I think the impact of magic may be reduced by altering how present/controllable it is (and thus how easily the scientific method applies). By making magic fairly uncommon/rare and inaccurate/imprecise (particularly for the purposes of experiments) you may prevent it from dominating the same way our rigorously defined technology does while remaining largely practical for practitioners to utilize.

Quote from: RPGPundit;875869You are supposing a power-level and commonality of magic that does not match it's actual levels in the medieval paradigm.

No.  I'm supposing how D&D magic actually WORKS, which doesn't match any levels in the medieval paradigm, which if it did, would NOT be D&D magic.  D&D magic destroys any historical credibility in how history would have worked out.

If you want a game system that supports the medieval paradigm as you call it, go look at Ars Magicka, or Runequest.  Or any other system in which magic CAN fail or can actually be subtle.

D&D does NOT work in a historical context, simple because of how reliable and effective it is.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875932No.  I'm supposing how D&D magic actually WORKS, which doesn't match any levels in the medieval paradigm, which if it did, would NOT be D&D magic.  D&D magic destroys any historical credibility in how history would have worked out.

If you want a game system that supports the medieval paradigm as you call it, go look at Ars Magicka, or Runequest.  Or any other system in which magic CAN fail or can actually be subtle.

D&D does NOT work in a historical context, simple because of how reliable and effective it is.

Well, Vancian casting certainly didn't appear to be an assumption behind things like Maleficia. But there is also a lot of vagueness around magic is described in medieval sources, and it is pretty broad in variety. D&D wouldn't be my first choice but I think if the GM sufficiently paired down the spell selection, you could do a D&D game in Medieval Europe and it would be believable enough that it wouldn't bother me (even some of the stuff in the old Green Book for Rome was kind of okay in that respect). Obviously the best way to do it is to make a completely new system based on the source material. My assumption if people are using D&D is it is because that is the more familiar system that is going to attract the most players. But you can still make it work well enough provided your flexible about it.

One thing I will say, is history sometimes surprises you. I was doing a ton of research into magic during the Song Dynasty for my campaign (not using D&D). And I used only primary sources and reputable secondary sources. I was surprised to see a few instances of spells that were basically right out of D&D (one was quite close to fireball for example, except I believe it only worked on spirits not regular people). I didn't use D&D but it would be pretty easy to adjust a spell like Fireball enough so that it matched the ritual in question.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;875935Well, Vancian casting certainly didn't appear to be an assumption behind things like Maleficia. But there is also a lot of vagueness around magic is described in medieval sources, and it is pretty broad in variety. D&D wouldn't be my first choice but I think if the GM sufficiently paired down the spell selection, you could do a D&D game in Medieval Europe and it would be believable enough that it wouldn't bother me (even some of the stuff in the old Green Book for Rome was kind of okay in that respect). Obviously the best way to do it is to make a completely new system based on the source material.

I don't have it, but I've been curious for a while: I wonder how well Aquelarre does medieval magic? It looks to be just what you say, a system based on the source material ....

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;875919My reading is he is saying this what people thought. He may be leaving himself room for his own perspective.

I think he is leaving a lot of room. Which is unnecessary in analyzing what we think that people believed at the time. And I use the phrase "what we think that people believed" intentionally because we don't really know what most people believed. All we have is what a small minority of the literate population (which was already a minority of the entire population) wrote about what they thought or what they thought other people thought. All of which makes me a bit skeptical when someone claims to know (a) what people saw and (b) what they all believed about those reported sightings.

QuoteBut if you spend much time reading material from this period you do see plenty of evidence that there was a worldview which assumed God was real and magic was real.

One should also keep in mind that publishing views contrary to what the Church or State mandated could, at the very least, get your books burned and your press destroyed. So it is not surprising that the preponderance of the available writings support the official views on magic.

QuoteOnce you accept that this was how a significant portion of the population understood the world, you really can't analyze their behavior with the same assumptions you might about a person in the modern world doing something similar...

I'm not arguing that people 500 years ago thought about the world in the same way that you or I might. One can't even assume that everyone in the modern world has the same world view. So there is certainly no reason to think that people 500 years ago had the same view as that held by a minority of the people who are alive today.

QuoteWhat she calls being visited by a dead relative, I call sleep apnea.

Sleep apnea is measurable. The number and duration of sleep interruptions and blood oxygen levels are all real, measurable things, that can be replicated by multiple observers on multiple occasions. Ghosts don't appear to be reliably measurable nor consistent in their so-called appearances.

Quote from: Bren;875952I think he is leaving a lot of room. Which is unnecessary in analyzing what we think that people believed at the time. And I use the phrase "what we think that people believed" intentionally because we don't really know what most people believed. All we have is what a small minority of the literate population (which was already a minority of the entire population) wrote about what they thought or what they thought other people thought. All of which makes me a bit skeptical when someone claims to know (a) what people saw and (b) what they all believed about those reported sightings.

One should also keep in mind that publishing views contrary to what the Church or State mandated could, at the very least, get your books burned and your press destroyed. So it is not surprising that the preponderance of the available writings support the official views on magic.

Sure, but we are talking pretty casually here.

In terms of taking what people said with a grain of salt, absolutely. One of things they teach you to look out for when your reading primary documents is exactly that sort of thing. But the general consensus among historians now is these were widely held beliefs. It isn't controversial to start with that assumption. But we do know more than people might think about other views. A lot of micro histories have taken a closer look at individual cases of heresy (where again you have to consider where the documents come from) and you get some really unusual world views (like in the Cheese and the Worms for example).

QuoteSleep apnea is measurable. The number and duration of sleep interruptions and blood oxygen levels are all real, measurable things, that can be replicated by multiple observers on multiple occasions. Ghosts don't appear to be reliably measurable nor consistent in their so-called appearances.

Again, i am not saying belief=reality at all (I stated pretty clearly I think my view is the correct one). I'm not saying ghosts are real because people believe them. What i am saying is her experience that this was a ghost is the experience she believes she is having and to her it is very real. We are operating under two very different world-views and those shape how we interpret what we see and feel. This is purely about being able to see something from the point of view of a person who doesn't share your world view.

I think when you look at historical people, you really need to take their beliefs seriously if you want to understand where they are coming from. Skepticism is healthy too, but if you take it too far and assume they have the same materialist assumptions that we do, that they must be lying or cynical, then I think you can easily miss their real motives.

Quote from: Bren;875952I'm not arguing that people 500 years ago thought about the world in the same way that you or I might. One can't even assume that everyone in the modern world has the same world view. So there is certainly no reason to think that people 500 years ago had the same view as that held by a minority of the people who are alive today.
.

Part of the problem is we are on an internet forum and people are debating really big historical issues to make smaller points about elf games. So a lot of the discussion is getting glossed over. I mean there are different arguments and points of views even among mainstream historians on this subject and one could easily tilt the discussion one way or another by leaning on the right group of them.

So the well is probably already poisoned from the start because really people just want to play an RPG a particular way, or not play it a particular way, and the debate hinges entirely (for some reason) on whether people really believed witches existed and could perform magic.

Typically these things are not quite settled because like you point out, we can't know for sure what people were thinking. We just have some conclusions that seem more plausible than others based on the available evidence.  But that doesn't mean that any and all speculation on motives is valid. It is about what views have grounding in the available evidence.

If we really wanted to have an involved and fruitful discussion about what people believed during the Early Modern Witch craze, it would probably need to be divorced from a discussion where people feel like they are scoring points and where everyone lays out some sources on the table (which could be interesting because people might encounter sources they were not aware of).

I think I made a similar point a few months ago on a similar thread. When people invoke scholars or mention their own research but don't actually list off any books or articles to give us some insight into where their information is coming from, that's really hard to judge. They may be the world's biggest expert and have  a direct line to the truth, but I would have no real way of discerning whether that is the case or not. It just becomes people asserting that this or that was so. This is why I keep emphasizing most of my information comes from coursework I did ages ago. I'm totally open to being wrong if there has been a shift or if new evidence has come to light.

As for the D&D magic not working in a pseudo-historical game, there is always the option of changing the spell lists and limiting mages to X level.

There is no reason the D&D magic list can't be subtler spells.

Considering the whole HP thing, you'd probably want to limit levels anyway. I easily could see a historical game being a L6 limit game.

Quote from: Spinachcat;875964As for the D&D magic not working in a pseudo-historical game, there is always the option of changing the spell lists and limiting mages to X level.

There is no reason the D&D magic list can't be subtler spells.

Considering the whole HP thing, you'd probably want to limit levels anyway. I easily could see a historical game being a L6 limit game.

That is my thought as well. Cap levels alone and things change dramatically.

Playing early on with alot of BX D&D, pareticularly B and the level cap of 3 you get that general feel. Expecially when all you can attain there as a mage or elf is 2nd level spells, and cleric limited to 1st. And you've only got 2/1 for the MU or elf.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;875958Part of the problem is we are on an internet forum and people are debating really big historical issues to make smaller points about elf games.

Undoubtedly that makes the issue more fraught.

Interestingly, I agree with the conclusion that one can include magic and monsters in an historical setting provided the magic and monsters are rare and seldom witnessed by the masses and almost never seen in public, i.e. pretty much what we have from the historical record.

But in regards to the discussion about paradigms in general and the language used in discussing paradigms in this particular instance, I've seen discussions of paradigms shift from historical analysis to reification of the paradigm. It's not uncommon direction for extreme relativist to assert that all world views or paradigms are equally valid. A point with which I take strong exception. Pundit in this thread seems to be treading right up to that line (or over that line) in regards to magic, which I find ironic given his disdain for the same practice of reification when it is applied to social and economic paradigms with which he disagrees.

QuoteWhen people invoke scholars or mention their own research but don't actually list off any books or articles to give us some insight into where their information is coming from, that's really hard to judge.

Agreed.

Quote from: Bren;876003But in regards to the discussion about paradigms in general and the language used in discussing paradigms in this particular instance, I've seen discussions of paradigms shift from historical analysis to reification of the paradigm. It's not uncommon direction for extreme relativist to assert that all world views or paradigms are equally valid. A point with which I take strong exception. Pundit in this thread seems to be treading right up to that line (or over that line) in regards to magic, which I find ironic given his disdain for the same practice of reification when it is applied to social and economic paradigms with which he disagrees.
.

I don't know. I think people are reading more into what he is saying, based on what they know about his beliefs in magic. The first time I read his article, O interpreted the way you do now. But I read it a few times and my interpretation changed.

I am not a relativist. And I don't believe in magic. But what Pundit is suggesting about paradigms isn't a threat to that in my view. He is just encouraging good practice when you want to understand people. Now it can be taken too far and get into relativist grounds (you can go from trying to see things through someone's eyes to believing their view is just as valid as any other). But until one reaches that point, I am not worried. It isn't a challenge to our modern, rational world view to understand historical people by taking their beliefs seriously. If I want to understand Romans I need to understand as best I can, what they believed (not what I think they ought to have believed). If I want to understand the spread of Islam, I need to understand as best I can what early Muslims believed. If I don't I risk projecting assumptions baked into my world view onto them, and my conclusions could be flawed. If Pundit goes on to argue that this therefore means all paradigms construct reality, by all means, Take exception. But right now I think he is just saying, from their point of view, this is how the world worked.

Quote from: Bren;875906That was the job of the Spanish Inquisition

I wasn't expecting that!

Quote from: Spinachcat;875964As for the D&D magic not working in a pseudo-historical game, there is always the option of changing the spell lists and limiting mages to X level.

There is no reason the D&D magic list can't be subtler spells.

Considering the whole HP thing, you'd probably want to limit levels anyway. I easily could see a historical game being a L6 limit game.

And again, if you're playing OD&D with the "monster level divided by PC level times gold = XP" paradigm, leveling flattens out fairly quickly at about level 8 or 9.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;876016I wasn't expecting that!

No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;876015But what Pundit is suggesting about paradigms isn't a threat to that in my view. He is just encouraging good practice when you want to understand people. Now it can be taken too far and get into relativist grounds (you can go from trying to see things through someone's eyes to believing their view is just as valid as any other). But until one reaches that point, I am not worried.

No, clearly Pundit does not believe every view is equally valid. That's not at all what I was trying to suggest. His many rants about gaming swine and leftists demonstrate that he doesn't consider all paradigms to be equally valid.