Alright, everyone, let's make some magic!

I'll agree with the "learn has an advantage over natural", if only because, well, consider this:

One person can swim. They just can. Since they were little, they associated swimming with liquids and the like.

Now, another person can swim, but they took years to learn how. They also are pretty smart, and know about things such as buoyancy, surface tension, and all kinds of liquid related stuff.

Now put both in front a pool of oil and tell them "get across", with none starting in the oil. They both know it's oil. If the first person attempted to swim - associating liquid with swim - they would, pretty likely, sink like a rock. The second person would probably realize that swimming won't be possible, and look for another method instead of swimming to the nearest coast.

It's an odd / farfetched scenario, but it works. The person who has it naturally might recognize how to utilize something, but it doesn't mean they understand the mechanics. That could be used against them. For another example, consider a Slowfall spell. Without knowledge of gravity, your use of it might be pretty limited: Prevent yourself from getting hurt when you fall too far. With knowledge of it, however, and realizing that slowfall = lessened gravity (or greater air resistance), you could quite readily weaponize the slowfall or use it to do things such as make normally impossible leaps.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Of course you can't swim faster than a fish... but you can know the science of hydrodynamics and construct a water vessel to do that.

I have some doubt, because many technologies are based by mimicking natural phenomenon. And this vessel impose you a special training and/or physical conditions to master them. For example you need a licence before to drive car and be in good condition. You don't need knowledge beyond how to use it.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Knowledge is power, always. Humanity rules Earth not because they're naturally strong or fast, but because we learned how to conquer it. A mage may not be able to cast as well as a naturally-gifted pred, but his knowledge could allow for greater creativity and tactical usage.

Unfortunately no, if we look the writers, the painters or many artists in overall they don't always have a particular knowledge but they are very creative. Knowledge and creativity are two different things. A little kid is in sandbox has more imagination and show more creativity than a scientist. And until some natural creations made by animals are still fascinating humans,

And many tactical are born from random experimentations and observations. for example a French blacksmith from Bayonne think put a blade to the tip of a gun it gave birth to the bayonet. During the hundred years wars during the canon was used only to protect the castle the French decide to use it in an offensive way and it was the begining of the artillery.

The knowledge comes later from the recorded success and failure of the many experimentations performed.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Studying fairies may be one way to gain the proper knowledge, but how many people could actually survive an in-depth study? I still think knowledge and scientific progress is rare because few Felaryans have the means to advance. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but means is the father. Who's going to experiment and devise theories when you can't get any good field studies?

Felarya is constant changing and evolving world even for people who lived for many centuries have problem to define correctly. Of course you can develop a basic knowledge but you will have to constantly upgrade it.

@Malahite: your examples have big flaws the second swimmer wait the first test before he tries so he learns from the mistake of the previous but if both try at the same time both will fall. From the second example even if you know gravity to master the spell you have to practice to master it.

Experience is born from a constant practice it from the success and failure you advance. If someone don't try something even if you posses the theory you have to prove it by tests and exploit the result.

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

The knowledge comes later from the recorded success and failure of the many experimentations performed.

It's this, mixed with the fact that the type of experiments you might perform increases the more knowledge you have.

I'll kick myself for using this example, but: Jesus' water to wine. For most people, it's pretty clear cut: Want wine? Point at water, you got it. Not much offensive use for it. However, if you know something about biology and anatomy: Blood content is almost 70% water. You can turn water into wine. You have weaponized W2W. Someone who didn't know that blood was predominantly water might not even consider such: Blood is blood, and water is water. They'd be very unlikely to try it unless pretty desperate. Someone who knew this, however, might be capable of doing it right off the bat.

Knowledge on a matter helps, a lot.

Malahite wrote:

I'll kick myself for using this example, but: Jesus' water to wine. For most people, it's pretty clear cut: Want wine? Point at water, you got it. Not much offensive use for it. However, if you know something about biology and anatomy: Blood content is almost 70% water. You can turn water into wine. You have weaponized W2W. Someone who didn't know that blood was predominantly water might not even consider such: Blood is blood, and water is water. They'd be very unlikely to try it unless pretty desperate. Someone who knew this, however, might be capable of doing it right off the bat.

Knowledge on a matter helps, a lot.

I disagree on some point, water is water and blood is blood was considered as knowledge until someone show it's not. Human's old knowledge was filled with aberration like Earth is flat, or the heart produce blood at infinite. Some continue until our modern time.

Let's take example the gravity, in science a theory was considered as true if you proved it worked and no one can refute. Einstein showed Newton's theory was true in a specific domain and beyond it the gravity works in a different way. This discover was a revolution in the way theory was defined as right or wrong. The current knowledge has been upgraded according to the new change. Even the knowledge can be rewritten in case of need.

It doesn't really exist a stable knowledge.

To comes back to the topic, a creature with inner magic can develop a knowledge on its own based on its natural ability than people with regular magic will have difficulty to understand. The base of human's knowledge is born from the exploitation of his own competence. Why other animal can't reproduce it why because they are not human? Animals are not stupid they just develop their knowledge from their inner competence.

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

@Malahite: your examples have big flaws the second swimmer wait the first test before he tries so he learns from the mistake of the previous but if both try at the same time both will fall.

The guy knows you can't swim in lipids. Why would he try swimming in it (if I got the substance wrong and you CAN swim in Lipids, replace it with another liquid you cannot swim through)?

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

From the second example even if you know gravity to master the spell you have to practice to master it.

That wasn't even a different use of the spell: One person only thinks to cast Featherfall when they're about to fall to their death, another thinks to use it when launching projectiles as well or if they have to make a long jump.

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

I disagree on some point, water is water and blood is blood was considered as knowledge until someone show it's not.

So "water is water and blood is blood" is an invalid excuse because it only lasts until someone shows they're not that different, but featherfall = featherfall doesn't work because it takes more than just knowing the differences?

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

Human's old knowledge was filled with aberration like Earth is flat, or the heart produce blood at infinite. Some continue until our modern time.

This doesn't do well to explain why a Giant Predator should be able to utilize a magical school just as well as an expert on the field, you realize?

And I'm sorry to cut the rest of the new post short, but it sounds to me like a grab to say "Well since human knowledge isn't perfect it doesn't matter but since an animal is naturally attuned to it it's always going to be better."

Malahite wrote:

The guy knows you can't swim in lipids. Why would he try swimming in it (if I got the substance wrong and you CAN swim in Lipids, replace it with another liquid you cannot swim through)?

Someone who learns knows what his master learn him. The fact the master knows it's because they are recorder fact showing it's not impossible, not due to a scientific explanation. It look natural to our modern time but for the pioneer it was not.

Malahite wrote:

That wasn't even a different use of the spell: One person only thinks to cast Featherfall when they're about to fall to their death, another thinks to use it when launching projectiles as well or if they have to make a long jump.

Yes it is, the difference come from their personal experience.
The discover will be more like that. "Hey, what will happen if I use it like?" after the experience "Wow, I didn't know he could be used like that?" I see that in World of Warcraft some people use a spell in different way what it was originally made why because they think on their different experience in game and tries if it possible or not to do that. And the other players who see that will mimic it without necessary understand it.

Many people discover things just by observations and experimentations. It's true in many research in the medical domain advance like that. Experience is always more reliable than theory.

The guy who discovers a curved blade cut better than a straight one was not a scientist but just a simple artisan who just saw it and reproduce it. The scientific explanations come many centuries after.

Malahite wrote:

So "water is water and blood is blood" is an invalid excuse because it only lasts until someone shows they're not that different, but featherfall = featherfall doesn't work because it takes more than just knowing the differences?

One word Experimentations. Someone who did experience on blood will know it blood contains water. Someone who tries many experimentations with the spell will discover it.

Malahite wrote:

This doesn't do well to explain why a Giant Predator should be able to utilize a magical school just as well as an expert on the field, you realize?

Survival in a hostile environment, many animals are natural tacticians. Many tactics are born from observation on animal and some units and operation are named on them. In Felarya many wars happened involving giant predators, titan's rebellions or Dridders/naga wars, and conflicts may happen without necessary the interventions of the guardians.

Malahite wrote:

And I'm sorry to cut the rest of the new post short, but it sounds to me like a grab to say "Well since human knowledge isn't perfect it doesn't matter but since an animal is naturally attuned to it it's always going to be better."

Look most of our knowledge are based from our observation and experience made by humans. Seriously from a wolf point of view it's knowledge about itself is completely different than ours. Even that it doesn't stop the beast to do things we learn in biology.

Edit:I will quote you the story of a 10 year kids who took his mother's car to go to his father's house. The kid drove the car correctly the car in the highway and was arrested because the policemen noticed him. The child learn to drive just by watching both his parents drive and by playing video games simulator. The kids had a few knowledge on driving and car in overall by just mimicking is parents and reproduce it when he was playing he was able to do it.

Mal, you rabid pro-humanist you, stop saying everything I'd say! Actually, no, keep doing it, please.

Gwada, once again, we're not really in disagreement. Of course knowledge requires experimentation. That's basic science. Preds who know tactics do usually learn them, because they have very human lines of thinking when it comes to experience and learning. However, all I'm saying is that knowing the mechanics of something can allow for greater manipulation of it, since you know exactly how it works and can analyze how it interacts with other factors. No, a human mage will probably never cast fire magic as powerfully as a fire naga. But he might know something she doesn't: how to use accelerants, how to use the fire in creative ways instead of pure offense, etc. Or perhaps it's vice-versa: a human has some powerful-ass mech and thinks he's invincible, but the naga analyzes the weak spots in the load-bearing or heat-management (smart, for a naga) and realizes exactly where to strike to cripple the machine. I gave that second scenario so I can't be accused of only using pro-human examples, though let's be honest: if someone's using scientific thinking or strategy in battle, it's probably a human. The other races are usually too arrogant and they don't have the desperate need.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Mal, you rabid pro-humanist you, stop saying everything I'd say! Actually, no, keep doing it, please.

Gwada, once again, we're not really in disagreement. Of course knowledge requires experimentation. That's basic science. Preds who know tactics do usually learn them, because they have very human lines of thinking when it comes to experience and learning. However, all I'm saying is that knowing the mechanics of something can allow for greater manipulation of it, since you know exactly how it works and can analyze how it interacts with other factors. No, a human mage will probably never cast fire magic as powerfully as a fire naga. But he might know something she doesn't: how to use accelerants, how to use the fire in creative ways instead of pure offense, etc. Or perhaps it's vice-versa: a human has some powerful-ass mech and thinks he's invincible, but the naga analyzes the weak spots in the load-bearing or heat-management (smart, for a naga) and realizes exactly where to strike to cripple the machine. I gave that second scenario so I can't be accused of only using pro-human examples, though let's be honest: if someone's using scientific thinking or strategy in battle, it's probably a human. The other races are usually too arrogant and they don't have the desperate need.

Zion you don't understand. Knowing the mechanics is a thing but the mastery is another point, it comes mainly from repetition and repetition until your body learn to do it. Designers always rely on the feedback on the users in order to improve their future creations. Everyone thinks inner abilities mean you don't have to train, it's completely wrong. Because if you don't do that you won't be able to understand or know your own limits and use your ability correctly. Knowledge is the result from the experience of practices. Tells the other races are too arrogant to use science is completely wrong. They possess their own science which are explained differently than us human do but it doesn't mean they don't have their own science or knowledge they won't be able to understand what we do.

Tactics born from analyse and observation of the current situation and knowledge of your own abilities. They exist before the concept of science was created. Science exist to explain phenomenon in order to have a better understandings in order to reproduce. Science knowledge, and abilities are just different tools. In the end everything will depend how they will be used according the situation.

Let's drop this discussion. It will be better

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

Someone who learns knows what his master learn him. The fact the master knows it's because they are recorder fact showing it's not impossible, not due to a scientific explanation. It look natural to our modern time but for the pioneer it was not.

So wait, now the Giant Predators are also taught their magic and have been taught by those well experienced in the field for generations constantly trying different techniques?

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

The discover will be more like that. "Hey, what will happen if I use it like?" after the experience "Wow, I didn't know he could be used like that?" I see that in World of Warcraft some people use a spell in different way what it was originally made why because they think on their different experience in game and tries if it possible or not to do that. And the other players who see that will mimic it without necessary understand it.

So, apparently, there are things that only someone with natural experience can do, but there's nothing that someone could only due with extensive knowledge in a field?

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

Many people discover things just by observations and experimentations. It's true in many research in the medical domain advance like that. Experience is always more reliable than theory.

And Giant Predator experimentation is much more limited due to what materials they can work with, the lack of a driving incentive to experiment, as well as the inability to pass on prior knowledge / pool knowledge with peers in their field.

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

The guy who discovers a curved blade cut better than a straight one was not a scientist but just a simple artisan who just saw it and reproduce it. The scientific explanations come many centuries after.

Apples and oranges. Example of what I mean? You're justifying someone using a practical knowledge (if I use a curved blade, it'll cut better), and comparing it to someone using knowledge that most people aren't even aware of (for instance, it would very likely take someone with knowledge in the matter much less time to mimic this than someone who just saw it once and then tried to mimic it with no knowledge on gravity or the like).

Again, this keeps reading more and more like "Oh yeah, a natural person has all the advantages, but a person who must learn has none."

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

One word Experimentations. Someone who did experience on blood will know it blood contains water. Someone who tries many experimentations with the spell will discover it.

But why would the Giant Predator try it? The only reason for them to try it is solely to justify them learning it as well as a trained person. They have no reason to need to learn about the composition of blood, no incentive to try and weaponize it, no incentive to even look at it (indeed, when you're living in the wild hanging around large quantities of blood is bad), and no tools to even examine it.

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

Many tactics are born from observation on animal and some units and operation are named on them. In Felarya many wars happened involving giant predators, titan's rebellions or Dridders/naga wars, and conflicts may happen without necessary the interventions of the guardians.

And yet they use very simple mechanics (Club > bare hand) and, to my knowledge, those are still the only two main wars. Furthermore, there's very little indication that - beyond Dridders, Fairies, and Dryads - there's any sort of modern civilization to the species. Not even a tribal level. You aren't talking about the difference between scattered tribes learning how to make spears - you're talking about the equivalent of wandering nomads mastering the Steam Engine in a few generations.

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

Edit:I will quote you the story of a 10 year kids who took his mother's car to go to his father's house. The kid drove the car correctly the car in the highway and was arrested because the policemen noticed him. The child learn to drive just by watching both his parents drive and by playing video games simulator. The kids had a few knowledge on driving and car in overall by just mimicking is parents and reproduce it when he was playing he was able to do it.

Mimicry =/= Understanding of how something works. Depending on how complex Felaryan magic is, an attempt at mimicry could even backfire spectacularly depending on how it was tried.

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

Let's drop this discussion. It will be better

Maybe it would, since all it seems to be doing now is "You can do more things if you know how something works." "No, you could just mimic it and try experiments that you have absolutely no mean or incentive to run and then it'd be able to both use magic naturally AND gain the benefits of years / decades / centuries of extensive study." It's going in a circle.

Mal Intelligence=/=Knowledge, it's not because you possess less knowledge than someone doesn't mean he is more stupid than the scholar guy.
Knowledge is a tool for Intelligence and creativity.
In the development of a solution the knowledge stored in a manual guide is literally block over 5000 pages with a lot wall of text. Most developer or researcher don't read them entirely or learn them completely, in reality they search and read the part they need. What they know are what they use more often.
You don't need to know everything to use a system

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

In the development of a solution the knowledge stored in a manual guide is literally block over 5000 pages with a lot wall of text. Most developer or researcher don't read them entirely or learn them completely, in reality they search and read the part they need. What they know are what they use more often.
You don't need to know everything to use a system

And yet, apparently, where perhaps dozens of people have spent hundreds of years studying a subject, another person spending a few decades with a "natural" affinity can at least be their peer without knowing anything they know.

It might just be me and my blatant dislike of fictional prodigy's that can do everything a Master can do at age sixteen, but if you have a coven of Wizards who focus their spells and research around the field of Fire for a few generations I expect them to at least be capable of using a few new / irreplicable tricks over what amounts to a teenager who knows little more than "Fire's hot, when I throw it at people they get hurt, and water puts it out" even though the teenager can "experiment / mimic".

It's not like the kid driving. It's like taking a couple dozen chemists with access to chemical equipment, and taking another kid with a "My First Chemistry Kit" kit and saying "Well since the kid watched the Chemists get [x] result and since he has always been naturally good at science he can make at least as many chemicals as the Chemists with just as much success."

I do think it is possible for some people who work hard and study magic to be better at it that naturals, but IMO that should be an exception. I mean, it is possible to train a dog to walk on its hind legs, but the dog isn't designed for that, it isn't in its instincts, and would be better off doing what it's supposed to. By the same token I think that mages who aren't designed to cast the spells they do should have less power, but more ingenuity and creativity than someone who's built for it.

Malahite wrote:

And yet, apparently, where perhaps dozens of people have spent hundreds of years studying a subject, another person spending a few decades with a "natural" affinity can at least be their peer without knowing anything they know.

The natural affinity make the capacity more natural or familiar to you in order you assimilate it faster. At the origin the first gun where less accurate and powerful than a bow but they offer the advantage to be more easy to assimilate to mastery and require less training because their use were more natural or intuitive than a bow which require a training since childhood. And it was difficult to replace in battle an archer than a gunner.

Malahite wrote:

It might just be me and my blatant dislike of fictional prodigy's that can do everything a Master can do at age sixteen, but if you have a coven of Wizards who focus their spells and research around the field of Fire for a few generations I expect them to at least be capable of using a few new / irreplicable tricks over what amounts to a teenager who knows little more than "Fire's hot, when I throw it at people they get hurt, and water puts it out" even though the teenager can "experiment / mimic".

The irreplicable trick it's the experience which give you more stamina because you are more patient. When you become a master it's just you are more experienced in a particular domain it make you more wiser you know to use the right spell in the right situation in order to win without wasting your energy in useless actions. A young will use everything he has at the beginning and get exhausted quickly. That's why a more experienced mage win over a younger one.

Malahite wrote:

It's not like the kid driving. It's like taking a couple dozen chemists with access to chemical equipment, and taking another kid with a "My First Chemistry Kit" kit and saying "Well since the kid watched the Chemists get [x] result and since he has always been naturally good at science he can make at least as many chemicals as the Chemists with just as much success."

You know a child can learn naturally faster than an adult because when we grow old we lost progressively our brain cells which make we take more time to learn more difficult. To learn doesn't mean to understand. When you offer "My first Chemistry Kit" to child the goal is to make child to be more familiar with chemistry in order when he will become older it will look more natural to him. It can backfire when the child understand quickly than it was planned. What make an adult different than a kid it's more patient when a kid will be bored and loses his focus and adult will still continue and stay focus on what he is doing.

Erm, guys, let's drop this. It's impossible to use something without any practice at all. You think the preds don't get any practice? What do you think they're doing while they aren't eating people?

I would agree they wouldn't be very creative, but that wouldn't be because they don't have practice. They need practical uses for what they can do; preds are more like the guys who'd stick to tried-and-true formulas.

Now, we've got a million generations of stuff, but when you think about it, five years are enough to learn a significant amount of it. Discovering it, not so much... then again, preds do get some tuition. A mage dumb enough to believe in knowledge for all or a fairy feeling people aren't having a hard enough time will certainly make things a bit worse. Now, a completely isolated pred who actually developed enough to rival a hundred-year old student... well, let's just say I'd expect her to be socially incapable of so much as maintaining eye contact, and to mumble strange numbers to herself in her sleep or when confronted.

I personally am not a fan of magic.

Just thought I'd say that.

Pendragon wrote:

I personally am not a fan of magic.

Just thought I'd say that.

's alright, Pen. The only thing it has for me is that "deeply personal" thing... you don't have to like everything.
I love technology too, maybe more, but it lacks that deeply personal connotation magic has, technology works equally for everyone, is by definition indefinitely replicable, and if it doesn't, there's a way to make it so.

Magic is actually kind of a control lever for me with the settings and the characters: what technology can do, it can do again, and again, and again, unless you go out of your way to make it not so. Magic... can abide by stranger rules.

BTW, your stories rock.

Thank ya kindly. I appreciate it.

By the way, I agree with you from earlier. In a positive light, I view magic as a skill, like shoe tying. So naturally, predators born with the ability to conjure should have to practice in it. You can't be born knowing how to tie your shoes, and I think the same applies here.

Yes, but spiders are born with the knowledge of how to spin a web. I'm saying that preds with "natural" magic are likes those spiders. However, someone who studies it and dissects it can make a stronger, more durable "web". I think that sums it up.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Yes, but spiders are born with the knowledge of how to spin a web. I'm saying that preds with "natural" magic are likes those spiders. However, someone who studies it and dissects it can make a stronger, more durable "web". I think that sums it up.

The only problem is, humans cannot replicate the substances spiders spin webs from, at least not at all practically. You can't make honey without bees either, no matter what you try. And even if you could, the bees are designed for it, they were born to do it, and you were not. I bring up the image of a dog walking on its hind legs again - the dog can be taught, but the skill isn't useful for anything but a gimick, its an awkward and physically taxing way of moving and things would be much easier for the dog if it just did what it was meant to.

Jew wrote:

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Yes, but spiders are born with the knowledge of how to spin a web. I'm saying that preds with "natural" magic are likes those spiders. However, someone who studies it and dissects it can make a stronger, more durable "web". I think that sums it up.

The only problem is, humans cannot replicate the substances spiders spin webs from, at least not at all practically. You can't make honey without bees either, no matter what you try. And even if you could, the bees are designed for it, they were born to do it, and you were not. I bring up the image of a dog walking on its hind legs again - the dog can be taught, but the skill isn't useful for anything but a gimick, its an awkward and physically taxing way of moving and things would be much easier for the dog if it just did what it was meant to.

This is very true. However, you neglect to mention what might occur when even greater knowledge than our current reservoir is accumulated. Knowledge supplemented, perhaps, with the existence of magical phenomenon.

Humans can't create the exact web of spiders, true. But we can make a similar substance, and employ it in ways spiders could never dream of. And, with further study, I have no doubt we could synthesize a substance with superior qualities to spiderweb, if we needed to. Look at the field of nanotechnology! Already, we are on our way to creating cheap superconductors and high-tensile filaments out of mere carbon!

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Jew wrote:

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Yes, but spiders are born with the knowledge of how to spin a web. I'm saying that preds with "natural" magic are likes those spiders. However, someone who studies it and dissects it can make a stronger, more durable "web". I think that sums it up.

The only problem is, humans cannot replicate the substances spiders spin webs from, at least not at all practically. You can't make honey without bees either, no matter what you try. And even if you could, the bees are designed for it, they were born to do it, and you were not. I bring up the image of a dog walking on its hind legs again - the dog can be taught, but the skill isn't useful for anything but a gimick, its an awkward and physically taxing way of moving and things would be much easier for the dog if it just did what it was meant to.

This is very true. However, you neglect to mention what might occur when even greater knowledge than our current reservoir is accumulated. Knowledge supplemented, perhaps, with the existence of magical phenomenon.

Humans can't create the exact web of spiders, true. But we can make a similar substance, and employ it in ways spiders could never dream of. And, with further study, I have no doubt we could synthesize a substance with superior qualities to spiderweb, if we needed to. Look at the field of nanotechnology! Already, we are on our way to creating cheap superconductors and high-tensile filaments out of mere carbon!

We are on our way, yep. But the thing with magic is, if tech is schizo sometimes and we have computers but haven't discovered the wheel (Orson Scott Card you SUCK!), magic is doubly so, triply so, quadruply so, infinite times more so.

I agree that studying something should open up more possibilities. But spiders in this case can study their own webs if they want to. You could see they wouldn't want to; do spiders really need cheaper cars? In this case, Zion, let's leave it at "yes, you can". Not everything that's possible winds up happening.

Plus maybe an innate component MAY be important at times. It's magic, Zion, even if in theory it can make you almighty, so can science, and yet in every story the technology is set at a _certain_ level. Same with magic, I'd say, not everything has to be possible right away.

Stabs wrote:

I agree that studying something should open up more possibilities. But spiders in this case can study their own webs if they want to. You could see they wouldn't want to; do spiders really need cheaper cars? In this case, Zion, let's leave it at "yes, you can". Not everything that's possible winds up happening.

Plus maybe an innate component MAY be important at times. It's magic, Zion, even if in theory it can make you almighty, so can science, and yet in every story the technology is set at a _certain_ level. Same with magic, I'd say, not everything has to be possible right away.

That's actually EXACTLY what I'm trying to say. It CAN happen. But it DOESN'T, because the proper components aren't in place.

Both magic and science have their limits: magic in the amount you understand and can manipulate, as well as the energy you can channel; and technology in how much you understand and/or the resources you have available. Plus, everything has a downside: pretty much the "ventilation hole in the muthafucking Death Star" trope (did I just create a new trope? Nah, I'm positively sure there's already something to that effect, even if the name isn't as awesome). Even in real life, it holds true. Look at asymmetrical warfare in Vietnam: the Americans had easily-superior technology, but were far from invincible, because they faced a cunning and tactical enemy.

Magic is magic.

Doesn't need rules set in stone, and to me, an affinity to a type of magic means one has an easier time learning/casting that magic. It does not ban them from casting other types. Now some creatures may not be able to cast certain types of magic, or have a very hard time casting magic at all. But I doubt it would ever be stone hard rule. Quit trying to make magic boring.

Grave wrote:

Magic is magic.

Doesn't need rules set in stone, and to me, an affinity to a type of magic means one has an easier time learning/casting that magic. It does not ban them from casting other types.

That's what my Affinities Idea says

Grave wrote:

Now some creatures may not be able to cast certain types of magic, or have a very hard time casting magic at all. But I doubt it would ever be stone hard rule. Quit trying to make magic boring.

We're not.

Grave wrote:

Magic is magic.

Doesn't need rules set in stone, and to me, an affinity to a type of magic means one has an easier time learning/casting that magic. It does not ban them from casting other types. Now some creatures may not be able to cast certain types of magic, or have a very hard time casting magic at all. But I doubt it would ever be stone hard rule. Quit trying to make magic boring.

We're just trying to create a basic model for how it works. If you actually read what we're saying instead of just making assumptions, you'd see that everyone who favors "rational magic" is also for leaving a lot of room for flexibility.

Boring? I hardly think so. My apologies, however, if some semblance of intellectual thought is daunting to some people.