Why is one type of invisibility more mechanistic or less magical than the other? What metric determines the amount of mechanism or magic in a given fictional construction? Why should we prefer either of these properties, or their inverses?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 8:48:34 PM UTC-7, mike wrote:

Why is one type of invisibility more mechanistic or less magical than the other? What metric determines the amount of mechanism or magic in a given fictional construction? Why should we prefer either of these properties, or their inverses?

The more something is defined in how it works the less magical.
The more sense it makes, the less magical. It's a balance between
the awe of magic and the playability of the game, where eventually
if you keep going down the definition path you end up with boring
system with no magic in more than one sense of the word. If you
go too far the other way you end up not playing a game but theater.

- Justisaur

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 5, 2022 at 11:48:34 PM UTC-4, mike wrote:

Why is one type of invisibility more mechanistic or less magical than the other?
What metric determines the amount of mechanism or magic in a given fictional construction?
Why should we prefer either of these properties, or their inverses?

it does not matter. Just like responding to posts 19 years old.
It is a game and people like to conceptualize things along their own point of view of how the world works. It is part of rationalizing the game into your current world-view or a workable dramatic setting.
Just read the books and the spell and try to implement it as best you can within your game world. That's it really.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)