Funny, I was imagining Fred Astaire.

Anyway, I think "magic" somehow defies a materialistic view of the universe. If midichlorians are just interfacing [strike]which[/strike] with an impersonal force of nature that can be measured, it's not magic. BUT I know that the idea of a natural/supernatural divide is (allegedly) an ethnocentric and ahistorical perspective. A broad survey might still find some distinction that's common across times and cultures. Like in the ancient Greco-Roman world, magic seems to be all about gods and spirits, and I find it hard to believe a Mycenean wouldn't see a distinction between a person building a fire using two sticks, and the enchantress/goddess (thea) Circe turning men into pigs.

Also, there are (fictional? attested?) views of magic that make it seem very scientific (do X and Y, mix one ounce of this with a dram of that, and now you have a love potion, works every time if you just follow the recipe). So practitioners in theory would not necessarily see it as "supernatural".

In short the idea of magic is pretty slippery (as far as I can tell) and there is also a matter of what the audience thinks is going on vs how the practitioner sees things. It can also be a matter of genre defining tropes and vice versa. For example, psionic powers, although similar to some kinds of fictional magic in terms of effect (e.g. in anime they can be indistinguishable), through the application of some scientistic babble and the surrounding setting cues, are mainly a feature of SF. It may even just be a declaration from the author, in effect, that "this stuff isn't explained by science--yet--but it could be".

As for fantasy, to begin with I agree that Mr. Mxyzptlk doesn't turn a Superman story into fantasy. Same with Doctor Fate or whoever. In my personal and evolving view, fantasy is tied to the past and to the exotic; if a story is aimed at the future or asking "what if?" then it's probably not fantasy. (So SW as originally presented is kinda fantasy because it's about a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Of course part of the genius was bringing fantasy elements and themes to the forefront in an SF film.)

Quote from: Arminius;832208Funny, I was imagining Fred Astaire.

So was I.

QuoteAs for fantasy, to begin with I agree that Mr. Mxyzptlk doesn't turn a Superman story into fantasy.

I'd say Superman himself is what makes it fantasy.

QuoteIn my personal and evolving view, fantasy is tied to the past and to the exotic; if a story is aimed at the future or asking "what if?" then it's probably not fantasy.

So yeah, that doesn't jibe with how I see it at all. For me fantasy has a breezy willingness to brush aside the constraints of 'realism' for the sake of story/theme/atmosphere. Doesn't matter when or where it takes place.
Like, The Twilight Zone was, generally, a fantasy show IMO... not scifi.

Oh, The Twilight Zone is definitely an interesting case. So is fiction in the magical realism genre.

I don't see superheroes as fantasy; at least I think it's useful to break down fantastic fiction in subgenres. And in any case I think the OP may have had a less broad idea of "fantasy".

Quote from: Simlasa;832184I don't know Star Frontiers well but Star Wars, Star Trek and Traveller all have magic in the form of psychic powers.

That isnt magic though.

Quote from: Omega;832236That isnt magic though.

I've always seen it that way.

I guess a better question then is:
In RPGs, does calling it magic make it a fantasy game, or could a modern setting (warfare, spy, etc) without any overt occult theme or mythic overtone go without magic and still be accepted / have magic and not make it fantasy?

That would be questions... sorry...

Well, yes to the first question. There are a lot of games out there that have no magic at all. The second question, why would it matter whether it's fantasy or not?

Quote from: Simlasa;832225I'd say Superman himself is what makes it fantasy.

For myself, what distinguishes science fiction (of which I'd consider the superhero genre  branch of) and "magic"/fantasy is the presence of a rationale. Pseudo-scientific as it may be, Superman's powers aren't just "because a Wizard", they are rationalized by him having an alien physiology that interacts in a certain manner with the light of the yellow sun. While it may not stand up to any kind of scrutiny its the presence of this explanation that distinguishes it for me from magic, which exists in abnitio recursively. Magic itself is the explanation.

This is why the concept of midichlorians was greeted with such hostility I think. By adding a pseudo-scientific explanation for The Force, it changed the nature of the Force from something of the realm of magic or the spiritual in the original trilogy, to something of the realm of science fiction.

Quote from: TristramEvans;832254This is why the concept of midichlorians was greeted with such hostility I think. By adding a pseudo-scientific explanation for The Force, it changed the nature of the Force from something of the realm of magic or the spiritual in the original trilogy, to something of the realm of science fiction.

Yep. And it doubled bugged my friend the zoologist because the added sciencey explanation was lame.

Quote from: Omega;832236That isnt magic though.

Why not? It's just as not-real as magic... there's no generally no science behind it besides saying 'he can do this'.

Quote from: TristramEvans;832254For myself, what distinguishes science fiction (of which I'd consider the superhero genre  branch of) and "magic"/fantasy is the presence of a rationale. Pseudo-scientific as it may be, Superman's powers aren't just "because a Wizard", they are rationalized by him having an alien physiology that interacts in a certain manner with the light of the yellow sun.

Then Lord of the Rings isn't fantasy either because there is plenty of rationale for why stuff happens... who the wizards are are why.
Most RPG magic must be science fiction as well because they usually set up some sort of rationale for how it works... and it's generally reliable/reproducible.

At this point I feel you are reacting to being backed into the corner and responding with rhetoric more than reason. I don't endorse mere contradiction of your point of view, but the explanations given for Superman's powers in the comics are clearly naturalistic even if they're silly from a modern perspective. And the fact that RPGs try to systematize magic says more about RPGs than it does about magic. It's been seen as a problem, to the point that some people try to restore the mystery of magic by doing away with mechanics. Conversely I think RPG-thinking has sometimes backwashed into fantasy fiction, to produce theories of magic that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Quote from: Arminius;832344At this point I feel you are reacting to being backed into the corner and responding with rhetoric more than reason.

Just because I haven't seen the light of your definitions? I just don't see why giving some sort of ersatz rationale makes something not-fantasy. That seems an arbitrary criteria.
If superman is not fantasy because it was scifi of its time does the same hold for stories about alchemists?
Psionics in stories is hardly ever given a scientific rational from what I've seen. It's just there... much like magic powers in faerie tales.

Are you feeling 'fantasy' is somehow less 'mature' than 'science fiction'? Am I wrong in sensing some motive in keeping things out of the gutter of fantasy.

QuoteAnd the fact that RPGs try to systematize magic says more about RPGs than it does about magic. It's been seen as a problem, to the point that some people try to restore the mystery of magic by doing away with mechanics.

Or trying to make it less reliable/predictable/safe... yeah. I like games that try for that.

QuoteConversely I think RPG-thinking has sometimes backwashed into fantasy fiction, to produce theories of magic that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Agreed... but I also think it's an effect of the times... making it more like the technology we're surrounded with... vs. when folks lived closer to nature and magic just was... as it is in faerie tales and seemingly anyone can do it if the story called for it.

First, nope, I absolutely don't think SF is more or less mature than fantasy. I think there are approaches to each genre which are naive. TBH when I see fantasy that oversystematizes and fetishizes the mechanics of magic, it seems immature to me; when I see SF that tries to impress with explanations and then has plot elements that logically don't follow, that also seems immature. But I don't think those concerns of mine are relevant here.

The way I see it, I understand your definition of fantasy. I don't agree with it from an aesthetic perspective and it doesn't seem too useful because it's so broad, but it makes logical sense. Anything that's not grounded in hard fact is fantasy, okay. I guess there are fictions that aren't fantasy. Like Oliver Twist, say. If you push it to Errol Flynn Robin Hood it's maybe borderline because of the cinematic qualities, even moreso Raiders of the Lost Ark (apart from the divine justice, it is a stone cold fact that the truck scene had to use a trench dug in the road so Indy could crawl under it), and Batman is fantasy off the...uh...bat because nobody could actually fight in a cape.

But on my side, even though I disagree that magic is a sufficient criterion for fantasy, I think it's basically necessary. Specifically there needs to be a sense of the supernatural. If "supernatural" as distinct from "fictional science" doesn't compute at all, then I don't know how to proceed.

Quote from: rway218;832245I've always seen it that way.

I guess a better question then is:
In RPGs, does calling it magic make it a fantasy game, or could a modern setting (warfare, spy, etc) without any overt occult theme or mythic overtone go without magic and still be accepted / have magic and not make it fantasy?

That would be questions... sorry...

In the context your looking at it. Yes, magic makes it a fantasy game. The problem with the term "fantasy" is it can encompass a whole lot more.  Science fantasy, and romantic fantasy very well may have no magic. Where as psychic powers in a modern game would be called science fiction. Take and replace the psy, with magic. It becomes urban fantasy. Fantasy is/can be an adjective to describe a quality to many things. Even things not really like each other. Isnt the english language a wonderful thing?

Quote from: Simlasa;832345Are you feeling 'fantasy' is somehow less 'mature' than 'science fiction'? Am I wrong in sensing some motive in keeping things out of the gutter of fantasy.

Nah. They just seem like fairly distinct and meaningful categories to me. Sometimes I'd rather read (or game) one and sometimes I'd rather the other.

Quote from: Simlasa;832343Then Lord of the Rings isn't fantasy either because there is plenty of rationale for why stuff happens... who the wizards are are why.

Who they are, yes (angels). Of magic? Nope. That the Wizards are angels so they can cast magic is not a pseudo-scientific rationale for magic. Quite the opposite, really.

QuoteMost RPG magic must be science fiction as well because they usually set up some sort of rationale for how it works... and it's generally reliable/reproducible.

You're mistaking how it works for why it works. There's no attempt in D&D to provide a scientific rationale for the existence of magic. Psionics, OTOH< are based on latent abilities accessed through parts of the mind that normally people don't have access to, with the implication being that as a species as a whole evolves further, everyone will begin to exhibit psychic abilities. OTOH, the rationale for magic is pretty much the same as following a cooking recipe. To go back to what I originally said, the why of magic is recursive: magic works because magic exists.