logical framework, the setting should be self-consistent and a logical consequence of the rules from its initial conditions, and the logic in use should respect the context of the previous two rather than launder in baggage from elsewhere.

>while the other guy’s just so fucking obsessed with games he refuses to play anything other than Dee en Dee.
3.5 to be specific, due to the content-mill in a framework that I don't need combinatorial spreadsheets to wrap my head around.

>>96298845
>>96298880
>>96298933
>still completely refuses to address the actual subject of game rules inside the specific context of the hypothetical
You really are completely crippled by your inability to stop dragging everything you're aware of into every conversation.

>>96299025
I'll make this extremely explicit for you: My perspective is that your argument is just semantic haggling. You will move the goalposts no matter what. When it gets to that level, there's no arguing with you.
What definition of a God even COULD satisfy you? There isn't one, because the concept offends you. That's it. Everything you're saying is just an elaborate cope to prevent yourself from having to use that word, even in fantasy, because you're motivated by some kind of spite.
And yes, it applies to the in-universe people you're talking about too. If you're in the Elder Scrolls and you call Akatosh a "powerful entity," you're being a deliberately obtuse jackass.
The word has a meaning, and a use case. Your argument just boils own to not liking the word, so you're just looking for any definition necessary so that you can remove that use case even in a fantasy setting.
Sorry, but that's just foolish, bizarre, and stupid.
It's clear that you're just motivated by antipathy against religion in general at that level. It's illogical and absurd.

>>96299054
You’ve lost this debate weeks ago, anon.

>>96299025
Let me put this way, anon.

In Discworld, on the continent of Four Ecks, there are people who will insist up and down the world is round. This is inspite of the fact that there are people who, objectively speaking, have seen that the world is flat and is carried by four elephants living on the back of a turtle flying through space. A fact that is supported every single time by the fact that every single Discworld book is narrated reminding us at some point that the world is shaped like a disc and is supported by four elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle floating through space.

If you want to keep arguing that the man living on Four Ecks is right in that the world must be round from his understanding of it and that neither other people's perspectives nor the statements of the writer nor the book jacket matter in that case, it's your right to do so. You look like a jackass doing it, but you can.

But if you're not specifying that you want to debate concepts from the theoretical perspective of the inhabitants, then don't act like a baby when people treat you like an idiot for treating your headcanon like it's fact when it's primarily your opinion.

>>96299077
>My perspective is that your argument is just semantic haggling
You really think fantasy storytelling has nothing to do with semantics? Or that no irony is afoot? Lol ok. Just say you hate it when people posit alternative takes.

>>96299092
>Or that no irony is afoot?
Once again, irony requires a contrary meaning to be present, which cannot be for the internal context of the fiction. The irony is entirely in your retarded insistence on not-even-literary analysis projecting from our seemingly monist materialist universe into counterfactuals preconditioned on intentional violations of that.

>>96299080
That’s a lot of text over something that still amounts to “I hate atheists” (I do too, if I’m being honest), and “my perception IS your perception”.

Too much word salad implies you 1) don’t know your own argument, and 2) you’re a coper in the midst of a coping fit.

>>96299092
Being fucking WRONG in-universe isn't an "alternative take," it's being an obtuse dick.
Gods definitely exist in the Elder Scrolls. They do. They're a fucking fact. The dwemer didn't call them that not because it was valid, but because they were motivated by pride and spite, and they were destroyed for it.
In that universe, you are a fucking idiot if you don't believe in gods. That's just how it is.
The only way you can have your stupid-ass "alternative facts" is if you're just going to use sophistry to move the goalposts no matter what because you're stubborn, which is the route you're choosing to go down.

>>96299112
I figured you were illiterate and just too stupid to consider other people's perspectives, so thanks for confirming that.

>>96299109
I’ve already accepted your concession. You can stop typing now.

>>96299126
>I’ve already accepted your concession. You can stop typing now.
You're acting like a fucking elementary schooler.
"I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?"
It's just childish at this point, what the fuck is wrong with you? Have some self-respect.

>>96299124
Just say you want to impose your views on others like a tyrant. It will make this go a lot quicker.

>>96299154
I'm pretty sure that's what you're doing and projecting it hard onto this worthless discussion. I'm not the one bitching about atheists, after all.

>>96299141
Lol. Stop projecting. That’s very much a you issue.

>>96299162
>projecting
>"I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?"
I guess you've just hit rock bottom and the conversation is over then, huh? At this point you don't have anything left to say, so you just want to get the final word in before you scurry away like a coward.
Fine, dude. Have it your way. Whatever cunty remark you have waiting for me, I'll just let you have it.

>>96299158
>I'm pretty sure that's what you're doing
Nope. I’m doing the opposite by telling you magic is whatever the fuck. It’s not a concrete thing. Persons have counter or contradictory takes. Many cultures were this way. At best, there are essences — that of mystery and wonder and horror, etc — to its lead up.

>>96299122
>Being fucking WRONG in-universe isn't an "alternative take," it's being an obtuse dick.
You think it’s wrong not to worship something? You don’t need to worship a god, just like how you don’t need to see it as a god to begin with.

>>96299179
This conversation was always over, it’s just a corpse being manipulated by string at this point.

>>96299182
Anon, the fact your refuse to actually frame this discussion in any particular arena, whether it's a historical context, from an actual magic practitioner's lifestyle, from a skeptic's perspective, from a particular setting's, or even a layman's understanding of the concept, means all of this is babble of yours is and has always been worthless. To even discuss what magic is, one has to at least have some kind of common grounding on what they agree they're doing, and refusing to even do that much in that means that you're basically jerking yourself off. It's about as worthwhile as debating whether the sky is blue or green with someone who is colorblind. And since that appears to be the case, good luck with your onanism.

>>96299141
Why do you always resort to typing in all capitals like it makes you look any older or more mature?

>>96299211
I’ve already done all of that. Fucking math was seen as magic for thousands of years. If fucking math, ones and zeroes, can be seen as a form of magic, why not literally anything else? You could even argue that math is a form of magic that will always exist in whatever fictional setting, since it’s totally impossible to avoid. Geometry was quite arcane for its time.

>>96299259

>>96299275
Is that all you’ve got?

>>96299211
>It's about as worthwhile as debating whether the sky is blue or green with someone who is colorblind.
Light is light. Photons are singularly real. Both a whale and an elephant are giants, but giants aren’t singularly real. It’s just a relative matter of size. It’s the same with magic and the gods.

How is this so hard to grasp? Whales and elephants are “giants”. Gods are “gods”. Magic is “magic”. These are descriptive.

>>96299330
I already said my piece, you can keep on pretending you aren't using equivocation

>>96299190
>You think it’s wrong not to worship something?
When the worship is an active component in things like limiting the scope of plagues and keeping the King of Rape out of your world, yes. This may be a minor part of The Elder Scrolls, but it is very much present.

>>96299182
>It’s not a concrete thing.
As a big-tent subject in real life. The instant you narrow to a specific culture or engage with the context of the fiction, there's quite the long list of surviving definitions that return to be concrete, and in the latter case this is not a false understanding.

>>96299259
>I’ve already done all of that.
No you haven't, because you are countering one context with another. Pick ONE frame using ONE perspective from ONE historical context instead of reflexively dragging the goalpost to an actively incompatible one to make your point with the resulting non-sequitur.

>>96299397
>When the worship is an active component in things like limiting the scope of plagues and keeping the King of Rape out of your world, yes.
Aliens.

>>96277937 (OP)
The old gods sang the world into existence. Magic styles from other worlds can be emulated, but the true underpinning deep magic of the realm is achieved through song.

>>96299441
Faith is the actual objectively-verifiable operating mechanism in-universe. The Elder Scrolls is a HORRIBLE example because on-screen events revolve around the literally-schizophrenic cosmology; the reason Dagoth Ur began couping the Tribunal is because of an ass-backwards solipsistic worldview actively altering how things function near him while the "eating" of dragon souls in Skyrim is literally merging perspectives of AKA by right of conquest. Mundus is in a Dream where Time bearing any measurable duration is a contrivance of specific actors rather than an immutable, with multiple cases of periods where the events are actively impossible under any linear analysis of causality when the actors in question lapsed in the sanity to enforce a single perspective.

The Dwemer are simply wrong, and got the near-totality of their race wiped off the face of the universe for it.

>>96299397
>When the worship is an active component in things like limiting the scope of plagues and keeping the King of Rape out of your world, yes.
>This may be a minor part of The Elder Scrolls, but it is very much present.
Within TES the Dwemer exist(ed). The Dwemer knew that the gods, or the divines, were real — they would be stupid not to since the gods are very present in Nirn as we know it. However, the Dwemer did not worship any of the gods, even defied them, and some didn’t consider them divine at all. They saw them as big aliens. Some Dwemer didn’t even believe in magic, while other Dwemer did — sort of like how a scientist in our world either sees the magic/mystery within the world, or the beauty of it, or they don’t / refuse to. The Dwemer use words like ‘magecrafter’ and ‘arcane philosopher’ to describe their arts and crafts, and their Mage sign is seen to translate into/as the Engineer. Spells are button activators in their machines, and the force of Magicka is just another facet of nature, or physics, to use in their tonal architecture/infrastructure. They see the magic in the world all around. Whether something is magic to them is a matter of description, not definition.

Captcha: PHAGT

>>96299498
Nah. See >>96299555

“Atheists in a world where gods exist” is quite literally how Kirkbride described them.

The Dwemer are also the most accurate form of Tolkien elf, since they see music, or tones, as the world itself, similar to the creation of middle-earth, and they don’t see themselves as magical beings the same way the elves in middle-earth don’t see themselves as magical beings. It’s all just art/artifice to them.

If your elves see magic the same way as the other races, especially lesser races, then you’re doing it wrong.

>>96299498
>The Dwemer are simply wrong, and got the near-totality of their race wiped off the face of the universe for it.

Nah that’s just scientific backlash. Magic backlash is no different.

>>96299498
>Faith is the actual objectively-verifiable operating mechanism in-universe

Physics that’s alive is still physics.

>>96299453
>but the true underpinning deep magic of the realm is achieved through song
Eru Ilúvatar approves of this message.

>>96299571
The Dwemer are the dark side of Tolkien’s elves, desu. Imagine if they took on the war-time industrial aspects of Mordor, and then became an arrogant and tyrannical and hubristic race more so concerned with itself than a respect for life. Tolkien equated magic to machinery, or black magic to the war machine, from his time in the world war, and he was just revolted by its ability to blacken and ruin nature itself.

>>96299555
>However, the Dwemer did not worship any of the gods, even defied them, and some didn’t consider them divine at all. They saw them as big aliens.
And specifically because of the logical framework that had them thinking this way, their attempted not-actually-apotheosis removed them from Mundus.

>>96299579
The backlash occurred specifically because the foundation layer of their worldview was wrong, as a clear demonstration that TES does not actually work like IRL. It is a Dream in which the highest power is realizing yourself as a tulpa that can escape to become a new Dreamer, not a physical reality operating on any kind of stable general ruleset. "Things That Do Not Exist" are an active force, for crying out loud!

>>96299592
No it is not. I reject your bullshit semantic argument utterly, because it fails to convey the explanatory power of the scientific method. Your "holistic" thinking blurs what makes the processes work out of any legibility, and so is not merely wrong but entirely invalid because it fundamentally CAN'T explain the causal chain of where the ideas come from and which DON'T apply.

>>96299571
>If your elves see magic the same way as the other races, especially lesser races, then you’re doing it wrong.
Nobody has to follow your idiotic advice, especially in regards to sucking Tolkien's rotting dick.
And the elves didn't cast spells at all, unlike so many other settings with elves.

>>96299858
>Your "holistic" thinking
He says its holistic, I say its a bunch of midwit equivocation attempting, and failing, to be smart. He lacks the ability to remember or discern the differences between these things and so his holistic approah devolves into equivocation and a reductive simplified approach to "understanding". Its an idiots idea of how smart people think.

>>96298933
Anon.

The pagan mindset, which is the default human mindset, is precisely that gods are just a bigger form of life, and they worship them just fine. While also harboring a desire to become that being themselves by some means. Usually some version of gathering enough [stuff] that they are the same. As that is the pagan view. It's just a being that has, or is made of, more [stuff]. This is exactly the problem with it and why it's so degenerate.

God The Father, now known to us as Jesus Christ, is delineated specifically by not being made as the same [stuff] that reality is. God is Holy. I know that's an abstract concept, but it encompasses all of God's qualities in one word. It's the nearest you will get to knowing Him without seeing Him in person. Which you will one day one way or another. Count on that. That aside, you could think of God as 'more real' than us down here. He is.. something else. He is Holy.

>>96278060
fuck off

>>96279822
Make me.

The thing that concerns me most about magic is simply it's interface. Here is the basis for my thinking. Even if we say imagination can become reality just from wanting it enough, inevitably a real phenomenon requires too much information to implement. How do we translate intent to reality, then? A woodworker has carving tools to make their intent a reality. Starting from a wood block. What does a mage have? Mana? Mana is just an abstraction of the same [work] energy required to accomplish anything. Be it pushing something up a hill or electricity turning on a lightbulb. We need something for that work to apply to.

Something like The Elder Scrolls involves messing with reality's own understanding of itself. Much like our world, phenomena rolls downhill. That is, to most effort to least effort. If you make something else require less effort than what it's already doing, that happens instead. This also gives magic it's edge of chaotic danger. While technically the same action gives the same result, your intent is being applied indirectly. If you flip the wrong switch, you'll get whatever that switch handles. Not what you wanted. The most common, and closest to reality, is use of spirits. That is, you either convince or coerce some nonhuman entity in to doing what you want. A fire spirit can make heat or flame because that's what it does. No different to your dog's ability to dig up your garden because it was bored. It's just one of it's normative functions. Something like Dungeon Meshi uses this system. Gnome magic convinces. Elf magic coerces. Gnome magic is less precise but needs far less mana. Elf magic is precise but needs far more mana. A simple system to understand. Since it's no different to paying a guy who's 6'9" to go beat people up for you. Your part in this is being rich enough to afford his services.

There's also stuff like the weave for DND, but who cares about that?

>>96300295
>while also harboring a desire to become that being themselves
So you've never left your biblebelt state before huh?

Whatever your opinion, remember : magical darkness is not opaque.

>>96284205
who's orlando?

>>96284323
No. Technology is hard to understand. Magic cannot be understood. The boundary between the two is infinitely wide.

>>96284404
You can, right now, learn how to build a computer from scratch, by yourself, for free. That's how I explain it. By not being a retard.

>>96300899
>Magic cannot be understood.
Not by us.
Not yet. ;^)

>>96299965
>And the elves didn't cast spells at all, unlike so many other settings with elves.

They did. It’s just not magic to them. The elves put “spells” in the river that defends Rivendell (Gandalf put a few shapes in as well), but it’s not magic to them. They can work nature into artistic forms really well.

>>96300908
No.

>>96300903
A wizard can, right now, learn how to build a wand from scratch, by himself, for free. By reading his grimoire.

Not a real reply. Try again.

>>96300931
Yes.

No.

>>96300899
So an alien UFO is borderline magic to us if we’re in no position (stuck in three dimensions actually) to ever understand how it works, right? But it’s not magic to the alien? What if the alien has such an appreciation for physics that he considers it magical all the same?

No. There is no such thing as "magic to us". A thing is either magic, or it is not.

Technology can be understood. Magic cannot.

If you stop being a retard and actually read what I said, you may notice that I didn't say "cannot be understood except by some subset of individuals". I said "cannot be understood".

Don't reply again if you're not going to read the posts you're replying to. Trolling is against the rules.

>>96300882
>Orlando: A Biography is a novel by Virginia Woolf, first published on 11 October 1928, inspired by the tumultuous family history of the aristocratic poet and novelist Vita Sackville-West, Woolf's lover and close friend. It is a history of English literature in satiric form. The book describes the adventures of a poet who changes sex from man to woman and lives for centuries, meeting the key figures of English literary history. Considered a feminist classic, the book has been written about extensively by scholars of women's writing and gender and transgender studies.

Hijacking this thread for a second.

I'm undecided about having magic in my setting. The setting itself is for a grand strategy video game I'm working on; I'm using a fictional setting rather than historical earth partly because I enjoy worldbuilding, partly to avoid market competition with Paradox Interactive, and partly to not have to deal with UM ACKSHYUALLY THAT'S IMPLAUSIBLE autism when a simulation's results don't perfectly align with each person's unique position on what's plausible and what isn't. The setting is broadly Earthlike - the continent layout is different, but the biosphere is basically the same, and there are humans inhabiting it who are similar to us. Many cultures and races are broadly inspired by either real-world ones, or by some blending thereof, or at least take some influence from them. You can perhaps think of it as being in the "Strangereal" class of alternate world. There are no fantasy races.

If magic was included, I would want to gear it towards combat only, because I don't like having to mix it into the entire process of industrial development; its effects on military technology and theory and on society as a whole are already more than enough. I would probably set it up to a state wherein most mages are organized in microstates that hire their services out to state entities, so they would fill the role of mercenary companies - but being less dependent on a large industrial base they'd be able to persist much longer than IRL mercenaries did and maintain that role through the entire course of the game.

Part of me wants magic. Part of me just wants a strict "real world physics only" alternate world. I'm currently working on economy stuff so I don't have to make that choice quite yet, but eventually I will. What would /tg/ go with?

Bumpfag if you read this post KILL YOURSELF preferably on a livestream.

>>96301039
I'd go with magic. Not magic is wonder or some other autistic reason like that, just cause you sound like you put some mild thought into it and I'd be curious to see the end product with that in mind.

>>96300961
>Technology can be understood. Magic cannot.
Don’t tell an eleventh dimensional alien what it can or cannot understand.

>>96301695
Trolling is against the rules.

>>96301695
Don't make assertions on what an eleventh dimensional alien can or cannot understand.

>>96277937 (OP)
Black magic is a psychic power that can manipulate substances at a molecular level. Like in FMA, you need scientific knowledge to use it properly. It can redirect energy, transmute substances, and even alter a living being's DNA to turn them into a different species.
White magic is a spiritual power that is cultivated via meditation and self-discipline. Those who unlock it can manifest their spiritual energy in tangible form for abjuration stuff.

>>96284205
>self-proclaimed anarchist
I mean, how else would you become one? Getting promoted by the council of anarchists?
I swear some of you are so fucking retarded lol

>>96301947
Self-proclaimed as in it's not a label other people applied, but rather, one he admitted himself. Are you ESL?

>>96300961
You’re basically arguing that magic is magic no matter what, or no matter the perception, which isn’t how it works.

>>96277937 (OP)
What’s your opinion on elemental magic, and what some good takes on it that you’ve seen? I’ve recently started reading the webcomic Aurora, where elemental magic is basically necromancy; the world is made up of the bodies of six elemental Primordials that died to keep a seventh from eating the stars by trapping him at the planet’s core, Fire, Water, Stone, Lightning, Wind, and Life, the essences of their souls dancing in the sky as auroras (hence the name lol). Mages can channel some of the energy of the Primordial through their body to reanimate the Primordial’s own form in a limited capacity. Soul energy prevents mages from easily manipulating elements inside living things.

>>96303524
No matter how many times you chant that phrase like it's a magic spell, it's not going to make it any less incorrect than before

>>96303630
A coder talking to an AI help-bot today would be rather indistinguishable from a demonologist conversing with a demon to the medieval peasant. “Sorcerer! Witchcraft!”. No, God allows it!”, “No, it’s just science!”, etc. The magician seeing it as otherwise is a defense mechanism.

>>96303813
When it comes to traditional games, there's setting, the roleplaying, and then there's the rules.

You can be as ambiguous as you want when it comes to the setting. And if you're the type who thinks of themselves as some kind of genius, you can outright disregard the setting and insert your own to wank off to. And for roleplaying, you can play any kind of character you want, even characters with believes as contrary and incorrect as the setting describes.

But when it comes to the rules, it's not ambiguous. Something either is, or isn't. Something is either magic, or it isn't. Something is either supernatural, or it isn't. And even if you institute a rule that states that whether or not something is supernatural is decided on a coinflip, that in and of itself codifies that particular things can carry supernatural properties or not in specific conditions.

Nobody is arguing that someone cannot mistake a demon for a god [in the setting]. Nor is anyone arguing that you can't play a character who holds a belief that the demon they are worshiping is a god. They're saying that in the monster manual, said demon is going to be listed as [Demon] or [God] or something very concrete, and that only an absolute retard would smudge that out and go "it all depends on your perspective" to the people trying to fight the demon off and want to know if their anti-demon sword will fucking work or not.

That's why nobody gives a shit about your whole "magic is magic" crap. You're basically just arguing against the army of strawmen you built up in your head. And you have utterly failed to connect anything you've said to /traditional games/ in all the threads you've been here. You have pointed to no game or example which actually benefits from in-universe perspectives on magic being a point of debate, nor have you provided any games where hypothetical mechanics of ambiguity exist or benefit anyone.

Fuck off. I mean it.

>>96303813
>to the medieval peasant
That a near-totally educated rando fails to distinguish two things does not make them the same thing in any meaningful way.

>The magician seeing it as otherwise is a defense mechanism.
No, it's them seeing the details that distinguish the matters as two different things. Something you are apparently incapable of.

>>96303961
>>96303963
This is a lot of words/cope

>>96303974
And you've notably no rejoinder to any of those words

>>96303963
>No, it's them seeing the details that distinguish the matters as two different things. Something you are apparently incapable of.
So you agree that magic is more like an aura, or an air of perception, and that an alien that’s sufficiently advanced can look at it and distinguish it and see it as “not magic”. Got it.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”

“Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science”

>>96303981
No, the entire point is that the peasant's failure to distinguish the two from eachother is based specifically in not knowing what separates them. For the alien to be sufficiently advanced, they must know what separates them, and thus it is a bullshit semantic argument to assert that they MAY call it "not magic" because they are by the scenario REQUIRED to know the demon-summoner is qualitatively different from the AI-user.

Once again, your bullshit semantic argument is rejected.

>>96304006
"Indistinguishable" does not mean that a difference does not exist, only that the subject cannot identify the differences. The sufficiently advanced technology and sufficiently analyzed magic will generally still have differing operating mechanisms.

>>96304016
>No
Yes. Your argument amounts to “no, magic cannot be understood, ever”, which I find funny.

>>96304029
No, my arguments are that "magic" must be a particular thing rather than your adverb meaning to have game rules for it and for noun usage to be grammatically valid. Both demonstrate your asserted semantics are invalid for the context of the discussion.

>>96304024
Cope. If you understand magic well enough it becomes a science. That’s just how it is. Indistinguishable. To be quite Frank, if anything works or functions at all, it is automatically science by default. If technology goes against our natural laws, or our understanding of physics to be more precise, then it’s borderline magic.

>>96304035
>No, my arguments are that "magic" must be a particular thing
A specific, particular thing, you say? What if it’s not seen as such? Many such cases.

“Define magic at your own peril to the detriment, or the exclusion of, all else out there that could be described as magical”

Simple as. Magic is just a perception.

>>96304038
And what game have you ever stopped someone playing a wizard in their tracks who wanted to cast a fireball to relay the specific chemical formula regarding the sudden creation of air without a catalyst or oxidizing agent if they want it to succeed?

None?

Cause it's stupid and pointless and goes against the point of being a game?

Yeah, I thought so.

>>96291233
The setting is a famine torn version of 14th century Italy where criminals are pay off their debts to society by dungeon diving.

>>96304038
>If you understand magic well enough it becomes a science. That’s just how it is. Indistinguishable. To be quite Frank, if anything works or functions at all, it is automatically science by default.
Not if you use a definition of "science" that actually captures why it works instead of being an over-generalized scientism cultist willfully blind to the rather specific epistemological premises because the idea that what you know is contingent on things you don't to be logical scares you.

>If technology goes against our natural laws, or our understanding of physics to be more precise
Okay, but what if it actually goes against our natural laws because it exists in a different context with genuinely different natural laws? Where our understanding of physics is wrong because physics is genuinely different in the relevant context?

Again, you insist on being Not Even Wrong by motioning to real-life examples for contexts explicitly contradicting aspects of real-life those examples rely on.

>>96304043
>What if it’s not seen as such?
Then the person who does is, inside the setting, simply wrong. Just as a moron insisting the earth is flat is.

>“Define magic at your own peril to the detriment, or the exclusion of, all else out there that could be described as magical”
Again, this violates the laws of English grammar, the definitions of magic in question are nouns while this usage of magical is an adverb.

>>96304047
>>96304069
Sorry I’ve already accepted your concession so I’m a lot less likely to respond to your posts on time.

>>96304187
Not even the same anon you're responding to, you equivocating moron

>>96304201
I didn’t assume you were the same person. I assume I’m talking to brick walls.

>>96304248
So you assume you're talking to yourself?

>>96304069
>Again, you insist on being Not Even Wrong
Why’s being correct so wrong, anon? Are you arguing being correct in this context has no bearing?

>>96304435
>Are you arguing being correct in this context has no bearing?
You're insisting upon another context, so even if you were correct it does in fact have no bearing. We are not talking about comparative mythology, etymology, the history of religion, or any of the other things from real life you keep citing, we are talking about the internal world-logic of Elfgame where "magic" is used as a noun and so the adverb synonymous with "wonder" is not even grammatically valid.

>>96304435
>Adjective
>not even wrong (not comparable)
>(derogatory) Of a supposedly scientific argument or explanation: unable to be meaningfully discussed because it is based on fundamentally invalid reasoning or speculative premises that cannot be proven or falsified.

Basically, it means that the argument being made is so off the mark that you can't even call it "wrong" because it would have to get any aspect right to get there

Like how you can't technically fail the SATs if you never sat down to take them in the first place. You're still given zero credit, but none of the questions are "incorrect" because they were never answered in the first place.

>>96304459
>>96304473
Seems disingenuous. I choose to ignore it.

>>96304494
>I can't argue it, so I'll just ignore it
So basically you'll just keep doing what you've been doing until now?

>>96304517
No I’m just saying the phrase ‘Not Even Wrong’ is ironic when the OP hasn’t been wrong from the start (regarding magic being decided by the mind/author), and on the surface it comes across as you being butthurt about him being correct (hence the “you just think you’re sooo smart and profound huh” projection).

>>96304558
>when the OP hasn’t been wrong from the start
Their positions are neither right nor wrong because they aren't valid for the discussion the rest of us are trying to have as they are either circular semantic arguments asserting a tautology that fails basic grammar or rely on contexts intentionally excluded.

>>96304589
>Their positions are neither right nor wrong
Anon…

>>96304616
I repeat:
>because they aren't valid for the discussion the rest of us are trying to have
That is, the truth value of them is irrelevant because it's about an incompatible set of standards.

>>96304558
No, what's ironic is that you're claiming you're right about your thesis when the point being made is that you're not even arguing against the same thing other people are arguing for. You're basically trying to tell people that they're wrong from a watsonian perspective when they're examining the work from a doylist perspective.

Basically, you're furiously swinging at pitches while playing at the wrong stadium. You've flown to France to tell someone in Switzerland they're incorrect. Your claim that "magic is whatever the fuck" is Not Even Wrong because that's not actually what you're arguing for. You claim that you're saying "Magic is [whatever the author wants it to be]", but in practice everything you've been saying (because we know you're the guy in the copypasta) is "Magic is whatever the fuck [I want it to be]".

So you're not wrong, because you're not even having the same debate. You're complaining to the ground that it's too bright and sunny under your feet and it needs to shut off all that sunlight.

>>96304631
Anon…

>>96304634
>Your claim that "magic is whatever the fuck" is Not Even Wrong because that's not actually what you're arguing for
Yes it is.

>You claim that you're saying "Magic is [whatever the author wants it to be]", but in practice everything you've been saying (because we know you're the guy in the copypasta) is "Magic is whatever the fuck [I want it to be]".
See the image in the OP.

>>96304662
Thanks for proving my point

>>96304634
So, to you, if someone said “magic is what the setting or author declares it to be”, this would be wrong? To you? They are absolutely wrong?

What’s magic to you, then? Go on. Tell us. Since you seem to know what it is. It’s some specific thing, clearly. So what is it? Tell us.

>>96304668
Thanks for proving to me that you’re arguing against your own argument, lol. That’s how cognitively warped you are. I suspect you aren’t even self aware. Or your consciousness is just lessened.

>>96304672
If someone said that, I'd first ask "Which setting are we talking about"?

Cause that's how you start a discussion. Framing it.

>>96304681
I don't think you even know what is being discussed here.

>>96277937 (OP)
Invisible pixies playing a thousand-year prank on everyone.

>>96304691
>If someone said that, I'd first ask "Which setting are we talking about"?
“What setting?” amounts to the same. “It depends on the author”.

Answer my question. What is magic to you? If it’s not dependant on the mind’s eye, the author, the setting, etc, then it’s a specific something. So what is it? Answer me. If you can’t, then you lose this. Not that you already haven’t.

>>96304691
>Cause that's how you start a discussion. Framing it.
You’re arguing that “it depends on the author/setting” is wrong, thobeit.

>>96304713
Why should I answer something I was never talking about in the first place? You're the only one insistent that magic is whatever the fuck YOU claim it to be, after all, whether it's some alien's imagination or psychology or physics or whatever.

This debate has been literally you versus your own brain worms from start to finish. And you're the only one free to win or lose that debate.

>>96304738
And you've yet to prove why beyond you claiming it.

>>96304748
>You're the only one insistent that magic is whatever the fuck YOU claim it to be
See, you’re projecting again. It’s whatever the fuck the AUTHOR wants it to be, anon. This extends to culture.

>>96304748
Nah. It’s you saying “it depends on the author”, and he’s saying “yes exactly”, and you’re like “nope”. You’re only here to argue, guy.

>>96304763
If you actually believed that, you wouldn't have spent the past few trillion years arguing so hard against it.

>>96304772
I'm claiming he's a liar. Get it straight.

>>96304748
If magic is a specific something in a specific fiction, and specific fictions are made by specific people, then you can argue that magic isn’t a specific something, but rather an opinion, and at best this ‘specific something’ can be chalked up to the chemistry in the brain, leading up to “wow it’s like magic!” or “well, in MY setting…”, be it sourced to exposure logic or pure imagination.

>>96304791
You feel free to argue that, anon.

>>96304786
How is he lying when he says magic isn’t the same in whatever fiction?

You’re basically arguing that only a certain way of writing magic is the correct way. That’s kind of arrogant.

>>96304804
I'm pretty sure you're the one making that claim.

>>96304786
>If you actually believed that, you wouldn't have spent the past few trillion years arguing so hard against it.
But that’s what you’re doing, hence the image in the OP. ;^)

“Magic is whatever the author/setting/person/etc sees it as or wants it to be”
“No, magic is whatever the author/setting/person/etc sees it as or wants it to be”
“Yes I just said that”
“No you’re lying”

Double digit IQ brain.

>>96304811
Nope. Now you’re trying to twist it, to try and avoid your own mistakes. These last dozens of threads have proven you to be an idiot, especially with your refusal to grasp basic fucking physics. Or just basic fucking psychology. Magic has always been “magic”. Deal with it.

>>96304811
You can’t be this blind. Or stupid.

“Magic is whatever the fuck” is indeed another way of saying “it depends on the author”, since we’re so surrounded in an endless torrent of slop fiction where basically everything has been attempted at this point.

>>96304825
Finish the actual phrase, anon

>“Magic is whatever we see it as or want it to be”
>“Okay, but what do we mean when we're talking about magic? Are we talking about-”
>“Yes I just said that”
>"The fuck are you on about? What game?”
>"Why does nobody understand my genius?"

>>96304830
The fact you refuse to actually sit down and explain what "magic" means in any given context means that this is not a debate and just a trolling point gone way too far

>>96304840
Don't look at me, look at people like OP who think this shit's still funny

>>96304858
>"The fuck are you on about? What game?”
So you agree with him? You’re asking “what setting? what author?”, as though magic isn’t the same within any given fiction. Because it isn’t the same ever.

>>96304858
It is funny though. You can’t accept that magic isn’t defined more so than described, as he puts it. You hate the idea that hard atheism can be inserted into a work of fiction. You are a religious sort of brain. No different from Christians denying other gods and demanding only their god is truly God. You want magic to be a specific damn thing. Well it doesn’t work that way, buddy. It’s subjective. All fictions are subjective by way of the author writing subjection into his work.

>>96304950
No, we're done here. I've already said my piece. If you want to pretend that you're talking the same thing everyone else is despite the evidence showing otherwise, then I'll leave you to your delusions.

>>96304964
I could actually give you an example as to why context matters, or you can just keep doing this back and forth of insisting I'm a Christian when I'm not.

>>96304975
I’m saying you’re a religious sort of mind, if you argue against magic being “magic” / “it depends on the author” / “it depends on the setting” / etc.

Because the alternative is arguing that magic can only be done one way, like how Christians argued there’s only one God.

Magic is ironic.

>>96305003
Shame, I'd actually been teed up to compare two different magical systems and why their own internal definitions clash with each other, but I guess trolls will be

Since that's what I was arguing about from the start

That if you want to talk about a concept as nebulous as "magic", you should clarify if you mean you're talking about it within the purview of a very specific game where it's defined, or if you're trying to talk about an explicitly subjective subject and want to gather other people's particular viewpoints and ideas.

While you're the one arguing about...whatever it is you're arguing about

>>96304791
>and specific fictions are made by specific people,
Again with removing from the defined context. Insisting on this connection is why you keep being Not Even Wrong.

>>96304825
>“Magic is whatever the author/setting/person/etc sees it as or wants it to be”
>“No, magic is whatever the author/setting/person/etc sees it as or wants it to be”
Again with missing the difference between "whatever the fuck" and "defined by the setting's context". We're saying that Tolkien's work has absolutely no bearing on the internal Watsonian logic of Warhammer Fantasy Battles, and that you constantly attempting to assert external Doylist logic to make it matter so you can insist upon an adverb meaning of "magic" is invalid.

>>96304830
An adverb is not a noun. You cannot replace the word "magic" in the class text of the D&D Wizard with the meaning you insist upon because the result is not grammatically valid. That rules text only functions with a particular meaning of "magic".

>>96304964
>You can’t accept that magic isn’t defined more so than described, as he puts it.
Because to write game rules it must have a concrete definition.

>You hate the idea that hard atheism can be inserted into a work of fiction.
Because it relies on constant re-definition to define the work's logical framework out of its own context.

>You want magic to be a specific damn thing.
Within the confines of a specific damn game, so that the game can have hard rules for it, so that this bullshit is rightfully excluded from our tables.

>All fictions are subjective by way of the author writing subjection into his work.
Which has no bearing on the internal logical framework, because the approach we are arguing from is strictly Watsonian. Doyles does not exist in Elfgame, never can and never will, and so his life's story is irrelevant to the residents of Elfgame. You are functionally arguing that a barrier between reality and fiction can NEVER be valid.

Again, math was seen as magic for many thousands of years, like the mathematics of Pythagoras. Same with machinery the Greeks built. Natural philosophers largely saw nature as magical while others didn’t really. It was even in vogue to label things magic if they were esoteric enough. Cool enough.

Yes. Magic is “magic” and it’s really just a mind’s eye view of things. It’s hilarious to me how you dumbasses want there to be more to it. What’s magic won’t stay magic forever. It changes and updates itself, the perception of magic. It evolves.

>>96305089
Again,

What game are you talking about? :^)

>>96305074
>Because to write game rules it must have a concrete definition.

You can have concrete definitions that are ironic or even flawed beyond the fourth wall, for the sake of running the game. Much like how concrete definitions in the past are not so concrete definitions now. They served their purpose, in that time period.

I don’t know why this bothers you. A cleric is technically a magic user but it’s not labeled that way for the sake of the game.

Do you INSIST that all things inside the game are empirically correct? You know who makes the games right? People? It’s not accurate to say people are infallible.

>>96305096
Human life. Survival. Religion. All one big game. ;^)

>>96305096
Off-topic troll :^)

>>96305119
>Do you INSIST that all things inside the game are empirically correct?
I dunno. Are you the type to look at a copy of the D&D monster manual, see that a Goblin is listed as a goblinoid, and then hurl the book out the window while screaming "NO! YOUR DEFINITION IS WRONG!" and rush to 4chan to post your screed on how the morons at Wizards of the Coast don't understand what REAL goblins are like?

Cause if so, then you are a very strange individual.

>>96305130
Off-topic troll :^)

>>96305119
>Do you INSIST that all things inside the game are empirically correct?

I dunno. Are you the type to look at a copy of the D&D monster manual, see that a Goblin is listed as a goblinoid, and then hurl the book out the window while screaming "NO! YOUR DEFINITION IS WRONG!" and rush to 4chan to post your screed on how the morons at Wizards of the Coast don't understand what REAL goblins are like?

Cause if so, then you are a very strange individual, and you should get your temper checked out.

>>96305146
>Are you the type to look at a copy of the D&D monster manual, see that a Goblin is listed as a goblinoid
We here in the 21st century would probably classify it differently. Silicon based life and such. We’d look at the chemical makeup. That’s just how it is, in a materialistic world of deconstruction.

>>96305172
Meant for >>96305169

>>96305172
So that's an unironic yes, you ARE the type to hurl the book out the window because you think the book itself is wrong about its own definition?

>>96301783
If it can be understood, it's not magic. Retard.

>>96303524
Yes it is.

>>96305368
It’s magic because it doesn’t adhere to any of the established principles and/or physics within the setting. I know you’re a pseudointellectual, but stop overthinking it.

>>96305410
Wrong. It's magic if it can't be understood. Stop overthinking it.

>>96305418
Thanks for agreeing with me, anon. If it cannot be understood because it completely defies any feasible model of reality as established by the setting (you know, because its fiction) then its magic. Hope this helps!

>>96305393
Nope. Magic to one is not going to be magic to another. It’s the same with authors, it’s the same with cultures, and it’s definitely the same with persons.

>>96305442
Nope, you lose.

>>96305445
Care to answer >>96305184 ?

Magic that’s understood isn’t protected from being taken for granted to the point where it’s just bland science. There are physicists who see nature as magical, as there are physicists as not magical.

To be sure, most physicists will get angry if you call gravity “borderline magic”, even if you’re right about that fact.

Nerds hate magic because it empowers the unknown. It empowers mystery. And humans are scared of things they don’t know, and things they don’t understand.

>>96305184
All definitions are based on observations of objective reality, and any definition can be wrong.

>>96305451
>coping
Sorry anon, I know you feel big and smart by saying “If something happens, then science”, but theres a wonderful thing called cause and effect, and if something for one reason lacks either (or both) then its magic.

>>96305453
If an author writes “in this setting technology doesn’t work”, and then we see a cart being pushed around on wheels, it’s a case of authored ignorance. It’s Wrong.

>>96305475
Nope, you lose.

>>96305477
>technology
>cart being pushed on wheels
Incredible self own, thank you anon. Think you meant to say ‘rudimentary physics’

>>96305471
>>96305477
So your assertion is that the author’s own assertions on their setting are not in fact a source of authority on their own setting?

lol he's so close to getting it

>>96305494
Carts are technology, yeah.

>>96305475
Something doesn’t come from nothing. Sorry. About the only place you can argue this happening is quantum mechanics, the micro, by way of quantum uncertainty, but this doesn’t extend into the macro verse. And even then, it’s likely very wrong. Bohr is a fag. Determinism is all there is. Anything fuzzy/unpredictable is just us facing our limits.

>>96305494
He’s saying carts are technology, you fucking idiot. The wheel is technology. So are sticks. If “technology” doesn’t work then nobody should be able to do anything. So authors like Jim Butcher are fucking stupid.

You can’t fucking read.

>>96305519
Try learning how to separate fiction from reality.

>>96305498
There are limits even to fiction. If an author claims his setting doesn’t have math, or causality, then he’s sadly ignorant of the basest building blocks of reality. Any sort of reality. Even fiction. Our ability to make fiction at all comes from basest reality.

>>96305477
>The author has made a statement
>I can't tell what this means
>Surely, I can't have read it incorrectly
If you're not even attempting to understand the meaning behind statements you have nothing of value to say about anything.
Usage determines what words mean.

>>96305533
Learn that there are limits to fiction. Omnipotence is a paradox and fiction isn’t actually omnipotent. You are replacing God with Fiction, and I find that fucking hilarious. This is what being rotted from escapism looks like.

>>96305535
...So despite claiming up and down "[x] depends on the author/setting" all this time, you are explicitly stating that you believe [x] does NOT depend on what the author and/or setting define it as. Am I taking this to be correct?

>>96305536
Anon, you’re just giving power to ignorance. You’re no better than a religious person.

>>96305528
>Technology doesn’t work in this setting
>Buh, an object that is best physically suited to rolling does?
There is no contradiction here, do you think a fucking tumbleweed is technology?

>>96305560
They are low-functioning autists.
>But math DOES exist.

>>96305560
>do you think a fucking tumbleweed is technology?
To take advantage of rolling? Yes that’s technology. You cannot remove technology from a setting. Because again, a fucking stick is technically a piece of technology.

>>96305579
And you’re a revolting namefag. Worse in every way.
>but math DOES exist
You’re like that one retarded girl who says “is math related to science?”. My god. Kill yourself. Apply your hands to your own throat. Right now.

>>96305584
>if man made technology no work why naturally occurring cylinder exist
This is what you’re arguing right now, go kill yourself.

>>96305606
So there’s some mysterious force preventing humans from rolling now, huh? God damn, you dumb.

>>96277937 (OP)
A weird alien rock crashed into the moon and it's actually bullshit x-dimensional energy metamaterials shit, scientists discovered how to use it to tap into energy in another dimension by priming the entire dimension to tune into specific real world materials so the cia cooped the program to make it work off of blood and salt for ease of destabilizing enemy regimes and things escalated from there until we arrived at a post-apocalyptic pseudo-mideval society that's forgotten it's history and the origins of magic and most mages are basically just cargo culting shit that seems to work

>>96277937 (OP)
it uses your life force, people without magic have a way high life expectancy, and wizards die young with gray hair and huge beards

OP you really triggered the autists

>>96305629
Bait tends to do that on /tg/, yes

>>96305629
“Noooo magic is magic no matter what noooo”
Yeah it’s pretty funny that they’re this new to games
They think magic isn’t just flavour and aesthetic LMAO

>he never answered >>96305540
Guess that's their silent agreement

>>96305666
Depends. Is it just flavor and aesthetic in D&D or is it also a gameplay function?

>>96305560
No, because a tumbleweed isn't the result of engineering or applied science. A wheel is.