| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some character ideas don't mix with some campaigns. The GM is not obligated to allow every player option that has ever been printed for Pathfinder. It doesn't have to be about the sliding scale; it can simply be a matter of campaign flavor, balance, or anything else.
Often, it's for a sense of balance.
You can gain power from magic or technology. Pick your favourite flavour.
If you can gain power from both then it's likely that technomagical characters will reign supreme, having twice the power.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You've more or less answered your own question. It's one of the standard tropes and has been for a long time (it certainly predates Tolkien, for example). That's one of the reasons you put a horseshoe over your door -- because the Fair Folk can't handle modern technology like iron.
Depending upon what kind of game your group want to run, Pathfinder may or may not be the best system to use, and not all parts of the Pathfinder ruleset may be appropriate. If you want to run a high-chivalry story based, for example, on the Arthurian cycle, you might want to restrict the player characters to martial types only and reserve wizards to NPC's -- and similarly all characters must be human. If your game is set in an analogue to medieval France, you might not want ninjas in angry black pyjamas or katana-swinging samurai.
And if you're doing fantasy-pirates-on-the-Spanish-Main (which Paizo calls the Skull and Shackles adventure path) you may want lots of gunpowder explosions.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Often, it's for a sense of balance.
You can gain power from magic or technology. Pick your favourite flavour.
If you can gain power from both then it's likely that technomagical characters will reign supreme, having twice the power.
This is a total cop out. If there is an imbalance, there's a problem with the rules, not the concept. Its almost always the concept that is regected. People who have problems with the rules just generally change them.
There were tons of anti iron gods and technology guide posts long before the actual rules were discovered.
And that balance isnt really hard to manage, just make them draw from the same resource pool You gain technology either through treasure, or through class abilities. Since both of those are also how you gain magical power, you dont get double power, you get part of one and part of the other. If everything is valued properly theres never an issue.
As for why people reject the concept, no idea...its been a part of dnd since there was a dnd, actually before. The dying earth (you know, where the concept of dnd magic comes from) was science and sorcery, with space ships and flying cars along side wizards and magic items. But some people prefer a revisionist vision of the history of both the fantasy genre and dnd in general, claiming the dont want any new fangled laser guns on their lawns.
Me I am running iron gods. I love me some robots and laser with magic and elves. No real reason I need to segregate the things I like (science fiction and fantasy). Lets strap some rocket launchers and power armor on that dragon and lets do this.
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm typing this from my crystal ball.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is about personal investment in what the individual deems fantasy and science.
You say fantasy and you will get different answers. For some, it is a Tolkien-ese setting. For someone else, it might be something like Game of Thrones or the Shanarra series by Terry Brooks. Or Greyhawk or Blackmoor or the Forgotten Realms or any number of fantasy tropes.
If your fantasy is Tolkien-ese, Game of Thrones, etc like, obviously there is very little science in it so that person is more prone to outright reject the notion of scifi tropes in the game.
Now if your view of fantasy is like Blackmoor or the Forgotten Realms, there is some science elements, like crashed starships, ancient tech for the former and Lantan inventors for firearms and technology for the latter. Now, your more open to having scifi themes in your campaign.
If your fantasy is John Cartier of Mars Barsoom, then you have a whole lot more scifi themes and most likely, for those players, scifi themes would be embraced readily.
So it comes down to what the individual considers 'fantasy' and it will bear on how much science themes will be tolerate by said person.
Main thing is, there is no 'wrong' answer here. Someone who considers Barsoom/Sword and Planet as their ideal view of fantasy is not superior or inferior to someone who prefers a Tolkien like setting as their idea of fantasy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was relatively bright-eyed, my tail somewhat bushy, when I started getting seriously into D&D around the time that Eberron hit. For me and mine the concept of magic and technology are not mutually exclusive at all because years of our gameplay has been in the Eberron setting. Instead we like to think that in a world with prevalent magic there would necessarily be things that people would do where they wouldn't need "industrial" technology otherwise, like electric lights or transportation or long-distance communication. Nobody's bothered to figure out the other way because it's already pretty easy to get ahold of it through magic (I mean, how many of us are sitting around trying to find an alternative to our telecommunications infrastructure or looking for a completely new mode of transportation?).
So technology tends to incorporate magic in our campaigns for the most part. Where it diverges is where we get the sort of Legend of Korra idea of people unable to do magic trying to replicate or overcome those who can. For instance, in my Reign of Winter campaign the gunslinger is pursuing his vendetta against winter witches and is harnessing a technology we've decided has been created by certain small enclaves of people who hate mages. 99% of people haven't encountered guns, and they frequently mistake him for a wizard using small metal balls as his "staff's" material components.
I think we tend to get caught up in the no technology stuff for fantasy because we either don't want to come up with a reason for it to be incorporated into the world, or we just don't want to have it ruin the aesthetic. I do love the idea of magic taking the place of steam, oil, coal, electricity, etc. that we use all the time though.
Often, it's for a sense of balance.
You can gain power from magic or technology. Pick your favourite flavour.
If you can gain power from both then it's likely that technomagical characters will reign supreme, having twice the power.
This is a total cop out. If there is an imbalance, there's a problem with the rules, not the concept. Its almost always the concept that is regected. People who have problems with the rules just generally change them.
There were tons of anti iron gods and technology guide posts long before the actual rules were discovered.
And that balance isnt really hard to manage, just make them draw from the same resource pool You gain technology either through treasure, or through class abilities. Since both of those are also how you gain magical power, you dont get double power, you get part of one and part of the other. If everything is valued properly theres never an issue.
As for why people reject the concept, no idea...its been a part of dnd since there was a dnd, actually before. The dying earth (you know, where the concept of dnd magic comes from) was science and sorcery, with space ships and flying cars along side wizards and magic items. But some people prefer a revisionist vision of the history of both the fantasy genre and dnd in general, claiming the dont want any new fangled laser guns on their lawns.
Me I am running iron gods. I love me some robots and laser with magic and elves. No real reason I need to segregate the things I like (science fiction and fantasy). Lets strap some rocket launchers and power armor on that dragon and lets do this.
It isn't, however, a part of every person's D&D. Just because there were D&D modules that incorporate technology didn't mean that the DM was therefore obligated to incorporate technology into any campaign that they run. I had never played nor run a game with anything more modern than the old, crappy arquebus before Pathfinder--not because it didn't exist but because that wasn't how we rolled. Some folks still don't roll that way. That's fine.
To the OP, if you'd like to play a game that incorporates technology, put up an LFG or GM your own game of it! It can certainly be a lot of fun.
Often, it's for a sense of balance.
You can gain power from magic or technology. Pick your favourite flavour.
If you can gain power from both then it's likely that technomagical characters will reign supreme, having twice the power.
This is a total cop out. If there is an imbalance, there's a problem with the rules, not the concept. Its almost always the concept that is regected. People who have problems with the rules just generally change them.
There were tons of anti iron gods and technology guide posts long before the actual rules were discovered.
And that balance isnt really hard to manage, just make them draw from the same resource pool You gain technology either through treasure, or through class abilities. Since both of those are also how you gain magical power, you dont get double power, you get part of one and part of the other. If everything is valued properly theres never an issue.
As for why people reject the concept, no idea...its been a part of dnd since there was a dnd, actually before. The dying earth (you know, where the concept of dnd magic comes from) was science and sorcery, with space ships and flying cars along side wizards and magic items. But some people prefer a revisionist vision of the history of both the fantasy genre and dnd in general, claiming the dont want any new fangled laser guns on their lawns.
Me I am running iron gods. I love me some robots and laser with magic and elves. No real reason I need to segregate the things I like (science fiction and fantasy). Lets strap some rocket launchers and power armor on that dragon and lets do this.
Sorry for being unclear. I meant societal power. As an empire, one that wields both powers together can do a lot more. Whole Civilisations aren't bound by 'WBL' or class balance.
I do love the idea of magic taking the place of steam, oil, coal, electricity, etc. that we use all the time though.
I think that's a major part of the issue most people have, though. One of the standard fantasy tropes is that magic is rare and romantic,... but it's much harder to keep it that way when you can buy a death stick at any Wal*Mart.
I do love the idea of magic taking the place of steam, oil, coal, electricity, etc. that we use all the time though.I think that's a major part of the issue most people have, though. One of the standard fantasy tropes is that magic is rare and romantic,... but it's much harder to keep it that way when you can buy a death stick at any Wal*Mart.
This is Eberron.
Not that I mind! I'm in an Eberron campaign currently and having a good time.
Some people just don't like the flavor taste of fantasy-sci fi. It's like putting bacon into a maple leaf donut. A lot of people like em', a few go "wtf is this crap? These things shouldn't me mixed!"
I do love the idea of magic taking the place of steam, oil, coal, electricity, etc. that we use all the time though.I think that's a major part of the issue most people have, though. One of the standard fantasy tropes is that magic is rare and romantic,... but it's much harder to keep it that way when you can buy a death stick at any Wal*Mart.
Right, and if you're playing Pathfinder mostly as written and as intended, there'll be magic stuff all over the place. Thinking that people would be stuck in a rut for thousands of years when they can do things like fly, teleport, mold solid stone with their hands, summon otherworldly creatures, commune with gods, etc. is a little hard. If you are playing a low magic campaign though I'm totally on board, and have nothing against the rarity of magic or technology. I think rationally, though, if every town has someone who can use magic or has a store selling it then it's relatively prevalent and there would definitely (in my mind) be people pushing the boundaries every day.
It isn't, however, a part of every person's D&D. Just because there were D&D modules that incorporate technology didn't mean that the DM was therefore obligated to incorporate technology into any campaign that they run. I had never played nor run a game with anything more modern than the old, crappy arquebus before Pathfinder--not because it didn't exist but because that wasn't how we rolled. Some folks still don't roll that way. That's fine.
It wasnt just modules. Rules for laser guns have been in dmgs since Adnd. And I certainly get that its not everyone's preference. And certainly it doesnt fit every campaign.
But the issue I have is the idea many have that it should NEVER fit into a fantasy game. And that's sort of what I have a problem with. Its the whole 'I'm taking my ball and going home' mentality. The intollerance and refusal to find a way to incorporate someone else's fun into your own. Is it really unreasonable for someone to expect their friend to over months or even years eventually run a campaign that includes something they want to try? Why does it 'ruin' a campaign to have a region like numeria in it? Or alkenstar? Is it really a world shattering horror?
At some point it stops being a matter of 'how you roll' and starts being about being a jerk to your friends. I have no idea where that line is, and I am sure everyone's milage will vary. But anyone who says never to a concept(not like specific rule, but a concept) proposed by their friend to include in a game they run is over some period of time, being a jerk.
I think rationally, though, if every town has someone who can use magic or has a store selling it then it's relatively prevalent and there would definitely (in my mind) be people pushing the boundaries every day.
Not at the listed prices for magic. There's obviously some source of scarcity-value in Golarion, and you can find dozens of threads offering suggestions and speculations about what it is. But it's easy enough to do the math. A typical citizen with ordinary skills makes about 3sp per day, or roughly 100gp per year. Or, if you like, a single gold piece is worth roughly $100 (US) in today's money.
A potion of cure light wounds or similar first level spell therefore costs as much as a car, and a hat of disguise costs as much as a house. I could buy a condominium for the cost of a teleport spell, but I can get on a plane and go halfway around the world here in the real world for a few day's wages.
I think the best answer is genre. I'm not bothered by concepts being slapped down by the DM for technology but some people are offended when rules for technology get released in the first place, especially in a pulp fantasy setting like Golarion. I also have a problem with people that don't think that magic and technology don't exist together in any setting. Like Final Fantasy, Thundercats, He-man and Ebberon don't exist or are drastically inferior to medieval Europe fantasy. I will fight on technology limits that don't make sense in the context of the rest of the setting.
I think the reasoning is that technology relies on physics being predictable and results being repeatable in order to function, and the most fundamental thing about magic is that it breaks the laws of reality (i.e. physics). Therefor magic must be detrimental to technology.
The thing that doesn't parse is that in most settings magic breaks the laws of physics predictably. That's why wizards have precise formulas for each spell in their spell book. When they perform these specific actions they get this specific result. Except in the cases of rare wild magic events, or scroll mishaps, casters pretty much always get exactly the effect that they mean to when they cast a spell. That means that in a world where magic exists, the laws of magic just become another element of the rules of physics.
There's no reason that someone couldn't create a machine capable of harnessing those rules. Really, the magic item creation rules pretty much already allow for "make things that manipulate , or create preprogrammed magical effects" which is exactly what any techno-magic doodad would do.
There is really no objective reason that magic and technology couldn't exist alongside each other, or even mix beneficially.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't, however, a part of every person's D&D. Just because there were D&D modules that incorporate technology didn't mean that the DM was therefore obligated to incorporate technology into any campaign that they run. I had never played nor run a game with anything more modern than the old, crappy arquebus before Pathfinder--not because it didn't exist but because that wasn't how we rolled. Some folks still don't roll that way. That's fine.It wasnt just modules. Rules for laser guns have been in dmgs since Adnd. And I certainly get that its not everyone's preference. And certainly it doesnt fit every campaign.
But the issue I have is the idea many have that it should NEVER fit into a fantasy game. And that's sort of what I have a problem with. Its the whole 'I'm taking my ball and going home' mentality. The intollerance and refusal to find a way to incorporate someone else's fun into your own. Is it really unreasonable for someone to expect their friend to over months or even years eventually run a campaign that includes something they want to try? Why does it 'ruin' a campaign to have a region like numeria in it? Or alkenstar? Is it really a world shattering horror?
At some point it stops being a matter of 'how you roll' and starts being about being a jerk to your friends. I have no idea where that line is, and I am sure everyone's milage will vary. But anyone who says never to a concept(not like specific rule, but a concept) proposed by their friend to include in a game they run is over some period of time, being a jerk.
As to the first sentence, I couldn't say; I've yet to come across the "science and fantasy can never coexist" crowd, but it seems pretty hardheaded to call someone else's idea of a good time badwrongfun. I have come across folks who didn't want science in their own particular fantasy campaign, and that's a perfectly valid viewpoint.
Right after that, though it sounds like you're against GMs prohibiting things from a particular campaign. That's the GM's prerogative. A player is always free to play another game or run her own. In fact, if you've been playing with the same GM for years, you ought to know what they like to run and whether it would be a better approach to ask them for a change of pace or simply try another GM (either rotating the GM role in the group or finding another group). But the GM is certainly not obligated to say "fine, this time you can have lasers". That's a rather childish demand. And calling someone a jerk for not doing what you want is practically the definition of childish.
Its not that cannot play magic and technology, but I prefer to run games as either/or, not in addition to. I don't use Golarian so I don't have areas of "there is magic here", "there are guns over there" and "technology way over there...". My worlds tend to be one or the other.
When I run a game that is essentially dark ages, there is no tech and no guns. When I run a game that is arcane Old West, there is magic and guns, but no tech. When I run a sci-fi based PF game magic is technology and there are certainly guns. I like all these ingredients individually to taste, but I don't mix them into one soup dish.
I like to tell a certain story and within a certain genre when I run games. Although a free-for-all with all genres can work as a game, I don't prefer that.
It all comes down to taste and opinion.
Some view the two as peanut butter and jelly - great together.
Some view it as ketchup and twinkies - individually great, yet not meant to be together.
I used to play Rifts, so lack of game balance and genre mixing isn't new to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are two general reasons. One is flavor, which has been discussed.
Another though is the actual mechanics of the system. I, for example, am not at all fond of how they choose to mechanically represent guns in pathfinder.
I've played plenty of RPGs with both magic and technology, one of my favorite RPGs is Rifts (the system is clunky as heck, but the world is a lot of fun) and it is a fun game to play. Sometimes though I don't want technology in my fantasy.
I think also if you have a world with both technology and magic you have to explain the difference. If it is a clarkian paradigm, then you actually don't have both, you have tech and better tech. If though magic breaks fundamental laws of the universe, it makes perfect sense that technology might interact poorly with it. Usually in a game setting magic functions in that world just a predictably as technology does in ours, if that is the case then magic is a fundamental property of the universe and any science developed in that universe should use both magical and mundane principles. While this can be cool, it is often also hard to visualize.
In the end, I'm not against magic and tech in Pathfinder, but I think it really only appropriate for certain stories, not something I would expect in every campaign. Golarion being, in my opinion anyway, a world designed to allow any story to be told rather than designed to be a unique world that 'fits' together, has bits of anything you can imagine somewhere, but that still doesn't mean that a GM is obligated to allow everything into any particular game he runs in that setting.
|
The big issue is that in pathfinder, magic IS technology. Remember that speaking, sharpening sticks, and martial arts are all forms of technology. Magic is no different, they are skills developed over time.
Technology is created via need. This is how the PF experience system is supposed to work, with PCs getting stronger because they need to be stronger. Characters that don't need to be stronger, they retire.
So, if looking for modern science and computers, or even advanced alien technology, the question becomes, why do they need it? If there is no need, it won't happen.
You can still have an especially motivated individual expanding science for science sake, but if their inventions aren't needed, they will be forgotten.
So, if DMing a setting with advanced non-magic tech and magic, side by side, you need to create situations where non-magic tech is better than magic. This could mean nerfing magic, but it could also be related to other locational effects which make learning magic impractical.
In examples, a common local species or government that actively hunts magic users and is good at it, a common building material that cannot be enchanted or otherwise further interferes with magic use, or just a dramatic decrease in those born with magical aptitude, trained or otherwise.
For a more specific example, how about Steel (yeah, normal steel/iron) in the setting has an innate anti-magic field. This grants the steel, or anyone in steel armor, a Spell Resistance of 15+enhancement bonus (cannot be suppressed, adds 15 to DC to craft magic items with steel components and stacks with spell resistances granted from other sources). You'd still have some casters, but you'd need to be high level before any offensive or healing spells would be viable on targets in steel armor.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The inverse of Clarke's law (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic) is that any rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology.
When you mix the two, it highlights both of these in a way that (generally) does not serve the purpose of immersion.
Also, because I feel this would be a good place to mention it, a lot of what we think of as purely modern inventions really aren't. In fact there are some pretty amazing things that were created by ancient cultures we still can't duplicate.
And while it isn't mentioned in this article, there were ancient armors made out of cloth that have been compared to kevlar. We don't see stuff like this show up, but since a lot of people are thinking that advanced technology just hadn't been discovered by the middle ages that isn't always true.
Nevertheless, the plausibility of Baghdad jars in a campaign world need not actually require them, much less open the door for steam engines, firearms, or lasers.
I suspect it's because one is real and one is imaginary. They are thus incomparable.
In fantasy games this incompatibility seems like it would continue.
That's just my pseudo-psychological theory anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because I prefer my magic and don't much care for the technological aspect.
Because I prefer my tech and don't much care for the magical effects on the world.
Because I prefer the blend the two to the point where it's impossible to tell what is magic and what is technology.
Because I prefer two distinct lines of skills that prevent a tech-user from learning magic and vice versa.
Because I prefer that both exist, but only in certain areas or in a highly limited, controlled manner.
These are all valid answers, but the emphasis is on the word 'prefer'. Ultimately, it boils down to what you enjoy in your game (and effectively, what your DM enjoys in their game). If the two are mutually incompatible and people feel very strongly about it, everyone will be much happier playing in different groups.
It is much the same reason that some people love using dinosaurs in their worlds, and some people find the very idea to be silly and ridiculous. This is a genre of games that relies entirely upon what people enjoy. YMMV, of course, but everyone's idea of fun is completely different, which is why every group treats huge issues totally differently. This is one of them - and it's purely a preference.
I think it's because Magic and Science, in Pathfinder, don't necessarily operate by the same rules. Magic operates in a wide variety of different ways in Golarion, Wizards who prepare spells (but note different wizards prepare spells in slightly different ways, but reach the same outcome), alchemists, witches, sorcerers, etc, these offer a wide variety of very different magical theories. The rules of the game offer an abstraction, but magic might not follow the same kind of predictable results in every situation aside from those spells that have been discovered and disseminated, like Fireball.
As for the person who mentioned why nobody is pushing the boundaries of magic I would say that they are, just about every Adventure Path at least mentions someone who has found some kind of magical doodad or ritual or what have you that nobody else has.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I prefer to think of magic as the mental manipulation of the universe through some sort of non-physical quantum field effect. It behaves in mostly predictable ways, but because it requires mental manipulation to create/arm a given effect, it can't be duplicated by non-magical machines without super-science (AIs).
Technology, on the other hand, is the physical manipulation of the universe. In many ways, it's less "powerful" than magic. However, it's also easier and can be mass-produced to a much greater degree and at lower costs (economies of scale). Also, magic is extremely useful for enhancing technology (strengthening substances, making objects easier to use, etc.).
Now, as a practical matter, both magic and technology can produce similar effects (burning hands and alchemist's fire). The biggest difference is that while magic can benefit from increased "skill"/mental power (caster level), technology requires more physical substance/power sources for greater effect; which tends to limit technology more than magic, as magic is usually more of a readily renewable resource than physical substances/power sources. On the other hand, technology can be used by many more people than a lot of magic.
TL;DR: They both have their use and have advantages and disadvantages.
|
There's also no reason that they have to. They can be completely antagonistic to each other as in the world of Ralph Bakshi's Wizards. or Fred Saberhagen's Sword novels.
There is really no objective reason that magic and technology couldn't exist alongside each other, or even mix beneficially.
[threadjack]I dunno, in Wizards there's some strong indications it's a bit more complicated than that...
The Saberhagen reference is a much better illustration of your point.
Doctor Doom.
Darth Vader.
Well, there's two characters that totally mash-up science with magic (force = mysticism).
Mechanically you could craft these characters however you want. No exclusive rules for science or magic are needed, just some creativity and rules mastery.
We have a player that saw the rules for chainsaws in the tech guide and has been salivating everyday since. He wants to wield one. It just hits so many nerves all at once. The power fantasy behind, the hilarious out-of-placedness of it, plus other reasons. It genuinely will bring him joy to make attack rolls while swinging one around.
In my campaign world there will be no chainsaws.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the tech just hasn't reached that level yet. However, little does he know that buried in a lost crypt that the players may one day find is a magical weapon of strange origin and design. Once it's identified and he asks how to use it I will look down on him and I will say, , ,
Chainsaw.
It will be glorious!
Aversion stems from fear. "Will this ruin my campaign?", usually means "will I lose control?". That belief is enough for many people to just outright ban entire books from their games. I read the tech rules and found a compromise that works for me. I am not fearful of my players or their choices. I just want everyone to have fun, but I like that they have to work for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fantasy works do not usually mix the genres although you can find it if you look hard enough. It is not very commen with the major fanatasy authoers anyway.
David Gemmel- Yes with the Jon Shannow books
David Eddings. Not so much.
Tolkein. Nope
Feist. Nope
GRR Martin- Nope
Robert Jordan- Not in the early books
Terry Brooks Not in the early books, yes in the later books (lost technology in a post apocalyptic world).
etc
etc
etc
Pathfinder is more or less D&D as well and early D&D had a tech level replicating Dark Ages to the 14th century. Things like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks were isolated and contained for the most part and easily avoidable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
actually, Star Wars was one of my favorite franchises when i was a small child and Outlaw Star was one of my favorite anime series growing up. what both have in common is you have a massive amount of species, high technology and powerful magic intergrated with the technology. for example, the Jedi are wizards who wield switchbladed swords that have blades made out of superheated Plasma and Gene Starwind Fires a heavy pistol that uses special arcane ammunition.