What does Veeky Forums think of magitech?

>and has much less interesting thematics

What would you say the thematics of magitek are? Steampunk is generally shit but at least in theory it's extrapolating and expanding on the industrial revolution and the enormous effect that had on society and the world. In my experience magitek is at best cribbing the same themes and dressing them in D&D clothing (Eberron) or just an excuse to have cool robots, airships and shit (many JRPGs), which I appreciate but it's not much of a theme.

In short also most any setting TG trys to make now.

Dude do consume anything other than high fantasy.

...Huh?

I don't like it, most of the time. There are few settings that can somehow pull it off, but absolute majority of it is just pure garbage.

I might be deformed by the fact that I do have understanding both of magic as human universal phenomenon (which makes me also dislike most fantasy magic in general) and also basic narrative theory of genre fiction. So I might be a bit spoiled.

There is a good adage saying that a good author can pull anything off, and that is true. But good magitech is good despite it's premise, and absolute majority of both fantasy writers and table-top and fantasy enthusiasts are as far from being good authors as humanly possible. So as a rule of thumb, whenever I see it, I expect the worst. And I'm rarely surprised.

Looks cool but always ends up being cringe

>lying around that it just felt disingenuous.
That is because that is literally the nature of magic. You can invent alternate science, but then you just have alternate science. If you want magic, elements of shit that can't be explained because it's based on symbolic and metaphorical, rather than linear causal thinking are going to be unavoidable: they are what defines magic.

Look at other types of fantasy.

I'm very familiar with them? I'm just very confused about what you were trying to say.

Depends on the aesthetic. If it's just WoW/LoL crystal shit it's terrible.

I suppose. I've never been a big fan of the pseudo-medieval stylings. Just seems very overdone and limiting

It's basically the idea of technological progress writ large. Humanity seizing the reigns of creation and beginning to not only understand but harness and master the fundamental forces of the universe. It creates an industrial revolution that's not going to have slow, sweeping socioeconomic changes but vast, impressive ones.
It also, ideally, can explore the impact that having the ability to reliably bend the laws of reality should have. Fantasy, and especially RPG, magic isn't based on real world views of magic. It isn't parareligious mysticism and divine ritual most of the time. It's a science. It's the hidden laws of the universe, just as much as physics or mathematics. Mystifying, yes, but not mystical.

What makes it cringe to you?

Do you have an example of settings or stories that follow the themes you describe? To me, what you're describing sounds like science-fiction for people who find real science boring.

Everything Veeky Forums tries to make now is grimderp shit you could never run a satisfying game in.

It's shit, but I'm biased. Literally every instance of magitech that's been used while I was involved was just an excuse to use scifi stuff in an otherwise high fantasy setting in blatantly OP ways. Not even clever either, like a story I read where someone made an iron man suit out of magical artifacts, it was just, "I have this giant mech suit that shoots lasers and has energy shields while everyone else has swords and shields. How does it work? Oh magic"

So yeah, I'm biased, but that's my opinion

Honestly, I tend to really dislike magic as science. Magic can have pseudoscientific elements, but if things don't get wibbly and strange at some point I don't think it deserves to be called magic. That element of the unpredictable and the unknown is necessary or it just all strikes me as boring and mundane, becoming sci-fi with a fantasy skin pasted on top.

Not really, no. It's more what I think magitech *should* be. Which is unfortunate, because I think taking a science (fictional) approach to magic could make for some interesting fiction. I'm not the sort who feels that magic needs to be mysterious and mystical, because that tends to come down to the author/GM waving away inconsistencies and plotholes with "lol it's magic dude it's a mystery!". It's consistent except when convenient for it not to be, which just feel s lazy

I like it, it's always so stupid when a setting with magic in it is exactly the same as medieval earth except there are flashier archers. If there's going to be commonplace magic in a setting, people are going to use it to make their lives better in ways besides throwing fireballs.

>It's the hidden laws of the universe, just as much as physics or mathematics. Mystifying, yes, but not mystical.
No, it isn't. People with poor imagination and no understanding of what magic is tend to twist it into this, which absolutely reliably kills any interesting aspect of it.

To you. It kills any interest to you. I personally like it like that. What do you think the interesting aspect of magic is? How does magic ideally function to you?

It's possible for magic to be consistent without making it scientific or entirely understood. You can still have a degree of reliability while running on metaphor and metaphysics, but it keeps it feeling magical, and still having the nuances be beyond their grasp, certain factors or aspects still being a matter of ritual, guesswork and intuition retains the fundamentals of magic even if you move into a world with more automation based on it.

That just means you don't like magic. You like fantasy-science.

>no understanding of what magic
It's fake you dumb faggot. It's made up. Pull that book by Crowley out of your ass and open your little mind

But it's a fictional concept with a consistent set of implications that hold true across a lot of different implementations. Your idiotic viewpoint would render the word completely meaningless.

I disagree. If it's repeatable, do X get Y magic, every time under the same circumstances, then it's just ill understood science. Historically scientists of all stripes haven't really understood the exact function and principles of stuff they're doing and studying functions under, but that doesn't make it not science. It's a matter of approach and methodology.

Which is a type of magic.

Reread my post. A degree of reliability. Magic is interesting because it extends into the unknown, there are factors at play that aren't fully understood and defy a purely causal analysis. Those exceptions, uncertainties and moments when it defies expectations. Magic inherently defies the scientific method because the scientific method isn't built to deal with something built on metaphysics and metaphor.

Fantasy-science is not magic. It's science with a fantasy aesthetic.

But that's wrong.

The explain why.

>Not really, no. It's more what I think magitech *should* be. Which is unfortunate, because I think taking a science (fictional) approach to magic could make for some interesting fiction.

But what are you getting out that kind of magitek story that you couldn't get out of normal science-fiction instead? I think the reason there aren't many stories like you describe is because if a person wanted to write a story about scientific advancement and technological progress they would just write sci-fi, and that's already a rich and vibrant genre. People who write (and read, and play) fantasy are usually looking for a different kind of feel entirely.

That's a copout. Being 2deep4u oh so unknowable bullshit isn't what makes magic magic, and certainly isn't what makes it interesting. It's by far the worst part of any sort of setting or world because it's lazy.

The idea that something has to be fundamentally beyond any sort of understanding at all ever and only viewed as some mystery to be "real" magic is idiotic. There's plenty about the real universe that we don't understand, but that's not because it's fundamentally unknowable.
I'm not suggesting that mages of a given setting should just understand the entirety of magic and just know everything there is to know about it. I just don't think that it should be arbitrary nonsense plot powers instead of a consistent system of supernatural workings. Scholars should still be working to understand what's behind the curtain, but there should be something behind the curtain beyond "iunno issa mystery"

Most nerds tend to hate Sci-fi that isn't 100% science.

It would help if you didn't assert a stupid false dichotomy. Magic can still be mostly consistent in practical terms, but when you get into the depths of the metaphysics there should be things that aren't purely causal, rational and explainable because that's exactly the kind of thing magic allows you to do that science does not. Without it, there's no point in calling it magic.

Although I completely disagree with the last point. Scholars working to understand it is only more interesting when it is consistently beyond them, every little bit they discover just revealing how much more they don't fully understand.

idk I feel like magitech can just turn into an urban fantasy sort of setting where cars, planes, weapons etc run off 'magic'

There's a difference between the practitioners and students of it not understanding it and it being fundamentally inexplicable on purpose. One is understandable, the other is lazy

I like pic related magictech where enchanted and magical items are mixed with technology in creative ways. I don't like the whole "just put this magic crystal in it and it makes the box of gears turn into a fantasy computer" with no further explanation on how and why it works.

It's not lazy, it's smart. The worst thing you can do in a setting full of interesting questions is give them answers. You might have your own idea for an explanation, but any answer you could possibly give is infinitely less interesting than what people might imagine to fill the gap. Too much detail is actively harmful, too many answers are actively less interesting than a few well placed, interesting uncertainties.

TG often forget two things. people outside of Veeky Forums don't need a lots infodumps to understand a setting.

TG forgets that everything has a process. You guys are impatient to point where most of you forget that it takes years for most settings magic or science to as powerful as it is.

>every little bit they discover just revealing how much more they don't fully understand.
To be fair, this is as very accurate description of pretty much every scientific field today. Paradigm shifts in science occur not because someone found a complete answer, but because someone found a shitton of new questions to answer.

I still personally lean towards mystically incline magic though. I think it works better for players since it permits them to add their own idiosyncrasies to their character such as using a zombified goldfish as their arcane focus. It helps to explain why no two magic users use the same methods to cast the same spell even though each one is still getting the same effect. It also makes it easier to incorporate unplanned plothooks/narrative explanations in a game without prior preparation. A more scientific approach to magic can be fun I suppose, but I would worry about having to world build way too much just so the wizard can cast a glorified torch spell just because whatever method he uses to cast it is now the main/only way to cast that spell.

To be expected with hard magic systems, where it's consistent and repeatable, and doesn't work with soft magic systems, which work off of mysticism and other goofy bullshit

I honestly really loved how Discworld dabbled in it with goings on at the Unseen University. It had magic that came to resemble science, in some respects, while still remaining bizarre, unpredictable and confusing in others.

If you're lazy and/or japanese, yeah. Ideally you put actual effort into working out how things do and don't just shamelessly make realworld thing+crystals and runes

>What do you think the interesting aspect of magic is? How does magic ideally function to you?
Magic is a function of allegorical or metaphorical thinking that is innate to human mind. It reflects our ability to see analogies and connections where there physically aren't, and of our semi-formulated or and only partially verbalized intuitions or experience with the world that surrounds us. It reflects our connection and reflection with aspects of existence that are too complex to be knowable by a singular person - of our ability to fill in gaps in our knowledge, or to formulate our knowledge by means other than empirically based, impersonal knowledge.

Magic is our awareness that the world transcends us, still eludes our reasoning, but at the same time our hope to still not be overwhelmed by it, and still have chance at controlling it.
It reflects respect for the limitation of knowledge, respect for wisdom accumulated despite our inability to verbalize it, it's the hope that there is a side to our universe that still can introduce awe to us. Reflection of tradition, or our fascination with mystery, reminding us that we have a place in universe and that place is not necessarily on top of it.

That is what magic means. Not only to me: that is what magic as a universal, global phenomenon is. And it's that real-world sentiment, something that all people are (to a lesser or greater degree) programed to crave.

And it is this real world sentiment and experience that fantasy attempted to emulate. Fantasy is recreation of mythological thinking. It's this emotionally charged view of world, this exercise in imagination, parallel, analogical or metaphorical thinking when faced with how vastly complex and strange reality is, that gives fantasy magic relevance, a reason to exist.

Without it, it's a hollow shell. It means nothing, it has no real-world-referent. An attempt to emulate something while perfectly missing the point. It's an equivalent of kitsch in art.

Magitech is most interesting when magical elements are used to make interesting machines. So perhaps some sort of fire gem is used to create a compact steam boiler to turn more mundane mechanisms. Perhaps a wind spell is enchanted on an etched plate, so you can use that to make a monorail or jump pad or whatever.

The worst version is 'This crystal has a grip so it's a raygun'

>It's fake you dumb faggot. It's made up.
Why do you insist on sharing your worthless opinions about things you clearly do not know anything about?

What makes you think:
"Man, I should really speak about this thing I know absolutely fuck-all about, the world is EAGER to listen to me!"

You remind me f the autists who claim that Star Wars isn't Star Trek isn't Sci-Fi because FTL travel exist.

Just know, you ruined this board and this hobby and I hope you're never satisfied with anything you enjoyed from this point forward.

That is fucking fantastically phrased user.

Well, Star Wars really is more space fantasy than sci-fi. Star Trek is Sci-fi though, just soft sci-fi. There's a distinct difference.

I think you meant to reply to the guy I was responding to, considering he's the one trying to act like an authority on something that's not real and wildly inconsistent across both fiction and religion. There is no one true way and there is no "real/true" magic

I can't get enough of it. I wish people would use it more often for more than just the odd trinket, like a driftglobe or an ever-glowing lantern. I want to see suits of golem power armor, trains powered by a bound flame elemental, technomagical prosthetics and augments. That's what I want to see more of.

Put me in the screencap.

Look up Eberron.

Or Dragonmech, although that one never had good rules associated with it.

Well said.

I would personally agree with this guy , just because the technology, it's methods/functions, and the impact it has, are basically completely unexplored outside of the EU and really just set dressing for telling a story about magic space samurai.

To me SF is SF because it cares about the technology and science of the setting and how it doing what it does impacts the world. An ostensibly fantasy setting where magic is well understood and used to change the world is more a science fiction story than something like Buck Rodgers, which has rockets and rayguns and such but doesn't give a single shit about how they do what they do and whether they make sense, just whether they aid in the fighting of bug eyed spacemen and evil space chinamen

user that only happens if there are a bunch of anons reacting to one post, why would that happen for something like this?

And once again, real world magic has absolutely jack shit to do with fantasy magic, especially when it comes to games. You can quote anthropology and theology texts at me all you want but that doesn't change the fact that a wizard hurling a fireball or an enchanted sword is a far, far cry from the religious experience of wonder and mystery you seem to be suggesting it should be. It serves different ends, makes different assumptions, and ultimately is a different animal entirely. Real life spirituality isn't taken into account in most or even all cases, nor should it be.

Except they're both perfectly compatible, it just requires not-shit writing.

>brainlets think there is a difference between fantasy and "sci-fi" i.e another brand of fantasy.

You have fantasy and you have speculative fiction. Just because the protagonist is in space and the macguffin is a computer pass code doesn't automatically make it "scientific".

I mean, yes. That's not the distinct difference I'm talking about. Sci-fi and fantasy are very distinct, even if there are works that blur the line between them- See Star Wars.

Thanks, I guess.

I am that guy. And you are wrong. There is extensive literature and extensive studies on this subject, actually. And that is the problem. You not being aware that magic is a subject intensely studied by psychologists, neurologists, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers and cognitive sciences is precisely why I'm mocking you for talking about shit you don't know anything about.
Magic is no different from concepts such as "religion" or "kinship". It's just an universal aspect of all human societies. And as such, also appropriately reflected in media we create.

It's complex and we are far from having understood it completely, but that does not mean that we have not made great progress in it.

Not if what you want from magic isn't compatible with that. It's a perfectly valid interpretation of magic in fantasy but it's not the end all be all nor should it be.

If what you want from magic isn't compatible with that, then you don't actually want magic.

The mystical nature of magic can coexist with internal consistency

>magic is a subject intensely studied by psychologists, neurologists, sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers and cognitive sciences
None of which matters to this discussion. I don't give a single shit about real world "magic" because it's not relevant to fantasy fiction. It's just not. Fantasy magic isn't directly rooted in real world magical traditions save for a few rare cases, and the majority of it is very distant to the point of making your constant dick waving moot.

>Magic can only be one thing, one way

>ITT pretentious shitheads can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality

>And once again, real world magic has absolutely jack shit to do with fantasy magic, especially when it comes to games.
Except one is a reflection of the other, genius. Your argument is on the level of this:
"Since in the terrible YA novels I read most characters act in a way normal humans would not act, that means that YA "human" has nothing to do with real-world human, and you should never draw analogies and relationships between the two, or criticize one based on knowledge of the other!"

All of those things - the fireballs, the flaming swords, the wizards in pointy hats: hell even the groups of adventurers setting up to slay the dragon at the bottom of a dungeon: they actually do come from ancient mythology, from sentiments and para-psychological or mythological notions we have about this world. That is what makes them interesting.

Relationship to the "real thing" is alway, always the thing that really gives weight to fiction. It's why fiction exists, and why we find it compelling. Now that relationship might be stronger and weaker, which tends to be, as a rule of thumb, a good indicator of how good the fiction is.

So no. Just because most fantasy fiction fails, does not mean it's not derived from the same notions. People want to slay dragons and win treasure because honestly: that is what life is about. That is what they really try to do in real life, just put into different words.
They want to wield arcane powers? Again: that is what people really always wanted. Everyone desires the things power over the things that transcend him.

It's not really different, it isn't at all unrelated.

It just has been very much damaged over time by people blindly coping things without understanding them, and losing track of what they want to do. Just like the YA novels lost track of what they were originally supposed to do: reflect reality of humans.

It's all rooted in real world fiction, though. For all we draw from Tolkien, he drew from real folklore and magical beliefs. It's all connected.

Yes. But not without elements of uncertainity, and without ballancing on the verge of unknown and transcendental: and most importantly, without having a semiotic and psychological dimension being MORE IMPORTANT than speculative and rational.

See this , and for the love of good:
STOP TALKING ABOUT SHIT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!

But that doesn't mean it needs to reflect mystical mumbo jumbo bullshit nor is it lesser for not doing so. Look at this guy going on about how fantasy fiction "fails" because it doesn't reflect the anthropological/psychological view of magical ritual and stuff. That doesn't mean I don't understand the roots of real world magical traditions. It just means I don't give a shit about them and I don't think most people do either. I don't give a fuck about being true to ancient myth or mystical traditoins if that's not what I want to do, and neither do most people in the tabletop industry.

Quoting a pretentious cunt doesn't make either of you right.

So you're ignoring sources that could make your work better for no reason? Okay.

I don't think they would make my works better, at least not in this regard.

Kind of aside the point, but in many cases it makes me sad about how I can think of around like two systems with actual engaging crafting mechanics.

Crafting rules are much like good social interaction mechanics, no one seems to have ever really figured out a way to make them fun and/or interesting.

What this really means is that you are an insecure cunt and somebody just showed you how little you know about the subject matter, and gave evidence that you might actually reconsider what you thought is right or works. And that makes you really, really angry, because any form of self-doubt is inacceptable to you. Which is why you flail all the insults around without making a single coherent point.

And for some reason, you chose to do all that in public. Congratz. You are the star of the evening.

Yeah, that actually makes me sad to.
>Exalted 3e comes out
>Has amazing social rules, best I've seen so far
>Crafting sub system is kind of a mess
Here's hoping what I've seen of storypath systems so far works out okay.
What rules would there even be beyond having some sort of milestones you need to meet for special materials/tools?

No, they kept showing me how much they knew about subject matter that I don't really consider relevant or essential to the topic no matter how much they tell me it is. They haven't really made me reconsider anything because I legitimately just do not care about fidelity to "real" magic. Fantasy magic doesn't need to reflect real world magical traditions any more than fantasy buildings need to reflect real world architecture, and suggesting that it does is asinine. It's a resource to draw on, nothing more, and certainly not something you need to slavishly emulate.

I suppose it would depend on how in depth you'd want to get. I personally think a less is more approach would be best and just do milestones+external modifiers+personal skills/techniques

I'm hardly an expert, but crafting it table tops is just always going to be a unengaging mess, isn't it? Even videogames desperately struggle to make it interesting, and they have much more visual and viceral feedback at their hands.

>No, they kept showing me how much they knew about subject matter that I don't really consider relevant or essential to the topic no matter how much they tell me it is.
Actually, "they" keep showing you that you are wrong on the assumption that it's not relevant. They have not made you reconsider anything because you entered this discussion without ever even making it an option to reconsider - anything that would make you reconsider anything you thought before is just dismissed with furiosity and insults. And that is the core of this issue. I'm not going to even pick up on the example with architecture, which is yet another playground to prove how not only wrong, but UTTERLY MISGUIDED and out of the picture you are for now, because just like before:

There is no discussion to be had with a person who is too insecure to listen to others. You do not have the capacity of actual communication.

>Sci-fi and fantasy are very distinct,
No they aren't. The only distinction is in how they are marketed.

...yes? They really are? Like, literary criticism has some very specific definitions for both and how they operate, and they are notably different in many ways.

That is just provably wrong. And the fact that many people (fantasy authors in particular) still think it may be the main reason why most fantasy is garbage and looked down upon by most people.

Probably, yeah. I don't want to discount the possibility of someone coming up with some ingenious method that no one had ever thought of, but until that happens then it's probably going to remain just sort of boring

I think you're either dense or fucking with me. I'm not "wrong" because it's apples to oranges. Both of you are insisting on some kind of fidelity to realism and not listening to people saying that it doesn't matter and that things don't have to be realistic, especially in regards to both something inherently in people's heads like magic and to something like RPG magic that has basically no real connection to the roots of the idea of magic. You just keep getting incensed and screaming about how wrong I am for not agreeing with you, and not really refuting or providing any points other than screaming NUH UH so it really seems like you're the insecure one.

The fact that people believe they are distinct is why fantasy is garbage today actually. The insipid endless clones of pseudo-renfaire bullshit started with Dragonlance and any setting that tries to break that mold is soundly ignored in favor of more iterations of the same generic schlock.

...But that doesn't make any sense.

I think what they're trying to get at was that the attempt at a clear divide between fantasy and SF led to the cordoning off of fantasy into the pseudo-medieval orcs'n'elves ghetto that it is today where people insist that to be true fantasy it has to be a weird anachronistic vaguely european mishmash with castles and wizards and such

It makes perfect sense, it's the same reason why most movies coming out nowadays are sequels, prequels, remakes, etc. of movies from 20 years ago.

People would rather watch something that's familiar than something that's new, and once fantasy and sci-fi became distinctly different in the public eye, you stopped seeing unique settings that pushed the envelop and started seeing more stories that stayed inside the lines.

The fact that there are more unique fantasy settings in one season of anime than there has been during the last decade of western fantasy novels is both sad and hilarious to me.

The distinction is ridiculously recent and mostly comes from narrow minded grognards. See the works of Jack Vance, Dragon Riders of Pern, John Carter of Mars, etc. Science Fiction(as in what most folks would call soft-fi) and Fantasy weren't really distinct things until Dragonlance came along. Before that Sci-Fi was more or less the domain of legitimate speculative works.

Dragonlance(and other factors I'm sure), for numerous reasons encouraged the atmosphere of people chimping out at the idea of any fantasy storing not being a bizarre medieval/renaissance pastiche.

Dragonlance is notable because it started A LOT of bad memes we still see in fantasy to day. I honestly think it's the worst thing to happen to the genre.
Basically this.

That's true, but anime is also a really good example of why unique=/=good. Not to mention most of them are basically just "What if X, but Y was sexy anime women?"

>That's true, but anime is also a really good example of why unique=/=good.
Hey man, if you make ten attempts and fail 9 times, that's one more success than you would've gotten if you never bothered at all and/or just played it safe the entire time.

What series are you referring to? Out of curiosity. Also I don't think Japanese settings are "unique" or "original" in and of themselves, it's just that as westerners (I assume you're a westerner.) the cultural divide tends to add some extra spice/allure to it.
It's not like shit in the west doesn't toss sexy art all over the place. Even paizo just pays lip service to "muh realistic women" while JJ beats his meat and slathers T&A throughout the book.