Casting spells with/ without materials, which is more orthodox?

Cipiteca396

🌺🌑🐉🪶 Anxiety Overdrive
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
2,138
Points
153
Using materials would be orthodox, but demonstrably wrong.

Using DnD as a base for a magic system is a slippery slope. It's a system that allows Centaurs to ride Horses because a centaur can only run as fast as a human... both being medium sized creatures. So yeah... not very good basis for virtually anything other than creature ideas and very few spells.
The idea of regents for spells are an obstacle to keep player power in check, nothing else. It doesn't expand the plot, it doesn't make characters more complex, it doesn't make the world more interesting. Complex? Yes. Fun? No.
If I write about a smartphone and explain I need to buy a mobile charger once a day... would that be fun? Because it's practically the same. It more often than not halts the progress of the story, and is usually explained away in a single line. "Bobby 3 nuts went to the market and bought the ingredients for 69420 gold coins." You know... like in DnD. It's a wealth check to stop power creep.

Now, if the thing that makes magic work is an outside fuel that is not present inside people, then it'd be better to just have a catalyst as others have mentioned.
If the magic thing is inside people, however, then that already is the fuel to cast magic. A mage would only need to learn how to channel it. A staff could make the spell 'cheaper' or 'stronger' as a focus of some sort like a magnifier.

The pursuit of uniqueness shouldn't be burdened with unnecessary clutter that serves no real purpose outside of when it matters. You'd be creating a parasitic system where you get the ingredients not when you use them but during downtime.
Demonstrably wrong is a huuuuge overstatement. Your point that it's annoying from a writing/reading perspective is probably right. However, components don't come from DnD, and they aren't designed to stop power creep, even if that's how DnD uses them. They're a part of how real world people thought magic worked, as old as history and most likely older.

Component materials are kind of the most critical part of magic, honestly. They are the best way to demonstrate how and why magic works.
A lot of the time, it's just an association game. You want fire magic, find something flammable or flame-colored.
Sometimes it's a metaphor instead. Having a flammable object isn't enough, you need to actually light it on fire. A voodoo doll, when pierced, triggers a sympathetic reaction in the person it represents.
Sometimes it actually is a limiter. If magic could happen at a thought, then it would happen all the time. That's why you need to mix rare components and use strange chants to trigger an unnatural event.
Most often(in the real world at least) it's a way to draw the assistance of beings that are actually capable of using magic, and the rituals are actually useless without those beings.
I'm having trouble coming up with other examples at the moment, but that's probably the whole 'woke up after 3 hours of sleep thing.'

To be honest, getting rid of all the fun parts of magic and replacing it with 'Costs 10 mana. Wand will enhance effect.' Is the more boring of the two options. It's just more convenient since you don't have to spend time worldbuilding. I honestly regret relying on it as much as I do.
 

Daitengu

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2019
Messages
636
Points
133
Do note, even though it's old, D&D is still considered a modern spin on fantasy magic.

Older stuff tends to be more ritualistic and combines what people think is alchemy with witchcraft, paganism, and shamanism. At least for humans. Mystical beings in old stories tended more towards 'willing' things to happen as magic.

I find modern fantasy magic to be simplified power creep. And relegating reagents to crafting. Like enchanting, alchemy, and magic smithing.

And tbh, mana cores are still just reagents when used in big spells like hero summoning, or weather manipulation.

As for game balance, players would never play a wizard if they have to fill up a half dozen to a dozen inventory slots with reagents for various spells. It's also a super niche product leading to the being either expensive and/or hard to find. Like who's going to have bat eyes for a blinding spell? And do you REALLY want to carry around fish gills for water breathing, salamander skin for fire resistance, etc.
 

Biggest-Kusa-Out-There

Futanari Enjoyer
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Messages
350
Points
103
Demonstrably wrong is a huuuuge overstatement. Your point that it's annoying from a writing/reading perspective is probably right. However, components don't come from DnD, and they aren't designed to stop power creep, even if that's how DnD uses them. They're a part of how real world people thought magic worked, as old as history and most likely older.

Component materials are kind of the most critical part of magic, honestly. They are the best way to demonstrate how and why magic works.
A lot of the time, it's just an association game. You want fire magic, find something flammable or flame-colored.
Sometimes it's a metaphor instead. Having a flammable object isn't enough, you need to actually light it on fire. A voodoo doll, when pierced, triggers a sympathetic reaction in the person it represents.
Sometimes it actually is a limiter. If magic could happen at a thought, then it would happen all the time. That's why you need to mix rare components and use strange chants to trigger an unnatural event.
Most often(in the real world at least) it's a way to draw the assistance of beings that are actually capable of using magic, and the rituals are actually useless without those beings.
I'm having trouble coming up with other examples at the moment, but that's probably the whole 'woke up after 3 hours of sleep thing.'

To be honest, getting rid of all the fun parts of magic and replacing it with 'Costs 10 mana. Wand will enhance effect.' Is the more boring of the two options. It's just more convenient since you don't have to spend time worldbuilding. I honestly regret relying on it as much as I do.
First off, I envy your capacity to take naps. I can't for some reason... it's either 12 hours or none.

Well, OP referred to games in which you interact with magic. As a game it'd require balance in the way of annoyances that actively sabotage the player in pursuit of power... that's how you do it with most TTRPG. "Oh, you want this? You need all of this other stuff first." versus "Oh, you have fists? You can kill a wizard if you simply want to."

While ritualist magic is indeed the first 'let's think about magic', it's more a naturalist-oriented shamanistic take in which nature is the provider of magic and the caster is merely a spokeperson if you will. The person is not the one that triggers the magic but the materials and how they are combined. This is not a magician/wizard. That is alchemy with extra steps. And that's fine if that's what the author wants to go for, but ultimately not a magician by definition.

What I propose with my post is to give the power to the people. To seize the means of magiduction, lol. By giving the characters themselves the ability to cast magic without external conditions like ingredients and stuff, the people themselves become magical and a plethora of worlduilding can take place with plausible limitations/rules/laws. The arbitrary take of X amount of spells/day is a game mechanic that has no function in a real world like a novel intends to create with its host of universal rules and systems. I'm not talking about magic in the real world, but to make magic feel real in-world. A wizard should not see magic as fantastic because it's their reality. They can be amazed and in love but they can't see it as supernatural in any way. It's an inherent part of the world. We don't see the water cycle as fantastic anymore for example, it's been barely 3 thousand years since we did.

To make game mechanics into a reality in-world tends to make plot holes. Why is there not a market for ingredients and materials? Peddlers that precisely sell this and nothing else? Why is the demand not being met? Why would human-like beings not seek to absolutely optimize and exploit the system? If you introduce the fact magic requires ingredients instead of a person-to-person condition of the mind like being smart af and understanding magic like Stephen Hawkings did with science, then everyone can be a magician thus making magicians not special. Then comes the arbitrary talents and bloodlines that make absolutely no sense from a biological point of view which is a universal law irregardless of magic being present.

Make your world plausible within, not realistic to our own.

Component materials are not the most important part of magic, who said this? Magic is to make cool shit with whatever means, while making it logical and plausible within the laws of the world you're writing. You can aid your magic casting with catalysts like you would light with a magnifier.

If someone takes the wizard's ingredients away, they are no longer a wizard and that should not happen. Why is the condition of power external? Why are the ingredients available in the first place? Why has the authorities not seized them and cancelled wizardry for everyone but themselves?

You don't kick dogs all of the time just because you can, so controlling magic with the mind would not be as you describe it. Conscious actions are controlled by you. Society would be shaped before the story even starts. All of this is worldbuilding and is not cut short by removing ingredients, if anything removing them allows for more worldbuilding without having to limit the very thing you want to write about: magic.
 

SailusGebel

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
8,872
Points
233
I remembered another one. Turgor.
First off, I envy your capacity to take naps. I can't for some reason... it's either 12 hours or none.

Well, OP referred to games in which you interact with magic. As a game it'd require balance in the way of annoyances that actively sabotage the player in pursuit of power... that's how you do it with most TTRPG. "Oh, you want this? You need all of this other stuff first." versus "Oh, you have fists? You can kill a wizard if you simply want to."

While ritualist magic is indeed the first 'let's think about magic', it's more a naturalist-oriented shamanistic take in which nature is the provider of magic and the caster is merely a spokeperson if you will. The person is not the one that triggers the magic but the materials and how they are combined. This is not a magician/wizard. That is alchemy with extra steps. And that's fine if that's what the author wants to go for, but ultimately not a magician by definition.

What I propose with my post is to give the power to the people. To seize the means of magiduction, lol. By giving the characters themselves the ability to cast magic without external conditions like ingredients and stuff, the people themselves become magical and a plethora of worlduilding can take place with plausible limitations/rules/laws. The arbitrary take of X amount of spells/day is a game mechanic that has no function in a real world like a novel intends to create with its host of universal rules and systems. I'm not talking about magic in the real world, but to make magic feel real in-world. A wizard should not see magic as fantastic because it's their reality. They can be amazed and in love but they can't see it as supernatural in any way. It's an inherent part of the world. We don't see the water cycle as fantastic anymore for example, it's been barely 3 thousand years since we did.

To make game mechanics into a reality in-world tends to make plot holes. Why is there not a market for ingredients and materials? Peddlers that precisely sell this and nothing else? Why is the demand not being met? Why would human-like beings not seek to absolutely optimize and exploit the system? If you introduce the fact magic requires ingredients instead of a person-to-person condition of the mind like being smart af and understanding magic like Stephen Hawkings did with science, then everyone can be a magician thus making magicians not special. Then comes the arbitrary talents and bloodlines that make absolutely no sense from a biological point of view which is a universal law irregardless of magic being present.

Make your world plausible within, not realistic to our own.

Component materials are not the most important part of magic, who said this? Magic is to make cool shit with whatever means, while making it logical and plausible within the laws of the world you're writing. You can aid your magic casting with catalysts like you would light with a magnifier.

If someone takes the wizard's ingredients away, they are no longer a wizard and that should not happen. Why is the condition of power external? Why are the ingredients available in the first place? Why has the authorities not seized them and cancelled wizardry for everyone but themselves?

You don't kick dogs all of the time just because you can, so controlling magic with the mind would not be as you describe it. Conscious actions are controlled by you. Society would be shaped before the story even starts. All of this is worldbuilding and is not cut short by removing ingredients, if anything removing them allows for more worldbuilding without having to limit the very thing you want to write about: magic.
The most interesting way is to mix both. It as well allows for even more worldbuilding.
 

NotaNuffian

This does spark joy.
Joined
Nov 26, 2019
Messages
3,626
Points
183
Using materials would be orthodox, but demonstrably wrong.

Using DnD as a base for a magic system is a slippery slope. It's a system that allows Centaurs to ride Horses because a centaur can only run as fast as a human... both being medium sized creatures. So yeah... not very good basis for virtually anything other than creature ideas and very few spells.
The idea of regents for spells are an obstacle to keep player power in check, nothing else. It doesn't expand the plot, it doesn't make characters more complex, it doesn't make the world more interesting. Complex? Yes. Fun? No.
If I write about a smartphone and explain I need to buy a mobile charger once a day... would that be fun? Because it's practically the same. It more often than not halts the progress of the story, and is usually explained away in a single line. "Bobby 3 nuts went to the market and bought the ingredients for 69420 gold coins." You know... like in DnD. It's a wealth check to stop power creep.

Now, if the thing that makes magic work is an outside fuel that is not present inside people, then it'd be better to just have a catalyst as others have mentioned.
If the magic thing is inside people, however, then that already is the fuel to cast magic. A mage would only need to learn how to channel it. A staff could make the spell 'cheaper' or 'stronger' as a focus of some sort like a magnifier.

The pursuit of uniqueness shouldn't be burdened with unnecessary clutter that serves no real purpose outside of when it matters. You'd be creating a parasitic system where you get the ingredients not when you use them but during downtime.
I think i have the problem that when I read the line "centaur riding horse", my mind goes to male centaur fucking a horse, be it male or female, as he gets the horse to gallop in speed.

The thought is not disappearing.

Send help.
 

Cipiteca396

🌺🌑🐉🪶 Anxiety Overdrive
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
2,138
Points
153
You don't kick dogs all of the time just because you can, so controlling magic with the mind would not be as you describe it. Conscious actions are controlled by you
I have no idea what this means or what it's referring to.

Speaking generally about your post, your points are starting to contradict themselves in weird ways. It's getting difficult to keep track of everything.

"Oh, you want this? You need all of this other stuff first." versus "Oh, you have fists? You can kill a wizard if you simply want to.
To be fair, someone with fists and the skill to use them could kill literally any other 'classed' character under these same circumstances. Knights need weapons and armor, riflemen need weapons and ammunition, and yes, wizards need to understand how magic works before they can use it.

While ritualist magic is indeed the first 'let's think about magic', it's more a naturalist-oriented shamanistic take in which nature is the provider of magic and the caster is merely a spokeperson if you will. The person is not the one that triggers the magic but the materials and how they are combined. This is not a magician/wizard. That is alchemy with extra steps. And that's fine if that's what the author wants to go for, but ultimately not a magician by definition
What is a magician by definition? Because it changes from real life or from story to story. A magician is whatever the author says it is. Wizards in particular tend to treat magic exactly how you described it. It's a science where you take and properly combine specific components to get a magical result. It IS alchemy. No extra steps needed.

By giving the characters themselves the ability to cast magic without external conditions like ingredients and stuff, the people themselves become magical and a plethora of worlduilding can take place with plausible limitations/rules/laws.
That just means turning the people themselves into the components though. And that's fine, I even mentioned it already. V
a mage uses their flesh and blood as casting components.

Why is there not a market for ingredients and materials? Peddlers that precisely sell this and nothing else? Why is the demand not being met? Why would human-like beings not seek to absolutely optimize and exploit the system? If you introduce the fact magic requires ingredients instead of a person-to-person condition of the mind like being smart af and understanding magic like Stephen Hawkings did with science, then everyone can be a magician thus making magicians not special.
Who says there isn't a market for ingredients and materials? Black Market component merchants who capture fairies and crush their wings into magical powders, cut out monster cores and use them to make magic items?
Why does being a magician have to be special? That's something that only the author can decide. A lot of writers make mages special because they don't want to go through the trouble of figuring out how an entire magical society would work. But it shouldn't be the only option.

Then comes the arbitrary talents and bloodlines that make absolutely no sense from a biological point of view which is a universal law irregardless of magic being present.
Talent exists in real life even outside of magic. As for bloodlines, that's just the flawed medieval understanding of real life genetics. It makes perfect sense from a biological perspective. You're just plain wrong here.

Component materials are not the most important part of magic, who said this?
I said it, lol.
Magic is to make cool shit with whatever means, while making it logical and plausible within the laws of the world you're writing. You can aid your magic casting with catalysts like you would light with a magnifier.
Catalysts are indistinguishable from components. Or should I say that components are the most common type of catalyst?
Either way, this is the method you use to make it logical and plausible, when you write the laws of the world. Every limitation and freedom of magic is based on the components or methods that allow its use. That's why it's the most important part. Compared to the result, the method is far more important; whether it's a game, a book, or anything else.

If someone takes the wizard's ingredients away, they are no longer a wizard and that should not happen.
Why not? If that's how the author wants magic to work, that's how it works.
Or maybe it would be better to say that they are still a wizard, just like an engineer is still an engineer even if you take away their glue gun.
Being a wizard isn't about having the components. It's about knowing what components can be used to make magic.

Why is the condition of power external? Why are the ingredients available in the first place? Why has the authorities not seized them and cancelled wizardry for everyone but themselves?
Why is the condition of power internal? Why wouldn't the ingredient be available? Who says the authorities haven't seized them? These are worldbuilding questions, not errors. Instead of treating them like walls that eliminate possibilities, just answer them.
If the main component for earth magic is literal dirt and rocks, it's obviously going to be available and uncontrollable. If it's a rare type of stone that only appears in one place, an entire kingdom of earth mages may form around that spot.

This is such a mess, and I'm way too tired to clean it up...
 

Biggest-Kusa-Out-There

Futanari Enjoyer
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Messages
350
Points
103
I have no idea what this means or what it's referring to.
Your statement that magic could be used at all times if it was controlled with the mind instead of an external source.
Speaking generally about your post, your points are starting to contradict themselves in weird ways. It's getting difficult to keep track of everything.
Fair opinion.
To be fair, someone with fists and the skill to use them could kill literally any other 'classed' character under these same circumstances. Knights need weapons and armor, riflemen need weapons and ammunition, and yes, wizards need to understand how magic works before they can use it.[/SPOILER]
Context: "Well, OP referred to games in which you interact with magic." The point is balance of player power in a game environment as a product that doesn't mind plausibility.
What is a magician by definition? Because it changes from real life or from story to story. A magician is whatever the author says it is. Wizards in particular tend to treat magic exactly how you described it. It's a science where you take and properly combine specific components to get a magical result. It IS alchemy. No extra steps needed.
Magician definition: A person with magical powers. Not one that uses ingredients to perform magical phenomena.
An author does not have the liberty to redefine concepts as you propose. They have the liberty to make new ones and expand on them, not reinvent the wheel. A person with testicles, a penis, high testosterone, and a solid male egos is not 'a woman' just because the author says it is. That breaks the very basis of language.
"The dog walked to MC. Its whiskers tickled mc's legs and it meowled in a cute way." That's a cat. The audience will be confused and the pacing halts so the reader can reconstruct the concept. In that moment, the story stops making sense for a second even with that small detail.
"The cop opened the oven, retrieving a pie from within. Years in cop school gave him the best skills to open his own store of pastries."
"Yeah, after years of misunderstood depression I went to therapy and realized I'm nonbinary thanks to the help of a professional and support from my peers. My pronouns are he/him and I will live as a full man from now on."
That's called being wrong and misusing concepts.
Alchemy definition: the medieval forerunner of chemistry, concerned with the transmutation of matter, in particular with attempts to convert base metals into gold or find a universal elixir in pursuit of immortality. Magical version of chemistry.

That just means turning the people themselves into the components though. And that's fine, I even mentioned it already. V
No, you mentioned a magician to actually need physical matter to manifest phenomena. The very thing I'm saying is creatively bankrupt for the sole purpose of limitation through arbitrarily imposed walls.
Who says there isn't a market for ingredients and materials? Black Market component merchants who capture fairies and crush their wings into magical powders, cut out monster cores and use them to make magic items?
Why does being a magician have to be special? That's something that only the author can decide. A lot of writers make mages special because they don't want to go through the trouble of figuring out how an entire magical society would work. But it shouldn't be the only option.
Which halts suspension of disbelief. These questions must be answered instead of relegated to the questioner. I'm not saying it's impossible or that you will absolutely fail. But make it make sense in-world instead of waving it away 'oh, it's just magic' that's lazy af.
Talent exists in real life even outside of magic. As for bloodlines, that's just the flawed medieval understanding of real life genetics. It makes perfect sense from a biological perspective. You're just plain wrong here.
Talent only takes you so far in life and that's proved by all pedagogical, psychological, and psychiatric fields of study. It's not biological and it's not debatable that it is. Biology balances the world across the entire spectrum. That's why evolution is still prevalent despite it's racist and discriminatory nature.
I said it, lol.
Well... yeah. That's just your opinion on magical materials being the most interesting aspect of how magic works.
Catalysts are indistinguishable from components. Or should I say that components are the most common type of catalyst?
Either way, this is the method you use to make it logical and plausible, when you write the laws of the world. Every limitation and freedom of magic is based on the components or methods that allow its use. That's why it's the most important part. Compared to the result, the method is far more important; whether it's a game, a book, or anything else
Components, ingredients, and catalysts are not the same. That's why they are different words. Components and ingredients are used up and spent. A catalyst in the form of an amplifying staff is not, that's why I mentioned a magnifier.
Why not? If that's how the author wants magic to work, that's how it works.
Or maybe it would be better to say that they are still a wizard, just like an engineer is still an engineer even if you take away their glue gun.
Being a wizard isn't about having the components. It's about knowing what components can be used to make magic.
A wizard is an individual capable of magic through arduous study, sometimes using a staff/dagger/wand/etc to aid their magic casting but not as sole necessity which leaves them useless without it.
An engineer is not directly involved in the construction of anything. They have the knowledge to make things work/build things, but not the direct laborer. There are specific fields of engineering but don't apply to the general definition itself.
Why is the condition of power internal? Why wouldn't the ingredient be available? Who says the authorities haven't seized them? These are worldbuilding questions, not errors. Instead of treating them like walls that eliminate possibilities, just answer them.
If the main component for earth magic is literal dirt and rocks, it's obviously going to be available and uncontrollable. If it's a rare type of stone that only appears in one place, an entire kingdom of earth mages may form around that spot.
You don't bring up answers to my questions about your points. It's not my responsibility to answer them. That's not how conversations work... An author doesn't go 'Readers will have to answer this one', lol. Discussion can be had, but the author has to come up with the answer to the question they are given.
This is such a mess, and I'm way too tired to clean it up...
My point is not to discourage ingredient usage but to make it feel real in-world, which usually fails horribly. There has to be biological/chemical/magical sense in it, otherwise the suspension of disbelief inflates and the reader tires out. The reader will point and say 'but why?' everytime something magical happens or every time a limitation is brought forward. And as you pointed out, authors usually don't give too much thought about building a world that makes sense. That's called a soft magic system, and limitations, by definition of the system at hand, can't be as arbitrary as they usually are shown in hard magic systems in LitRPG. This is not a liberty an author can take. Definitions exist for a reason. Similarly to the other thread about psychopaths, things have a meaning already and shouldn't be bent for the sake of whatever the author thinks it means to push a story.
Are those stories bad? No. Can they improve? Absolutely.
 

longer

Balls
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
531
Points
133
The idea of regents for spells are an obstacle to keep player power in check, nothing else. It doesn't expand the plot, it doesn't make characters more complex, it doesn't make the world more interesting.
Generally speaking, this is true. However, having magic depend on a variety of components instead of requiring exactly one can be used to demonstrate character intelligence. For instance, fire magic is basically a combustion reaction. So the wizard could just use set wood on fire or lay oil traps. Fairly effective and fairly obvious. But the wizard could also use some sort of magical thermite made from crushed metals and some fantasy ingredients. Seems way more innovative.

My point is that forcing components as a power creep limiter or to force realism is generally a bad idea. But allowing magic to have different applications DUE to the reagents has potential and is completely viable in a game environment. Plus I would like to see mages using water magic to detonate potassium bombs.
 

Cipiteca396

🌺🌑🐉🪶 Anxiety Overdrive
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
2,138
Points
153
Your statement that magic could be used at all times if it was controlled with the mind instead of an external source.
Ah, that's not what I said at all. I was saying that magic should not just spontaneously occur because it needs a reason to occur. It's an unnatural event, and so it needs unnatural methods to cause it to happen. Otherwise it would happen naturally. (That's meant to just be a single possibility among many, since this comment will be out of context from the original post.)
You don't bring up answers to my questions about your points. It's not my responsibility to answer them. That's not how conversations work... An author doesn't go 'Readers will have to answer this one', lol. Discussion can be had, but the author has to come up with the answer to the question they are given.
I feel like you're quoting me but then replying to someone else entirely. Everything you've said is slightly skewed to have no relevance to what I wrote. The entire point of everything I've said is that the writer/author needs to understand how their world works. It's literally the opposite of the point you've assigned to me for no reason.

For the rest... Less is more. I cannot deal with a two page tangent about cats being dogs. Just what am I supposed to respond to here?
 

Biggest-Kusa-Out-There

Futanari Enjoyer
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Messages
350
Points
103
For the rest... Less is more. I cannot deal with a two page tangent about cats being dogs. Just what am I supposed to respond to here?
And that's how it will feel if an author calls someone that uses ingredients to cast magic 'magician'. That disassociation is exactly what I'm talking about. Glad you got it.
 

Cipiteca396

🌺🌑🐉🪶 Anxiety Overdrive
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
2,138
Points
153
And that's how it will feel if an author calls someone that uses ingredients to cast magic 'magician'. That disassociation is exactly what I'm talking about. Glad you got it.
I feel like you're quoting me but then replying to someone else entirely.
For this particular point, I do understand what you mean, though you seriously botched your attempts to explain it. To me, a magician is 'a person who performs tricks for entertainment.' So any reference to a magician as someone who can use actual magic triggers the feeling you're talking about. However... Words can and often do have multiple meanings. Just because it's the first thing I think of doesn't mean it's absolutely right. So it's perfectly valid for a magician to be someone who uses genuine magic... And for magic to be created through the use of components.
 

Biggest-Kusa-Out-There

Futanari Enjoyer
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Messages
350
Points
103
For this particular point, I do understand what you mean, though you seriously botched your attempts to explain it. To me, a magician is 'a person who performs tricks for entertainment.' So any reference to a magician as someone who can use actual magic triggers the feeling you're talking about. However... Words can and often do have multiple meanings. Just because it's the first thing I think of doesn't mean it's absolutely right. So it's perfectly valid for a magician to be someone who uses genuine magic... And for magic to be created through the use of components.
Seriously? You're going to just forsake context to prove a point? Your definition of a magician is not wrong, but doesn't apply to the situation we're talking about at all, which is fantasy fiction and whether usage of components to cast spells is orhodox or not. I don't know if you know this, but 'orthodox' doesn't mean 'absolutely true', it's the view that something is correct simply because it hasn't ben proven to be wrong, hence why I mentioned it being demonstrably wrong and gave plenty of examples as to why it could be from a TTRPG perspective to a in-world explanation.
The point was never if an author decided things or not, but what makes the usage of components orthodox in the first place. The many plausible explanations and ramifications that brings forth. The point was never to redefine concepts, but to answer OP with possible scenarios to their question.
You're bringing up arguments that get further and further away from the subject at hand while blurring the original topic.
 

Cipiteca396

🌺🌑🐉🪶 Anxiety Overdrive
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
2,138
Points
153
You're going to just forsake context to prove a point?
You're bringing up arguments that get further and further away from the subject at hand while blurring the original topic.
Don't be a hypocrite. You're the one who started going on and on about definitions and randomly inverted my statements to create something you could argue against. I do have a tendency to get dragged along at the other side's pace when I talk like this, so of course we'll eventually stray from the topic if that's where you lead the conversation.

Forgetting that for the moment, this seems to be where things went wrong;
demonstrably wrong
To me, this means 'Completely false and easily proven so.' not 'Sometimes right, but it could be wrong under these circumstances.' That difference has the potential for a major misunderstanding, though I'm not sure exactly where it happened.


My original statement was and remains that component materials are 'orthodox', and more than that, interesting and viable as a part of worldbuilding and magic theory. Everything outside that was a reaction to something else.

As near as I can tell with the new definition of demonstrably wrong, your original point is that it's possible to really screw up a setting with material components if you do a bad job; a point which is followed up with the possibility of a setting that doesn't use material components at all.

These points are complementary, meaning they do not refute each other. There shouldn't be any room for an argument with just these two perspectives, and every point that followed was slightly or completely off-topic. And while I was happy to discuss things that were slightly off-topic, things have definitely gotten out of hand at this point. Can we call it a weekend?
 

Biggest-Kusa-Out-There

Futanari Enjoyer
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Messages
350
Points
103
Don't be a hypocrite. You're the one who started going on and on about definitions and randomly inverted my statements to create something you could argue against. I do have a tendency to get dragged along at the other side's pace when I talk like this, so of course we'll eventually stray from the topic if that's where you lead the conversation.

Forgetting that for the moment, this seems to be where things went wrong;

To me, this means 'Completely false and easily proven so.' not 'Sometimes right, but it could be wrong under these circumstances.' That difference has the potential for a major misunderstanding, though I'm not sure exactly where it happened.


My original statement was and remains that component materials are 'orthodox', and more than that, interesting and viable as a part of worldbuilding and magic theory. Everything outside that was a reaction to something else.

As near as I can tell with the new definition of demonstrably wrong, your original point is that it's possible to really screw up a setting with material components if you do a bad job; a point which is followed up with the possibility of a setting that doesn't use material components at all.

These points are complementary, meaning they do not refute each other. There shouldn't be any room for an argument with just these two perspectives, and every point that followed was slightly or completely off-topic. And while I was happy to discuss things that were slightly off-topic, things have definitely gotten out of hand at this point. Can we call it a weekend?
You don't get to call someone a hypocrite and then end the conversation...
What it means to you has no place in my post, 'demonstrably wrong' means that it can be proven, through evidence and fact-checking, that the matter is not absolutely true. You don't get to change the meaning of my post. Don't put words in my mouth.
I'll stop you right there and remove your right to shift blame to me. That's not what happened and that's not how shit works. I feel whatever I have to say you'll just twist into some subjective 'to me' bullshit that won't further any point whatsoever. ORTHODOX implies that it's demonstrably wrong by the very nature of the concept. English is my third language ffs.
 

Cipiteca396

🌺🌑🐉🪶 Anxiety Overdrive
Joined
Jun 6, 2021
Messages
2,138
Points
153
You don't get to call someone a hypocrite and then end the conversation...
What it means to you has no place in my post, 'demonstrably wrong' means that it can be proven, through evidence and fact-checking, that the matter is not absolutely true. You don't get to change the meaning of my post. Don't put words in my mouth.
I'll stop you right there and remove your right to shift blame to me. That's not what happened and that's not how shit works. I feel whatever I have to say you'll just twist into some subjective 'to me' bullshit that won't further any point whatsoever. ORTHODOX implies that it's demonstrably wrong by the very nature of the concept. English is my third language ffs.
I don't care about either definition. I don't care whose fault it is. I didn't try to put words in your mouth, I only restated my point and put my understanding of yours. If it was wrong, you had the potential to clarify; sure that may have ended up as a mess again- or we could have just called it a weekend and gotten on with our lives. I don't have any kind of grudge against you. I'm just confused, and too exhausted to try and puzzle out this tangled web.
 
Top