How important is magic to a world setting in your opinion?
Specifically when it is not a fantasy setting. Such as post apocalyptic, space opera, steam punk, ect...
If it's not a fantasy world, then magic isn't important at all, IMO.
By "fantasy" here I mean something in the sword & sorcery tradition, or elf-dwarf-orc fantasy. I'd also include games based on things like Arthurian romance, or some varieties of Wuxia. Magic is natural in those, if not integral and necessary.
As you expand out from those core fantasy genres, magic becomes less important and more optional. Depending on your taste, it may even be preferable to exclude it. For example I'm not very keen on the idea of making magic central to a pirate game, so Chaosium's Blood Tide doesn't appeal to me at first glance even though it combines two things I like very much (pirates and d100).
Funny question, because it's often magic that makes a setting "fantasy" to me. Though most horror in RPGs is also supernatural in nature.
So I feel magic is "in genre" for those two, and adding it to any other genre in principle makes it "cross-genre" — e.g. Castle Falkenstein is steampunk fantasy, Deadlands is a horror (or fantasy) Western, Rifts is post-apocalyptic fantasy and horror (fuck it, what is it that Rifts isn't).
A special case is psionics in SF. Psionics is often treated as magic In all but name, and its inclusion is absolutely in genre for "soft" SF. Though just how "soft" depends on the prevalence and magnitude of psionics — Star Wars feels softer than Third Imperium Traveller which feels softer than Eclipse Phase — but as long as people are working hocus pocus with their brains it's all "soft" SF to me.
'Fantasy' encompasses a whole lot more than just the standard dwarves/elves/orcs thing.
Any setting with functional magic (by whatever name) in it is fantasy IMO... but it's not a requirement. Most zombie apocalypse stories are fantasy, as are most musicals, a lot of space opera, anything with 'superheroes' (most any modern action movie)... etc.
Quote from: rway218;832011How important is magic to a world setting in your opinion?
Specifically when it is not a fantasy setting. Such as post apocalyptic, space opera, steam punk, ect...
It's never so important as to require more than one question mark.
But, seriously... By "important" do you mean "necessary" or something else?
Quote from: Simlasa;832047'Fantasy' encompasses a whole lot more than just the standard dwarves/elves/orcs thing.
Any setting with functional magic (by whatever name) in it is fantasy IMO... but it's not a requirement. Most zombie apocalypse stories are fantasy, as are most musicals, a lot of space opera, anything with 'superheroes' (most any modern action movie)... etc.
Indeed. Magic can pervasive and passive where it can largely incidental (e.g. a setting with islands in the clouds), or less incidental (e.g. an eternal zombie virus). Or it can be Sauron v Baggins, or Harry Dresden. Or Lensmen & Jedi. Or Walking Dead. Or maybe it's just One Hundred Years of Solitude.
So, ramble abridged. Not sure of exactly what you are asking.
Yeah, I was being careful to qualify "fantasy" since OP left a fair amount of grey area. If you believe that magic always implies fantasy, then the question doesn't parse.
To go with the specific examples: magic isn't necessary at all for space opera, steam punk, or post-apocalyptic settings, even though there are good examples of magic in each. (Star Wars, Castle Falkenstein--well, I'm not crazy about it but it's more the system and some setting details than the overall vision--and for the last you could take your pick of The Dying Earth or Thundarr the Barbarian.)
I think it's definitely a player expectation, due to the generally shared connotation of the word. But I'd be cool without it, if it came to that. My own druthers on magic is that it is rare and dangerous, though most games I run don't treat it that way at all. But I digress--I'd say it's essential, because I tend to GM more than play, and because I always have players that want to use some form of magic. I don't play enough non-fantasy to compare, otherwise. Seems like most other settings have something "paranormal" so "magic" is there, too.
Quote from: Arminius;832120If you believe that magic always implies fantasy, then the question doesn't parse.
I'm trying think of a setting that has magic that I don't see as fantasy... but none come to mind... unless it's one of those 'sufficiently advanced' setups.
I can certainly think of fantasy settings that don't have anyone casting spells though... or anything overtly constructed by magic.
Quote from: Simlasa;832137I'm trying think of a setting that has magic that I don't see as fantasy... but none come to mind...
Superhero settings I tend to see primarily as superhero settings, but the inclusion of magic is almost expected. And I still think of Shadowrun as cyberpunk with fantasy elements rather than fantasy with cyberpunk elements, no matter what Gibson says.
Depends on the setting.
Magic in say Star Wars, Star Trek, Traveller, Star Frontiers, etc would seem very out of place, (Despite there being two magic themed episodes in ST).
But magiteck settings are very common now thanks to anime series that took the idea and ran with it. Prime one that comes to mind is Aura Battler Dunbine. But there are plenty of others.
Note that I do not consider psi or superscience to be magic.
Some superhero settings allow magic. Some do not. But that is another example of where magic can work.
Some Post-Apoc settings allow for magic too. Sometimes it works. Other times its psi powers or mutations disguised as magic or even superscience posing as magic.
Mixing magic and science can be interesting. Or a disaster if done poorly.
Shadowrun comes to mind as a near perfect mix of magic and tech. Torg's Cyberpapacy is another. Also the TSR Shadows of the Comet boxed module comes to mind for a blending of the two with magic meets science.
Highly important, in that the presence or absence of magic and, if it is present, the form that it takes, is a major factor in defining a setting. If the setting has been thought through, then magic is also a major factor in shaping it, but this level of thought seems to be rarely applied - far more often we get "just like the real world, but with magic that could change everything, even though it hasn't".
But it's not important that all settings must have magic, if that's what you meant. "No magic" is just as valid (and just as defining) an option as "magic".
Quote from: Omega;832148Magic in say Star Wars, Star Trek, Traveller, Star Frontiers, etc would seem very out of place, (Despite there being two magic themed episodes in ST).
I don't know Star Frontiers well but Star Wars, Star Trek and Traveller all have magic in the form of psychic powers.
Quote from: Simlasa;832137I'm trying think of a setting that has magic that I don't see as fantasy... but none come to mind... unless it's one of those 'sufficiently advanced' setups.
I can certainly think of fantasy settings that don't have anyone casting spells though... or anything overtly constructed by magic.
Yeah, pretty much the way I look at it.
If you have magic, then your setting is fantasy.
If your setting is fantasy, it may (or may not) include magic.
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.
Generally psychic powers in Sci-Fi tend to be explainable, understandable, predictable, and repeatable in a...well a scientific way.* Psi powers generally don't require candles, incense, spell components, magical foci, elaborate rituals, hand gestures, or chants. If there is a "magic wand" there isn't anything magical about, its really a psi enhancer or some such. And a scientist or engineer who may well have no psychic ability whatsoever probably designed the McGuffin - unlike magical doo dads which are either made by a wizard or have some other supernatural explanation.
The difference seems to be that magic is supernatural in origin or effect and psi powers are natural.
Granted from a RPG rules perspective, magic almost always is written down, understandable, predictable, and repeatable. In fiction usually less so. But the two definitely feel differently to me even though the border is a bit fuzzy.
So to answer the question, No. Because magic without the setting being fantasy is an oxymoron.
* One thing a number of Star Wars fans disliked about the midichlorians in Phantom Menace was the move towards a sciency, easily measurable explanation for the Force. For them the Force was supernatural and giving a natural explanation shifted the genre in a way they found unattractive.
Quote from: Bren;832187* One thing a number of Star Wars fans disliked about the midichlorians in Phantom Menace was the move towards a sciency, easily measurable explanation for the Force. For them the Force was supernatural and giving a natural explanation shifted the genre in a way they found unattractive.
For me midichlorians were just another level of bullshit to justify the superpowers... just as much fantasy as leaving it at 'The Force'.
The folks I know who believe in real life 'magic' believe it's part of nature as well... part of how the universe functions... they'll talk about research and experiments and 'laws'.
Anyway, put to fine a line on any genre and the whole classification starts falling apart... 'horror' is it a genre? Or is it an element that gets injected into other genres? Fantasy often seems the same... all is true to life until someone bursts into song and music comes out of nowhere.
Quote from: Simlasa;832190For me midichlorians were just another level of bullshit to justify the superpowers... just as much fantasy as leaving it at 'The Force'.
The folks I know who believe in real life 'magic' believe it's part of nature as well... part of how the universe functions... they'll talk about research and experiments and 'laws'.
Anyway, put to fine a line on any genre and the whole classification starts falling apart... 'horror' is it a genre? Or is it an element that gets injected into other genres? Fantasy often seems the same... all is true to life until someone bursts into song and music comes out of nowhere.
Methinks someone hath been watching too many Bollywood pics. ;)
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.
Quote from: TristramEvans;832390Who 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.
How is that different than some scifi race that is 'psionic'... such as Vulcans/Zhodani? It's just swapping one bit of nonsense for another... but one is fantasy and the other isn't? I guess I'm saying I see pseudo-science as fantasy... we don't believe in fairies any more but we have all sorts of superstitions and beliefs in scientific sounding nonsense... UFO/aliens are just the fairies in modern dress.
QuoteYou'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.
No, plenty of trad-fantasy settings go beyond the 'magic works because magic exists'... either because of echoes to RL magical practices relating to the secret formula workings of the universe or some special energy at large in nature or maybe some spiritual/philisophical pursuit that puts the user in touch with magic energies.
On the other hand, as I said, plenty of stories with psionics in them make no attempt to explain the how or why... it just is. Even if they do mention some 'latent abilities of the mind'... that's just as imaginary/made up/fairy dust as 'mana' or 'chakras' or 'ley lines'.
Quote from: Simlasa;832416How is that different than some scifi race that is 'psionic'... such as Vulcans/Zhodani? It's just swapping one bit of nonsense for another... but one is fantasy and the other isn't?
Of course its both nonsense. Its just two different flavours of nonsense. There are people who call all scifi books fantasy, and people who call all fantasy science fiction. I find the distnction useful, so I make the distinction.
QuoteOn the other hand, as I said, plenty of stories with psionics in them make no attempt to explain the how or why... it just is. Even if they do mention some 'latent abilities of the mind'... that's just as imaginary/made up/fairy dust as 'mana' or 'chakras' or 'ley lines'.
First off, people already know what psionics/psychic abilities are. You can walk into any new age bookstore on the planet an find a library of rationalizations for everything from ESP to pyrokinesis (I love how nobody in that community realizes that one was invented by Stephen King). Its entered the common parlance of pop culture decaes ago, and is taken for granted. No one rents the X-men and thinks Patrick Stewart is playing a wizard.
Likewise you can read hundreds of Superman comics that dont bother to mention where his powers come from or why. Because its assumed the reaer already knows.
And if a story involves magic, it doesn't need to explain that either because everyone knows
magic because magic. You either clap your hands and believe or you get the hell outta town.
But if you want to see the opposite taken to the most extreme, watch Ang Lee's Hulk. That entire boring film is basically Lee desperately trying to justify the Hulk's existence to an audience that really didnt care, they just wanted to see him hitting stuff. He uses radiation, genetic manipulation, pysychology - basically a litany of every excuse under the sun for it not to be "magic".
Yes, its all imaginary and made up, but one offers a rationale based on pseudo-scientific reasoning, and the other is a conceit. For example, take "magical energy". Mana, or, The Force. "Its an invisible energy emitted by all things that certain "enlightened" folk can manipulate to produce supernatural effects". What is that energy? Magic. Magic in an energy state. Pure magic. Solid magic. With magic, its always a game of Russian Dolls. The end argument is always magic because magic. Thus anything that attempts to explain itself by any means that don't ultimately add up to magic is not magic, hence scifi. Remove Midichlorians from the equation and the Force is the Force which exists because it does. There's a reason Obi-Wan is referred to in the original film as a "crazy old wizard" and Vader is referenced as a religious figure.
That doesnt make Psionics and super powers make more sense. It just means theres an explanation provided that isn't self-recursive. Spider-man gets bitten by a radioactive spider and this alters his genetics, transfering some of theabilities of the spider to him. Yes its silly. No its not legitimate science. But its an explanation that doesnt rely on magic. Hence science fiction.
Science Fiction is just as absurd as fantasy. Always was.
Here's my simple version of the difference between fantasy and science fiction or between magic and psionics.
In a fantasy story the in universe or in fiction explanation for the stuff that seems weird to the audience, e.g. magic, demons, angels, is supernatural.
Science Fiction - the in universe or in fiction explanation for stuff that seems weird to the audience, e.g. psionics, Vulcan mind melds, FTL drives, is natural.
Quote from: rway218;832011How important is magic to a world setting in your opinion?
Specifically when it is not a fantasy setting. Such as post apocalyptic, space opera, steam punk, ect...
If it's not 'fantasy' there is no 'magic'.
Soft-sf may have handwavium mutant/psychic powers that resemble magic.
Quote from: TristramEvans;832419First off, people already know what psionics/psychic abilities are.
The same goes for magic. If you say something is 'magic' you don't have to explain further if you don't want to.
QuoteNo one rents the X-men and thinks Patrick Stewart is playing a wizard.
Except that's pretty much what Xavier and Magneto are... but with chrome widgets in place of musty books.
QuoteLikewise you can read hundreds of Superman comics that dont bother to mention where his powers come from or why. Because its assumed the reaer already knows.
Same goes for any mention of a guy in a pointy hat throwing fireballs or turning people into sheep.
QuoteAnd if a story involves magic, it doesn't need to explain that either because everyone knows magic because magic. You either clap your hands and believe or you get the hell outta town.
Same for if a guy in tights and a cape picks up a car... he's got 'superpowers' (magic).
QuoteBut if you want to see the opposite taken to the most extreme, watch Ang Lee's Hulk. That entire boring film is basically Lee desperately trying to justify the Hulk's existence to an audience that really didnt care, they just wanted to see him hitting stuff. He uses radiation, genetic manipulation, pysychology - basically a litany of every excuse under the sun for it not to be "magic".
But in the end it's still psuedoscience/magic. You could do the same with a story about a wizard... detail his researches and formula and explain the mumbo jumbo sources for the magical energy... probably be just as dull.
QuoteYes, its all imaginary and made up, but one offers a rationale based on pseudo-scientific reasoning, and the other is a conceit. For example, take "magical energy". Mana, or, The Force. "Its an invisible energy emitted by all things that certain "enlightened" folk can manipulate to produce supernatural effects". What is that energy? Magic. Magic in an energy state. Pure magic. Solid magic. With magic, its always a game of Russian Dolls. The end argument is always magic because magic. Thus anything that attempts to explain itself by any means that don't ultimately add up to magic is not magic, hence scifi.
But the same goes for the psuedoscience nonsense once you start asking questions... go a few questions deep into Spiderman's powers and you end up with 'magic' as well.
QuoteSpider-man gets bitten by a radioactive spider and this alters his genetics, transfering some of theabilities of the spider to him. Yes its silly. No its not legitimate science. But its an explanation that doesnt rely on magic. Hence science fiction.
It's using 'genetics' as magic just the same as Star Wars is using 'energy' as magic. There's no real genetics or energy at play in either one.
You can't ask questions beyond 'genetics' because that's the last turtle.
QuoteScience Fiction is just as absurd as fantasy. Always was.
I suppose I just see most science fiction as a flavor of fantasy. Which is fine. This has been useful for me to sort out how I see the flavors of imaginary fiction.
(shrug) well, I cant explain it further than that. I can tell the difference between Dr. Strange and Professor X and I think most people can to. One is free not to distinguish them, but the ability to distinguish the genres makes my geeky discussions easier.
I distinguish them by how they look and the sorts of stories they're in much more than whatever blather writers concocted to justify their powers.
Quote from: Simlasa;832559I distinguish them by how they look and the sorts of stories they're in much more than whatever blather writers concocted to justify their powers.
How do they look?
Quote from: TristramEvans;832609How do they look?
Well... one guy is bald and in a wheelchair... and the other guy isn't... at least that's how it was last time I looked.
What about the sorts of stories? That's more important IMO.
Quote from: rway218;832011How important is magic to a world setting in your opinion?
Specifically when it is not a fantasy setting. Such as post apocalyptic, space opera, steam punk, ect...
I don't need magic, however you define it, but I do need an ability that bends or breaks the rules on limited occasions. This can be magic spells, psychic abilities, or mad science. I really like playing characters who are the magicians, adepts, or gadgeteers.
I can play the fighter if it's my only option, but I like the "tool bag" characters.