What Makes a Great Magic System?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

I consider that a feature, not a bug. To me a great magic system is the product of a comprehensible set of alternate natural laws.

To me, any product of any system of natural laws is a technology, not a magic system. Magic is supernatural; it works by poetic association and narrative plausibility.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by whswhs

To me, any product of any system of natural laws is a technology, not a magic system. .

Whereas I think any magic system is a technology, although not necessarily a well developed one.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Whereas I think any magic system is a technology, although not necessarily a well developed one.

Is that a tautology—in that you think any form of purposeful human action is a technology—or does technology have some distinctive attributes that separate it from other forms of human activity?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Is that a tautology—in that you think any form of purposeful human action is a technology—

I think in this context any systematic knowledge of how to do something is a technology. So for example if you just have a magical advantage that you use to perform some useful trick like breathing fire or flying or laying golden eggs, and you didn't need to study or be taught to learn how to do it even a little, that's not a system and by extension not a technology. It's just a super power. Similarly praying for divine intervention with no control over how the divinity responds and learning and skill not relevant to how likely they are to respond is not a system, although it can be described as magic.

Of course that's only one definition of technology. It can also be used strictly to refer to material tools rather than the knowledge used to make them. But of course that would not be "any product of any system of natural laws".

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by whswhs

To me, any product of any system of natural laws is a technology, not a magic system. Magic is supernatural; it works by poetic association and narrative plausibility.

Bingo. Magic for swords are poetic. Magic for ships is poetic. Earth-spells for good crops are poetic. Elevators are not. Or if they are they are poetic in a different way more suited to technology then magic.

Why is this? How the heck do I know.

[simply Nathan]

So you're saying the Wonkavator isn't a magic item or something? Magic elevators seem perfectly credible to me.

[shawnhcorey]

Originally Posted by whswhs

To me, any product of any system of natural laws is a technology, not a magic system. Magic is supernatural; it works by poetic association and narrative plausibility.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Whereas I think any magic system is a technology, although not necessarily a well developed one.

The definition of technology is the study of techniques. If magic can be learn, then it's technology. Even if it is not understood how it works.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by shawnhcorey

The definition of technology is the study of techniques. If magic can be learn, then it's technology. Even if it is not understood how it works.

That depends on how you define techniques.

In art, for example, we talk about "technique" or "technical skill" as a certain set of capabilities that good artists normally have—but they don't exhaust the capabilities of good artists. We may admire the stunning precision of Vermeer's realistic paintings or Dali's surrealistic ones, but things like Dali's wild imagination and recurring motifs are a big part of his appeal. There are technically highly skilled artists who are not first rate, and there are first rate artists who are not technically brilliant. And likewise in literature and music and the other arts.

I don't think of art as technology. I don't think of entertaining as technology. I don't think of ethical conduct as technology. I don't think of having friends as technology. I don't think of making love as technology. I don't even think of massage as technology. Any of them can make use of technology, and any of them can have technique, but technical skill isn't the most important thing in any of them.

And yet you can learn all of those things.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by whswhs

My feeling is that if you can understand something by scientific methods, experiment with it, achieve predictable outcomes, and so on, you've made it unmagical.

I believe that Galadriel spoke to Sam in The Fellowship of the Ring about magic. It was implied that, to her, what Hobbits would have called magical was not magical to her.

If you live with Bronze Age technology and encounter someone with steel swords and armor, they might well seem magical.

Perhaps to those who understand magic, magic is just another force in the cosmos, governed by its own arcane laws. Magic might just be a matter of perspective.

[Edges]

There an Arthur C Clark quotation in here somewhere.