Split from Verbs vs. Nouns - what is "magic" ?

[phlapjackage]

I saw this question asked in that thread, and it never really got the attention it deserved, and it got me thinking at lunch, so...

I think magic in most popular culture can be placed into two distinct categories:

1. Magic As Technology (MAT)

MAT is where using magic can be viewed as using a technology or a learned skill. Anyone can do it, with enough time, training, or expertise. MAT follows some consistent laws in the world that can be discovered. D&D magic falls under this category, with anyone being able to cast spells (multi/dual class), UMD, magic swords (just a form of technology). Gadgeteers, characters using Ki or Rage or whatever. Any sufficiently advanced tech...

So that blaster rifle is no different from that wand of MM. Both are technologies. Villager #3 can learn to use the blaster rifle, he can learn to use the wand if he gets enough XP to take a level in something. He can learn to punch a ghost if he trains hard enough.

I don't even know what "mundane" means in this setting. Someone who can't use technology?

2. Magic As Special Snowflake (MASS)

MASS is something meaning that if you aren't born with it, you're not doing it. See Star Wars, The Wheel of Time, The Matrix, etc. No amount of training will allow a person to use magic. If a character does have MASS, they still must train to learn how to use or control it. Mundane in this sense means being someone who wasn't born with MASS. Villager #3 will never do magic, no matter if he studies for a thousand years he'll never be able to use Callandor. I think heroes like Beowulf and Roland fall into this category, if only because their feats supposedly aren't really repeatable by "normal" people.


I think most people who want a "mundane" character to be able to compete are thinking of MASS, meanwhile they are usually playing a game where magic is MAT. And so there shouldn't be a disconnect, since there are no "mundane" characters in a world with MAT.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I don't even know what "mundane" means in this setting. Someone who can't use technology?

Someone who doesn't have the technology.

[Avoraciopoctules]

I don't even know what "mundane" means in this setting. Someone who can't use technology?

Someone who gets suppressed by a null mana field / psychic void / nanite-killing radiation zone.

[Mask_De_H]

The mundane person is either an extra or someone who doesn't get the real good shit. In a MAT world, Dan Hibiki or Balrog/M. Bison/Boxer is mundane, while Ryu, Blanka, Dhalsim and Rose are not.

[phlapjackage]

In a MAT world, even extras get technology, they're just low-level, so their technology shit isn't that powerful (blacksmithing). Who can't use technology? Barring outside influences like anti-magic fields or EMP pulses and all that...

[sabs]

That is entirely the point that Frank and K are trying to make on the other thread. In D&D which is basically a MAT World.. everyone has access to magic. The people trying to go "nuh huh.. my mundane fighter can leap 100' in the air.. cause he trained real gud" not because he has access to some kind of Magic that made it possible. It's also the point that you have to twist the panties really hardcore to make a 'mundane' pc that gets no technology, that can do anything that a some random subset of Village NPC can't do.

D&D has both MAT and MSS.
Sorcerors are MSS, Wizards are MAT. Fighters need to be MAT. But people really need to be willing to have adamantium skeletons, or light sabers, or any number of power ups for their character. Otherwise, all that happens is they start complaining that the guys who are using MAT out strip them. Which can only be answered with a "duh"

[MGuy]

You know, I vaguely remember myself claiming magic was technology in another thread to which Frank gave his disapproval. I think he likened it to an art back then. Something that not everyone could do.

[Avoraciopoctules]

If everyone in the setting has some supernatural abilities, then defining "mundane" as nonmagical is not useful.

[shadzar]

i think magic is neither of those specifically.

magic is that which is NOT mundane. if CAN be learned, but those with natural talent find it easier. it MUST be learned. like harry potter, he didnt really know how to use it, though he was using it. there was a course for wizard born to teach magic to those that were not wizards. not sure how well that worked, but it wasnt discussed much beyond Filch.

magic is not swinging a sword, but making a sword swing on its own.

[phlapjackage]

If everyone in the setting has some supernatural abilities, then defining "mundane" as nonmagical is not useful.

I think it depends on the setting. In a MAT world, magic is just a kind of technology, like any other technology. "My character knows magic" is equivalent to "my character knows blacksmithing", only difference being usefulness or "coolness". Learnable, definable, trainable. So to define your character as mundane in this setting means your character can't use technology, which seems a little...dumb.

i think magic is neither of those specifically.

magic is that which is NOT mundane. if CAN be learned, but those with natural talent find it easier. it MUST be learned. like harry potter, he didnt really know how to use it, though he was using it. there was a course for wizard born to teach magic to those that were not wizards. not sure how well that worked, but it wasnt discussed much beyond Filch.

magic is not swinging a sword, but making a sword swing on its own.

This is my point in the first post, that what magic is, is defined by the setting. Harry Potter's world is definitely MASS. Muggles couldn't do magic (I think), because it wasn't in their blood. Those born with wizard blood had to train their inborn ability.

By your definition, that magic is "making a sword swing on it's own", it sounds like you're advocating the idea of magic being a technology, because this is something technology can also make happen.

[Libertad]

3. Magic As Part of the World

Magic is omnipresent, from supernatural beasts to the "holy qualities" certain rare plants and herbs. It directly interacts with the Material Plane, and is thus a phenomena which is not inherently "beyond" the mortal world.

In many ways, it's similar to Magic As Technology, except you've got places of raw magic just lying around like a natural resource. Places with greater desposits of magic, or are heavily suffused with a certain kind of magic, generate different spells and byproducts. The Lands of the Necro-Kings are heavy with negative energy, but nature magic is virtually non-existent. The Wizard in his tower is positioned above a giant pool of Mana, which allows him to cast spells and create magic items at a much faster rate than spellcasters elsewhere.

[MGuy]

I don't think that there's a distinction to be made here. There are places in the real world where you find ore of certain "stuff" than other places. In the case of MAT Magic is just another part of the "stuff", the world physics, whatever. The existence of places with a higher concentration of magic "Stuff" wouldn't warrant another category IMO.

[Vebyast]

I think that part of the problem is that this is really a gradient rather than a sharp decision, kind of like the whole "nature versus nurture" debate. Few settings are entirely MAT or entirely MASS. Instead, you have settings where direct magic use is MASS but magic-users can produce MAT that anybody can use, settings where magic is mostly MASS but there are ways to produce special snowflakes on command, and settings that are almost entirely MAT except that there are special snowflakes that get better technology. There are also settings that have multiple systems in parallel; for example, Star Wars has sufficiently advanced technology as MAT and the Force as MASS.

This idea can be made more general by noting that anything at all can have the snowflake-nature; Libertad's proposal is just MASS with places instead of people, and astrology assumes that stellar alignments confer MASS on cotemporal events.

[phlapjackage]

Dang good points about the gradient.

[shadzar]

i think magic is neither of those specifically.

magic is that which is NOT mundane. if CAN be learned, but those with natural talent find it easier. it MUST be learned. like harry potter, he didnt really know how to use it, though he was using it. there was a course for wizard born to teach magic to those that were not wizards. not sure how well that worked, but it wasnt discussed much beyond Filch.

magic is not swinging a sword, but making a sword swing on its own.

This is my point in the first post, that what magic is, is defined by the setting. Harry Potter's world is definitely MASS. Muggles couldn't do magic (I think), because it wasn't in their blood. Those born with wizard blood had to train their inborn ability.

By your definition, that magic is "making a sword swing on it's own", it sounds like you're advocating the idea of magic being a technology, because this is something technology can also make happen.

and the thing is HP had magic and tech no able to work side by side. the wizard radio didnt function even off of crystal diodes. magic interfered with the function of muggle tech. also going back, early science in the real world was viewed as magic. so it really does fit that magic=tech in a way. but tech does things beyond the "mundane" because a power tool can spin at 30k RPMs, while a human could not. so the tech could spin the sword much faster than the fighter could.

if a setting includes magic and tech, then it would have to be defined HOW they interact, or IF they even do.

for my purposes, D&D magic has no tech competition. gnomish devices as simple machines built overly complex. Rube Goldbergs. firearms dont exist. anything beyond what a HUMAN can do is in part due to magic. ergo magical races that phases, leave after images, etc. being stronger than a human or living longer has a hint of magic, but the midichlorian count would be so low it doesnt grant spell-casting abilities. so giants and elves exist because of magic, but doesnt mean they all go around throwing fireballs and lightning bolts.

[Red_Rob]

It was me that raised this question in the Verbs thread, but I wasn't really asking the question that you posed in the OP. I was more interested in this:

How far beyond the capabilities of a real human can a Fantasy character go before you will no longer accept that they are not "Magical" in some way?

Fantasy characters live in a fantastical world, where any villager simply wandering into the woods can be transformed into a deer by a passing druid or taken by the Fey to another realm without explanation. Ancient stories are full of heroes that did impossible things by dint of their physical prowess, or indomitable strength of will. In this context it seems entirely in keeping that a powerful hero should be able to perform superhuman feats such as arm wrestling giants or holding their breath for hours whilst fighting without the need for an explicitly magical explanation. These people simply live in a world where normal human limits do not apply to some people. D&D posits this in some ways, but that is mostly by accident (I'm sure Barbarians leaping off cliffs and bouncing would be nerfed by most DM's if you brought attention to it). I'd like to see more acceptance that a high level warrior can just do blatantly superhuman things without having to have some phlebotinum to back it up. Heroes are just more awesome in a fantasy world than in ours, just as the monsters are more monstrous and the magic is more magical.

[Stubbazubba]

It was me that raised this question in the Verbs thread, but I wasn't really asking the question that you posed in the OP. I was more interested in this:

How far beyond the capabilities of a real human can a Fantasy character go before you will no longer accept that they are not "Magical" in some way?

You know, if you just watch the Return of the King, the characters seem overly dramatic at the beginning of the movie. But if you watch it from FotR all the way through, you don't even notice it, because it has been naturally built up to. The feats that characters achieve at the climax of their stories are unacceptable to place at the beginning of the story, it would be a completely different mood. You can pretty much stretch the definition of mundane as far as you want so long as it is gradually built up. If you require the audience to back up and examine it, though, then the immersion is broken and they will realize it's clearly magical, but so long as the immersion is maintained, and the audience buy-in is achieved, you can run with it as far as you want.

[Kaelik]

I'd like to see more acceptance that a high level warrior can just do blatantly superhuman things without having to have some phlebotinum to back it up. Heroes are just more awesome in a fantasy world than in ours, just as the monsters are more monstrous and the magic is more magical.

Unexplained superhuman phlebotinum is either still phlebotinum, or still subject to all the bullshit limits that lack of phlebotinum always has.

[Stubbazubba]

I'd like to see more acceptance that a high level warrior can just do blatantly superhuman things without having to have some phlebotinum to back it up. Heroes are just more awesome in a fantasy world than in ours, just as the monsters are more monstrous and the magic is more magical.

Unexplained superhuman phlebotinum is either still phlebotinum, or still subject to all the bullshit limits that lack of phlebotinum always has.

All right, Kaelik, fine, it's phlebotinum, whatever you want, just don't crap up every single thread.

[Kaelik]

I'd like to see more acceptance that a high level warrior can just do blatantly superhuman things without having to have some phlebotinum to back it up. Heroes are just more awesome in a fantasy world than in ours, just as the monsters are more monstrous and the magic is more magical.

Unexplained superhuman phlebotinum is either still phlebotinum, or still subject to all the bullshit limits that lack of phlebotinum always has.

All right, Kaelik, fine, it's phlebotinum, whatever you want, just don't crap up every single thread.

No you dumb shit, this thread was supposedly supposed to be about MAT vs MASS, and then Red Rob suddenly decided that exactly like every other thread about fighters, it really needed to be about how to make super special awesome fighters that are totally not magic.

That was thread crapping. I am fucking tired of team Fighter showing up in every single fucking thread that is even remotely related to magic vs mundane and immediately and without reserve talking about how they want to make fighters that aren't weabo or anime, but are totally badass not magic users, and then throwing a fit when anyone wants to talk about something besides their stupid threadjack to the same topic every fucking time.

If you want to talk about how to make a goddam stupid fighter piece of shit that isn't anime or weabo or a gadgeteer or anything else, but is totally a non magical badass, make that stupid fucking thread, and post in that stupid fucking thread and stop hijacking literally every single thread to talk about that instead.

[Mask_De_H]

Fucking chill, Kaelik.

Fuck.

[shadzar]

It was me that raised this question in the Verbs thread, but I wasn't really asking the question that you posed in the OP. I was more interested in this:

How far beyond the capabilities of a real human can a Fantasy character go before you will no longer accept that they are not "Magical" in some way?

Fantasy characters live in a fantastical world, where any villager simply wandering into the woods can be transformed into a deer by a passing druid or taken by the Fey to another realm without explanation. Ancient stories are full of heroes that did impossible things by dint of their physical prowess, or indomitable strength of will. In this context it seems entirely in keeping that a powerful hero should be able to perform superhuman feats such as arm wrestling giants or holding their breath for hours whilst fighting without the need for an explicitly magical explanation. These people simply live in a world where normal human limits do not apply to some people. D&D posits this in some ways, but that is mostly by accident (I'm sure Barbarians leaping off cliffs and bouncing would be nerfed by most DM's if you brought attention to it). I'd like to see more acceptance that a high level warrior can just do blatantly superhuman things without having to have some phlebotinum to back it up. Heroes are just more awesome in a fantasy world than in ours, just as the monsters are more monstrous and the magic is more magical.

so everyone, not just Iolous should have been able to fight along side Hercules in that series and punch giants and such? well they did, but it didnt make giants magical, just BIG. when it came to it, only Hercules was able to fight the real "monsters" or Hera's constructs. Iolous was powerless against such things as just a mortal human.

also with the arm wrestling giants.. most people in the world couldnt wrestle a bear to the ground, but the people who can, or can pull a bus with their teeth, or bench press a Buick, etc may APPEAR to be superhuman, but they really are only human. we dont know the limits of what the "perfect" human body can do, because there isnt one. ants perform superhuman feats such as lighting 100 times their weight and carrying it. none of these people shoot lasers from their eyes, or can deflect bullets, or fly, or exhale a breathe that can freeze or put out fires or cause tornadoes. if a human can do it, it isnt beyond human capability to do it. these people are NOT superman, just extremely focused on one thing that their body can do. the best power-lifter cannot run as fast as the olympic medal runners, cannot jump as far, etc. they are extremely focused, so not actually superhuman.

also there is a loss to gain most of those "superhuman" abilities. blind people gain better hearing focus. they have one less sense to process thus granting them more ability to hear better, autistic could be excellent at math, but poor at ALL forms of communication outside of it, etc.

superhuman would take doing more than one exceptional feat, while maintaining the ability to perform the other feats of a human. Daredevil then wasnt superhuman. he lost sight and therefore had some processing power in excess that wasnt being used to gain his exceptional hearing ability. had he kept his sight, he would have never gained the other ability, and having his sight returned, he would likely lose his added hearing over time, probably quicker than it was gained.

It was me that raised this question in the Verbs thread, but I wasn't really asking the question that you posed in the OP. I was more interested in this:

How far beyond the capabilities of a real human can a Fantasy character go before you will no longer accept that they are not "Magical" in some way?

You know, if you just watch the Return of the King, the characters seem overly dramatic at the beginning of the movie. But if you watch it from FotR all the way through, you don't even notice it, because it has been naturally built up to. The feats that characters achieve at the climax of their stories are unacceptable to place at the beginning of the story, it would be a completely different mood. You can pretty much stretch the definition of mundane as far as you want so long as it is gradually built up. If you require the audience to back up and examine it, though, then the immersion is broken and they will realize it's clearly magical, but so long as the immersion is maintained, and the audience buy-in is achieved, you can run with it as far as you want.

well the thing is for all intents in the movie it appears Aragorn is human, unless you see the extended scenes in the non-standard 300 sets of the movies that had them to know he is 87 at the time Rohan was going to fight.

so taking him as human, then taking the fact he grabbed a ghost by the throat, you would have to say it is the sword conferring this ability to him or something else. at that time if you take "the line has been broken" to mean bloodline not the sword itself, then you see him as magical from that point on and before, but you just didnt know he was magical rather than mundane until that point.

[sabs]

You do realize though that.. Lord of the Rings is basically impossible to represent in D&D right. A 3rd level Wizard does more magic than Gandalf.

A 12th level Wizard could have wiped out the orc army at Isengar by himself.

[Chamomile]

make that stupid fucking thread, and post in that stupid fucking thread and stop hijacking literally every single thread to talk about that instead.

We did, and then you threadjacked it.

[Kaelik]

make that stupid fucking thread, and post in that stupid fucking thread and stop hijacking literally every single thread to talk about that instead.

We did, and then you threadjacked it.

Hey dumb shit, that wasn't the topic of that thread either, you fuckers just threadjacked that topic just like this one and every other one that has ever occurred.