The original thread for this was five pages long and a little down the list, so I thought I'd start a new post. Got a problem with it?
Oh well.
Can't please everybody, but I'm not terribly keen on answering a message three pages back on a five-page post.
I've well and truly solved the Glowing Staff Problem.
It still involves Vision 3, but I can make real light now.
To target something, I need to see it. Electrons are things, but they are things so tiny that I simply cannot percieve them without the help of Vision 3.
Why are electrons important? Because of their relation to Photons. Photons are most often created when an Electron gets a little energetic. For some reason, it's going faster than it should be. The Atom it's attached to is unstable, and thus the electron drops to a lower energy level, emitting a photon as a way to get rid of that pent-up energy.
This means all I need to do to make light is jostle electrons.
This is still a really difficult way of doing a simple parlour trick: two Master-level vagaries.
Glamour actually creates the things that effect the senses, rather than simple effecting the senses?
So, using Glamour, I could blast someone with a LASER beam, causing permanent and irrecoverable injury (you said this was REAL light.)
I could use sound waves to move objects, and bash someone's head in with my realistic stick.
I don't think I like this. This makes Glamour a REAL DANG GOOD way of killing people and DOING ANYTHING ELSE. It becomes the ONLY VAGARY YOU WILL EVER NEED.
Even if it's just illusion, Glamour is not the same as Conquer. A Glamour will effect anyone trying to percieve the reality behind it, while Conquer can only effect MA living beings. Glamour can create an interactive illusion, while Conquer can only plant an image or a scripted event in a target's head. Pain is a sensation, and therefore a Glamour which is nothing more than illusion can cause it.
And there is overlap between other vagaries. Movement can produce nearly all the effects of Sculpture. Imprisonment and Banishment are both just handy ways of getting rid of inconvenient forces.
Glamour is a mental vagary. Let's leave off before we let it have actual physical effects (one of which is light.)
What about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? :-P
As long as we're using relatively advanced theories of physics to "explain" the uses of magic, we are going to have to include all of it. We could go whole hog and include quantum physics and string theory, if we like. :-)
I'm with Jake's interpretation: you can make light with Glamour. The laser beam would create the illusion of someone being cut in half or whatever, but when the illusion dissipates, he would be whole again. Same goes for deafening sound.
The reason Glamour seems to have too much power is because people are trying to put too much power into it. I can see why people are arguing about it. On the other hand, why are people so hung up about "real light" vs "illusionary light"?
My own interpretation was much simpler: Conjure a glowing spirit, Hold it, and then Imprison it in the end of the staff, or use Conquer to force it to hang around the end of the staff. A Level 1 in each of these is sufficient.
Of course, if you have a glowing spirit, you won't need to stick it on the end of your staff...
I'm going with Jake on this: Glamour can create light. Plain and simple.
Perhaps the whole idea of a "utility" spell is a d&d-type hold over. If your magic has no consequences you sling spells around like nothing, but, suppose you know that there is a consequence (aging in tros' case) that can happen regardless of the precautions you take. Do you take the chance, small as it is, or do you just light a candle.
Stressing the "what are you willing to kill/die for" aspect of tros- are you willing to give up life time just because you didn't bring a lantern or don't know how to pick a lock, or you got cold, etc? In some instances you might, in some you won't.
Another thought I had, perhaps "light" isn't as easy a spell to make happen as we might think. Again, this "utility" spell concept may be a hold over from game systems where there is no consequence to your spell casting. Perhaps adding our perceptions of modern science to the creation and use of magic is again adding simplicity to something that should be complex.
Why wouldn't a mage just use a fire to light the room?
The whole idea of using/manipulating protons and electrons to create effects may not be applicable for the tech level and time period of the game.
I probably wouldn't allow Glamour to make light, as it is written, and after thinking about it, I'll probably just tell players that if they want light they better bring something to burn.
Glamour works by sublimating the neuro electric pathways of the brain in a manner simulating a prefabricated reality germanated by the immagination of the caster ( In effect entwining an overwhelming (hopefully) copy of of a brainwave pattern based on the casters own EEG pattern onto that of the target creature) . Because the effect targets the brainwaves directly (thus needing a target value of 3 to effect other people) it simulates any effect the caster is able to envision within his/her mind. This is limited to the accuracy and perception of the caster. If you can't see the maze, you can't guide someone through it with glowing arrows. This statement brings rise to a host of variables that must be dealt with on a case buy case basis. Things such as how well the illusion is represented might be based on the artistic skill of the caster. Based on the believability of the environment into which the mind is placed, it will within its experience act accordingly. However without the incorporation of other vagaries to support it, it is in fact nothing more then a superimposed vision of a complexity in accordance with the spell description that the target can interact with (of its own free will). So in my opinion, your initial belief that vision or some other Vagary as a required component is correct. As would be Movement to physically damage anyone with a laser beam. You can make light, yes; however you would still walk into the wall that you couldn't see (all the while pretending it wasn't there). Glamour is only superimposing your reality for natures, and your reality is only as detailed or accurate as what you make it. I do think that the paradigms of technological context should be considered, if not obeyed. However, I think that the system lends itself quite nicely to the incorporation/adjudication of any realistic, sci-fi, or fantasy scientific strictures desired by whoever is playing the game.
{String theory would only come into play if the caster were trying to prove the fall off of gravity into another dimension. (First dimension as far as light is concerned being a laser beam inside a fiber optic cable, etc, etc...) As for Photon based lighting, you would still have to gather the photons and interpret them in some manner, try using Global Illumination. Or use the ambient color of the materials to generate a Final Gathering. For fun, try caustics in your refractive materials. (you have to have photon emitting lights though) Lol.}
Anthony: Bingo.
Quote from: Bob RichterGlamour actually creates the things that effect the senses, rather than simple effecting the senses?
So, using Glamour, I could blast someone with a LASER beam, causing permanent and irrecoverable injury (you said this was REAL light.)
I could use sound waves to move objects, and bash someone's head in with my realistic stick.
From where I'm coming from, that statement would be true. If you had knowledge of a laser beam, you could direct it at someone. No problem. And it would, as I far as I understand it kill them dead (so long as they believed it). And then, they would wake up...and not be dead. Same goes for the stick.
Now, understand that this is how
I see Glamour working. I agree, it does raise some interesting issues, but interactive illusions are at the core of what Glamour is.
Quote from: arxhonMy own interpretation was much simpler: Conjure a glowing spirit, Hold it, and then Imprison it in the end of the staff, or use Conquer to force it to hang around the end of the staff. A Level 1 in each of these is sufficient.
Although it avoids the "issue" entirely, this is certainly another way to accomplish the required goal of lighting a room. Nice.
Quote from: Anthony IPerhaps the whole idea of a "utility" spell is a d&d-type hold over. If your magic has no consequences you sling spells around like nothing, but, suppose you know that there is a consequence (aging in tros' case) that can happen regardless of the precautions you take. Do you take the chance, small as it is, or do you just light a candle.
Excellent point. It's a good rule of thumb in many instances... bring fire. Seriously though, I agree with Anthony. We should be careful (and by we, I am stressing the me part) with our assumptions concerning the cost/benefit ratio of
basic spells. If it can siphon off a portion of your life...is it
basic?
Chris
reminds me of what I call the matrix effect. If you trick the mind sufficiently it might as well be real, including death from shock etc. So I woudl allow the players and npc's to make a save of sorts should they somehow be shot by a glamour laser beam or like effect.
QuoteGlamour works by sublimating the neuro electric pathways....(et al)
LMAO! Sweeet stuff, Rick! :-) The point i was trying to make is that people are putting too much science into the magic. Which i guess was bound to happen with the scientific explanations given in Book 6.
QuoteAlthough it avoids the "issue" entirely, this is certainly another way to accomplish the required goal of lighting a room. Nice.
Yeah, it does avoid the issue, but that's because it is simpler. And yes, i think it is nice as well. Thank you. :-)
QuoteWe should be careful (and by we, I am stressing the me part) with our assumptions concerning the cost/benefit ratio of basic spells. If it can siphon off a portion of your life...is it basic?
I say, unequivocally, NO. That's the thing with magic. Again while dancing around the issue somewhat, i agree that no magic in TROS is equivalent to a
Light spell from D&D, i.e. there is no
basic magic.
I agree with Anthony I here as well.
I'm afraid we can all argue until everyone is blue in the face about Glamour, and not get anywhere. Instead of pendantically overanalyzing it, why not just accept that Glamour can create light? Probably because overanalysis is fun ;-)
Quote from: arxhonWhat about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle? :-P
It doesn't apply, actually. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle only applies to things I'm not certain about. With Vision 3, I know EXACTLY where that Electron is, when it's there, and how fast its moving (No matter that physics deems that impossible.) Probability collapses and Schrodinger's Cat is dead.
QuoteAs long as we're using relatively advanced theories of physics to "explain" the uses of magic, we are going to have to include all of it. We could go whole hog and include quantum physics and string theory, if we like. :-)
Oh, pooh. Photon Emission is too advanced for you? :P
QuoteI'm with Jake's interpretation: you can make light with Glamour. The laser beam would create the illusion of someone being cut in half or whatever, but when the illusion dissipates, he would be whole again. Same goes for deafening sound.
Is it real light or sound, or only a perfectly realistic illusion thereof? If it's real, it can cut a man in half or turn his bones to jelly...PERMANENTLY (real light and sound have real and lasting effects.) If it's NOT real, it can't light a room, period (tho it can certainly appear to.)
QuoteThe reason Glamour seems to have too much power is because people are trying to put too much power into it. I can see why people are arguing about it. On the other hand, why are people so hung up about "real light" vs "illusionary light"?
Real light can light a room. Illusory light cannot. Seems pretty simple to me.
QuoteMy own interpretation was much simpler: Conjure a glowing spirit, Hold it, and then Imprison it in the end of the staff, or use Conquer to force it to hang around the end of the staff. A Level 1 in each of these is sufficient.
Spirit summoning? Ye gods! I think I'll just bring a torch.
Quote from: Anthony IPerhaps the whole idea of a "utility" spell is a d&d-type hold over. If your magic has no consequences you sling spells around like nothing, but, suppose you know that there is a consequence (aging in tros' case) that can happen regardless of the precautions you take. Do you take the chance, small as it is, or do you just light a candle.
Stressing the "what are you willing to kill/die for" aspect of tros- are you willing to give up life time just because you didn't bring a lantern or don't know how to pick a lock, or you got cold, etc? In some instances you might, in some you won't.
Another thought I had, perhaps "light" isn't as easy a spell to make happen as we might think. Again, this "utility" spell concept may be a hold over from game systems where there is no consequence to your spell casting. Perhaps adding our perceptions of modern science to the creation and use of magic is again adding simplicity to something that should be complex.
Why wouldn't a mage just use a fire to light the room?
The whole idea of using/manipulating protons and electrons to create effects may not be applicable for the tech level and time period of the game.
I probably wouldn't allow Glamour to make light, as it is written, and after thinking about it, I'll probably just tell players that if they want light they better bring something to burn.
First, D&D does have penalties for casting spells. You only get so many of them in a day, so each spell has an immediate and obvious opportunity cost.
In TROS you risk only losing a few months off your life, which won't matter until years down the road anyway.
Protons and Electrons exist, regardless of technology and time period. Vision 3 lets you see them. Movement lets you manipulate them.
Knowing the effects of doing so would only require having tried it once or twice.
What's the point of being a Magician if you don't use spells, anyway?
And if you use spells, why not use spells for EVERYTHING?
There's a lot of reasons not to use fire for illumination.
For one, it's FIRE. Fire will kill you. First, it can burn you to death. Second, it competes for the same oxygen you are breathing.
For another, it's FIRE. You have to bring along some very bulky "material components" to keep a fire going for a decent amount of time.
Finally, it's FIRE. It provides a flickering illumination, not the near-daylight of an Incandescent Lightbulb. It simply won't much impress the yokels.
Why does the idea of glamour seem to slip into 'it tricks your mind' territory again. Obviously you can play that way, but from what I've read here in other posts, its akin to saying telekinesis is just magic telling your mind somthing is being lifted, and it isn't really.
the way I see it is simple, Magic alters reality, and how it does so is up tointerpretation I suppose but I figure galmour is the really spooky vagary that not only alters reality but temporarily changes it and creates a new reality, albeit temporarily.
QuoteIn TROS you risk only losing a few months off your life, which won't matter until years down the road anyway.
Unless you happen to fall unconscious at an inopportune time, then it matters immediately.
QuoteProtons and Electrons exist, regardless of technology and time period. Vision 3 lets you see them. Movement lets you manipulate them.
Vision 3 doesn't say or imply that you can see things on a molecular level. This was something I had meant to ask about before- is there some offical errata that lead you to this conclusion or is it just the popular interpetation?
Vision (at least the clairvoyance aspect) lets you view events like you're there. I read this as in the same room or nearby. I see the magnification aspects being used to see small details, but I still read Vision 3 as similar to 1 and 2 but with no range limitations. Am I missing the trees for the forest on this one?
I'd say its a stretch to say that this allows you to see events on a molecular level...but with the proviso that since it's your game, you interpet it how you want.
QuoteWhat's the point of being a Magician if you don't use spells, anyway?
And if you use spells, why not use spells for EVERYTHING?
1) lots of people on Weyrth would like to see you burn at the stake for performing witchcraft.
2) you greatly increase your chance of something going wrong. Of course, if your character concept is a mage living on the edge, reveling in his power and doesn't care if he burns out....well, that's okay too.
QuoteThere's a lot of reasons not to use fire for illumination....Finally, it's It simply won't much impress the yokels.
I think that I'll just use Conquer to make the yokels impressed by everything I do ;>
Quote from: NoonWhy does the idea of glamour seem to slip into 'it tricks your mind' territory again. Obviously you can play that way, but from what I've read here in other posts, its akin to saying telekinesis is just magic telling your mind somthing is being lifted, and it isn't really.
Not at all. Glamour is the magic of illusion. It is supposed to trick the senses. Saying that it does anything more (or less) than that is rather like saying telekinesis can be used to make direct mind-to-mind contact with another being (that would be telepathy, actually.)
Quote from: Ashren Va'Halethe way I see it is simple, Magic alters reality, and how it does so is up tointerpretation I suppose but I figure galmour is the really spooky vagary that not only alters reality but temporarily changes it and creates a new reality, albeit temporarily.
So....how do things revert back to reality when I come out of this fantasy land where the room is lighted by my staff?
I'd tend to think I'd be right back in the same pitchblack cavern I started in, no? So I'm thinking it actually wouldn't have accomplished my objective.
Quote from: Anthony IVision 3 doesn't say or imply that you can see things on a molecular level. This was something I had meant to ask about before- is there some offical errata that lead you to this conclusion or is it just the popular interpetation?
It doesn't say it, but it does imply it. You'll notice the other levels of Vision list a maximum magnification. Vision 3 doesn't and goes on to say that you can see ANYTHING, implying that infinite magnification is available, yes?
QuoteI think that I'll just use Conquer to make the yokels impressed by everything I do ;>
Not if there's more than MA yokels, nor if any of them are particularly strong-minded, you won't.
Conquer has its abilities, and it has its limits. Glamour is much better for impressing large crowds.
Guys.. this "discussion" is going to go nowhere until you can at least agree on some common ground.
Some of you are arguing on the basis that Glamour is "mind affecting illusion" only, and others are arguing based on glamour being "fae magic that can affect reality but only for a short while".
What we end up with is two unrelated points of view, and each side arguing the merits of their point of view without really acknowledging the other. This makes the thread a bit pointless really, may as well be pissing in the wind.
The whole "Glamour is this" "No it's not, it's this" "you're wrong" "no, you're wrong" is a bit tiresome. How about everyone starts off fresh by acknowledging the other side and discussing *that*, or just agree to disagree and drop the whole thing. There are clearly folk on both sides who are not going to be swayed here.
Brian.
eloquently stated brian... and out of curiousity, which side do people fall on in this difference of opinion? Myself, I lean more towards the temporary alteration of reality.
I politely disagree with the "alteration of reality" concept, for reasons explained below.
I am more on the side of "mind affecting only".
If Glamour affected reality, even briefly, then by extension, one could make the duration constant, and thereby make the temporary alteration permanent. This would make Sculpture, Growth and Conquer redundant.
Please, let's stay away from "perceptiopn IS reality", or this argument will bog down into a philosophical debate on the nature of reality on Weyrth.
Unless a particular games rules for illusions say otherwise, I've always treated illusions like a Mirage or Hologram. The illusion isn't just inside the targets mind, but an external image that tries to fool the senses of all targets within range. A target believes its real if it fools their senses. For an image to be physically seen it must create or affect light.
Though I'm not too keen on the idea of it creating a real effect that is later undone, such as an illusion actually burning an object then later it is unburned. I prefer that it simply appears to have burned, but in actuality the object was never harmed. Thats just my opinion, though.
redcrow, the only times I let it affect reality is when it fools all the senses, because if it fools all the senses perfectly how different is it really from reality? If you see the wall, feel the wall, taste the wall and even smell the wall... your companions will wonder why you are tasting and smelling a wall.... in other words would it be different from a real wall? if you run into it you will feel like you ran into a wall, if you kick it it will feel like you kicked a wall... if you cut it with your sword it would feel like you just tried to cut a wall with your sword. I hope this clarifies my stance.
Quote from: Ashren Va'Haleredcrow, the only times I let it affect reality is when it fools all the senses, because if it fools all the senses perfectly how different is it really from reality? If you see the wall, feel the wall, taste the wall and even smell the wall... your companions will wonder why you are tasting and smelling a wall.... in other words would it be different from a real wall? if you run into it you will feel like you ran into a wall, if you kick it it will feel like you kicked a wall... if you cut it with your sword it would feel like you just tried to cut a wall with your sword. I hope this clarifies my stance.
Sure, and I agree with this to a point. However, what happens when one target's senses are fooled by the illusion of a wall, but another's senses are not? Additionally, I would posit that the more senses an illusion seeks to fool, the more difficult it would be to create. Glamour seems like a fairly simple illusion, so most likely it has nothing more than a sight component and possibly sound. Thats just my opinion, though.
I always figured the illusion to affect the environment in general, target 0 or 1, it affects all who can "participate" if you get my drift. Since my view of glamour is that it affects all who can participate while yours is mental based we have a problem reconciling our views based on your point. As for it being harder to fool multiple senses I think you are right, I use the levels of the vagary to represent this, based on the realism component of the vagary, on page 106 of revised edition it states "The illusion perfectly simulates reality."
This is really the basis for all of what I have been saying about glamour.
read all the descriptions of what glamour does at level three and you will understand exactly what I mean.
From the rules in the book, I always got the impression that illusion effected everybody within range of whatever senses are being effected... if your doing it so you're effecting only one individual by messing with his mind then by definition, you're using the conquer vagary.
Quote from: Bob RichterQuote from: NoonWhy does the idea of glamour seem to slip into 'it tricks your mind' territory again. Obviously you can play that way, but from what I've read here in other posts, its akin to saying telekinesis is just magic telling your mind somthing is being lifted, and it isn't really.
Not at all. Glamour is the magic of illusion. It is supposed to trick the senses. Saying that it does anything more (or less) than that is rather like saying telekinesis can be used to make direct mind-to-mind contact with another being (that would be telepathy, actually.)
Well, that's not really what Jake mentions. Not that he'll send a hit squad around if you play it any other way, of course! :)
I think the idea isn't that Glamour tricks the senses, it instead tricks reality itself. Ie, you can cross a bridge made of glamour...if it were just tricking the senses, well, although you'd feel all safe on a bridge, you'd actually be a broken heap at the bottom. Conquer does this sort of fun more directly, or so I'm lead to believe, so its not so much Glamours area.
Mind you, it can be used as just sensory illusion, whatever works. I'm just running off one of the authors spins on it, which isn't concrete for everyone, of course.
As Brian said, why don't people just say which side of the table their on, when they make a post. That way, if your on the other side on how it works, you know just to skip that post...you can't really add to it, when you don't agree with its underlying principles.
And fortunately, it being an RPG, we don't have to all use the same underlying principles. :)
Quote from: NoonQuote from: Bob RichterQuote from: NoonWhy does the idea of glamour seem to slip into 'it tricks your mind' territory again. Obviously you can play that way, but from what I've read here in other posts, its akin to saying telekinesis is just magic telling your mind somthing is being lifted, and it isn't really.
Not at all. Glamour is the magic of illusion. It is supposed to trick the senses. Saying that it does anything more (or less) than that is rather like saying telekinesis can be used to make direct mind-to-mind contact with another being (that would be telepathy, actually.)
Well, that's not really what Jake mentions. Not that he'll send a hit squad around if you play it any other way, of course! :)
I think the idea isn't that Glamour tricks the senses, it instead tricks reality itself. Ie, you can cross a bridge made of glamour...if it were just tricking the senses, well, although you'd feel all safe on a bridge, you'd actually be a broken heap at the bottom. Conquer does this sort of fun more directly, or so I'm lead to believe, so its not so much Glamours area.
Mind you, it can be used as just sensory illusion, whatever works. I'm just running off one of the authors spins on it, which isn't concrete for everyone, of course.
As Brian said, why don't people just say which side of the table their on, when they make a post. That way, if your on the other side on how it works, you know just to skip that post...you can't really add to it, when you don't agree with its underlying principles.
And fortunately, it being an RPG, we don't have to all use the same underlying principles. :)
If a Glamour can allow you to cross a river upon a stone bridge, Sculpture is redundant.
There IS a middle ground between the view that makes Sculpture, Movement, and Growth meaningless by overpowering Glamour and the view that makes Growth replicated and exceeded by Conquer, and it is this:
Glamour is the magic of illusion (this is from the book, folks, not my own silly opinion.)
The Glamour vagary is used to create glamours.
Anyone interacting with said glamours are led to believe that they are seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, or smelling whatever the glamour is intended to simulate.
Better yet, it can be a perfectly interactive illusion. A Glamour-sword might strike a man down with the belief that he is critically injured (or even dead.) A glamour torch might set an entire villiage ablaze...
...but when the glamour subsides, it will become obvious that what has passed before has been nothing but illusion.
Of course, it's really more or less a mental thing. Glamour bridges can't really support your weight. Glamour photons can't really light a room (or burn a hole through someone while boiling his insides.) The rule is that Glamour has *NO* physical effects, lasting or otherwise, save the ones caused by the living mind.
Conquer is considerably more limited in this respect. First, you have to target a mind (Glamour lacks this requirement.) automatically raising your CTN by 3. Second, you can NEVER effect more than ten targets at once with Conquer. (while a single glamour could easily effect ten thousand or more.) Conquer effects will also have NO interactivity, which could easily lead the target of a conquer-illusion to question what he's being led to believe.
Conquer is fun.
But you ought to see what a ten-foot-tall Glamour-Demon does to your average army. :)
Quite Noon. Jake uses Glamour the way it is used in Pendragon. Pendragon is VERY explicit about the reality tricking (i.e. not merely mind game illusion) nature of glamour.
A Glamour bridge in Pendragon absolutely CAN support your weight it is every bit as real as a real bridge...while it lasts. Its Fey Reality...and Fey Reality isn't supposed to make sense when it interacts with our reality.
The TROS text regarding Glamour isn't unfortuneately as clearly laid out. Giving rise to these disagreements. As you say, fortuneately we can all play the way we want. But it strikes me that if it was meant to be "Illusion" the name of the vagary would have been "Illusion"
Quote from: ValamirQuite Noon. Jake uses Glamour the way it is used in Pendragon. Pendragon is VERY explicit about the reality tricking (i.e. not merely mind game illusion) nature of glamour.
A Glamour bridge in Pendragon absolutely CAN support your weight it is every bit as real as a real bridge...while it lasts. Its Fey Reality...and Fey Reality isn't supposed to make sense when it interacts with our reality.
The TROS text regarding Glamour isn't unfortuneately as clearly laid out. Giving rise to these disagreements. As you say, fortuneately we can all play the way we want. But it strikes me that if it was meant to be "Illusion" the name of the vagary would have been "Illusion"
On the other hand, used that way, it actually makes the three physical vagaries entirely useless. Effectively, you end up with one vagary that does all the jobs of four(+) vagaries. That's disgusting. It's way overpowered. Even if you don't think in terms of Game Balance, isn't that even SLIGHTLY disturbing?
It disturbs me, thus why Glamour will never take on this super-powered definition in my games.
By the way, Illusion and Glamour are sometimes synonyms, whenever Glamour is meant more specifically than just "Magic Spell."