Random thoughts on magic...

[prophet118]

ya know bob, at some of them quotes, i couldnt figure out who the heck you were quoting................ok most of them i couldnt figure out... even the one by me seemed more eloquent than i usually am

[Bob Richter]

As Seneschal, I may have final say, but to create a good game my rulings have to be consistent. If I am arbitrary, random or capricious, I will not be able to create a believable backdrop for the players. I will also likely cause frustrations and hurt feelings.

Um. So be consistent. It really isn't that hard.

If we establish at the beginning that the magic is based on real world physics, then I must accept arguments from the players that are also based on real world physics.

Magic has to be based on SOME kind of physics.

I don't think changing the physics of the world creates headaches.

Really? Posit any single change to real-world physics and I can come up with a number of headaches it will cause.

Look at invisibility. This is an effect which often appears in
RPGs, movies, books, even TV. Now, I've often seen invisibility criticized. The argument goes like this...If the light photons are passing through the body without reacting to it in any way, then they are also passing through the invisible person's retina without reacting to the retina. In order to have an invisible person who can still see, there would have to be some sort of visual distortion where the person's eyes were.

What you're talking about is a magical super-science effect -- it just works, it doesn't matter how -- it's a premise of the story. This works great for any other kind of Magic system but TROS's.

TROS requires you (as the sorceror) to explain everything you do with magic. In TROS, the best way (I'd say the only way) to create invisibility is with Glamour.

In fact, most people do not have a strong understanding of physics--at least not beyond the intuitive level. Discarding physics beyond that level will probably only be noticed by the scientists in the group--and most of them have gotten used to ignoring such things in fiction.

Neh. Most of them actually get annoyed by fiction authors doing that sort of thing.

Eh. I dunno. What's "beyond the intuitive level" mean, precisely? Particle physics makes perfect sense to me.

Far from creating headaches, ignoring high-level real world science often removes them. Do you really want to stop a fantasy game to go into detailed explanations of quantum mechanics, superstrings, thermodynamics and stuff that most people basically don't care about. It's not important to the characters. It's not neccessary for the world. Why do that to yourself and your players.

Um. Name one place where superstrings would come up in TROS play.
Ditto for Quantum Mechanics (actually, with the Vision Vagary, Quantum Mechanics becomes ridiculous and silly.)
Thermodynamics is pretty intuitive.

As for the "no gunpowder in fantasy settings" issue, I have often seen GMs in games rule that gunpowder simply doesn't work. This often arises when you have a newish player with a lot of chemistry knowledge (and who hasn't yet developed the ability to seperate player knowledge from character knowledge). Given that crude gunpowder is relatively easy to make, they will usually try to have their character "invent" gunpoweder in the game world.

Pah. Horsepuckey.

1) Speaking of Middle Earth specifically, we KNOW gunpowder works because there are fireworks.

2) I want to reach out and strangle that GM. You mean we actually got to the point where we had to roundly declare that gunpowder doesn't work?
"Your character doesn't know what saltpetre is. "
(player explains how to find saltpetre in nature.)
a) "But how would your CHARACTER know that?"
b) "You don't see any of that."


Using real-world knowledge to solve an RPG problem shouldn't work in every case BUT chemisty. Players acting OOC is a whole different issue.

I think it is important for both the players and the GM to have a common understanding on how the world works.

The world works the way the Seneschal says it does in each specific case. Otherwise, you end up trying to explain "how Joe NPC dodged that sword swing" to a guy demonstrating his technique to you.

Well, on the one hand I prefer a magic system that rewards creativity. If a player makes a convincing argument for why a certian vagary could create a certian effect, I'll allow it.

The magic system we have rewards creativity. Steving is something entirely different. It's BSing to try to make things do things they shouldn't.

All you're doing by replacing physics with "symbolism" is
1) Making steving easier.
2) Crippling guys who actually understand physics better than steving.

Personally, I find extending the movment vagary to be a huge problem. Once I do that, and allow the acceleration of molecules, then I have established an in-game precident that, I feel, greatly complicates things. I've just introduced a level of real-world science that, quite frankly, I don't want to have to deal with. One that I feel is ultimately detrimental to the tone of the game.

Well, go ahead and cut all the example spells that deal with molecules, then. Armor of Air and Freeze, for just two examples.

Creating heat doesn't require an extension of the vagary -- it's already there. Temperature is speed.

Extending the Growth vagary allows me to include heating and cooling effects without introducing unwanted elements into my game. It is an addition to the rules that is unlikely to generate problems, questions and inconsistencies.

define "unwanted."

CRAP is unwanted in my games, and that's what that explanation is.

Same goes for growth. The rules don't say weather or not it affects the object's weight.

They used to and they should.

And, actually, they're not entirely silent on the point.

p109 states that matter can not be created from nothing.

Which means that Plague of the Giant can't do what the rules for that spell seem to think it does.

[prophet118]

im sure by invisibility you mean, actual invisibility, not just something else... take the vampiric discipline of Obfuscate, the lower levels of it have nothing to do with disappearing, what you do is make them avoid you

something that could be done with conquer, very easily, though it would have to be a spell you maintain

[contracycle]

Really? Posit any single change to real-world physics and I can come up with a number of headaches it will cause.

Bob, this is pointless.  I agree that mucking about with science can give science types headaches; but its not like this is SF, is it?  I mean, its fantasy, with wizards and monsters and everything; scientific accuracy is not part of the social contract inherent to FRPG.

I presume you are unable to play Mage, becuase it messes with physics.  I presume any world with any gods and/or magic whatsoever cause you these problems, as all of them are major violations of physics.  Presumably, Kult was from your perspective Anathema, positing as it did that our world and our physics were nothing more than constructs of our own mind to keep us in our self-forged metaphysical chains.

If you started from scratch, and imagined a "physics" composed of, say, the five elements in L5R, then whether or not gunpowder works in Rokugan is no more than poetic license and has nothing to do with physics at all.

[Bob Richter]

I agree that mucking about with science can give science types headaches;

Good. That was my point.

[prophet118]

the easiest way to do it, is to just not think too hard about it... its really simple..

[rikiwarren]

Bob, I understand and even respect your opinion. You seem to enjoy a highly-scientific interpretation of the TROS rules, and you seem to have no problems with what I see as inconsistencies in those rules. Great. My comments and suggestions were obviously not aimed at you. They were aimed at any other gamers out there who, like myself, are uncomfortable with this highly-scientific interpretation.  

I do resent the apparent attitude that your interpretation is the one and only way to play TROS. That is clearly not true, as many people have posted that they prefer a looser system.  

Part of our disagreement may have to do with word choice. When I talk about changing the world's physics, I'm really talking about taking that knowledge out of the game world, and black boxing the magical effects in a way that particle physics and other sciences are not necessary to explain events. What happens under the surface may or may not conform to modern scientific theories. But it doesn't matter and is not part of the game itself.

As an example of what I'm talking about, lets take a look at Star Trek. This is a program that has a well-established history of using questionable (at best) science. Yet it is beloved by many in the science and technology world.

I think they can get away with this, precisely because they usually black box the actual science. We get to see toys that have very impressive effects. There's a lot of pseudo-technobable. But it's all on the surface. They very rarely get down to the real nitty gritty and try to explain how any of these things actually work (and when they do, it's usually a mistake).

A similar black boxing of magical effects can be done in TROS--and it doesn't even require changing the rules.

Move moves things. Sculpture reshapes them. Grow makes them bigger or smaller. There's no need to sink to the level of molecules and particle physics to find an explanation. And any attempt to do so will just open a pandora's box that is, in my opinion, best left closed, locked, chained up and tossed into the ocean.

This is where we get to my problems with TROS--and specifically with the way TROS sorcery has been interpreted in many parts of this forum.  I object to the inclusion of science, not because I don't like science. Not because I don't understand it. But because once we begin explaining spell effects at a certain level of scientific realism, a number of problems, contradictions, issues and questions instantly arise.  

Blacked boxed science (especially in a fantasy story) is better than bad science. And, in my opinion, any attempt to make the spells presented in TROS scientifically accurate involves bad science.

I have presented a number of problems, questions and contradictions throughout this thread. You haven't offered any way of solving them. The response I seem to be getting is that you can choose which aspects of science you want to include, and which you want to exclude, and anyone who objects to your decision is wrong.

These inconsistencies in presentation are what causes headaches. And if you want to convince me that TROS magic is headache free, address the concerns I have raised. For simplicity, let's focus on the Plague of the Dwarf (or Giant).

As written, the spells only effects are 1) They change the target's size (with or without a corresponding weight change is open to debate), It reduces the target's ST and TO by one point per every 30% of reduction.

Now, assuming that we are compressing the atoms, for a hard science interpretation of the spell, how do you explain the following:

1) The target's density should increase as they are reduced, making them more resistant to damage.  

2) How does their reduced biology still work in a non-reduced environment.  

That will do for a start.

Here are some other thoughts, in no particular order:

On Gunpowder:  

Gandolf's possession of fireworks hardly proves the existence of gunpowder as we know it. His fireworks could very well be created through a mystical (rather than chemical) process. Or even a combination of mystical and chemical processes.

Frozen/Armor of Air:

On page 107 it says that Vision is necessary to affect any minuscule targets. Neither of these spells have Vision. They are not affecting the air molecules directly. Rather, they are affecting the volume of air around the target.

Movement for Heat:

No where in the Movement vagary does it say that it can be used for heating/cooling. Specifically, the speed examples are strictly discussing linear speed, not vibrational. If anything, accelerating or decelerating the vibrations of molecules would be an animation effect. And Move 3 only lets you move objects with the grace of a predatory cat. Impressive to be sure, but hardly on par with the rapid and precise control needed to change the vibrational speed of a molecule.

While you have objected to my extending the Growth vagary, because it possibly opens sorcery and allows any vagary to do anything, I say that extending Movement to include heat effects by accelerating or decelerating the motion of molecules allows Movement to perform nearly any effect.

If I can move individual molecules, I should be able to reshape objects by moving their molecules--creating any Sculpture effect. I should be able to move the molecules in the targets brain cells to stimulate the firing of specific neurons, giving me Conquer abilities. I should be able to diddle with their retina to create visual Glamor effects.  

Any effect that has been attributed to nanotechnology would be possible--including repairing the damage done to a person's body at a sub-cellular level. This would allow them to heal old age, allowing them to apparently grow younger--something specifically forbidden by the TROS rules.

On Growth and the Creation of Matter:

Yes, the rules do say that matter cannot be created from nothing. But this has two possible interpretations.

1) Using a looser definition of "created from nothing" would still allow us to increase or decrease the amount of matter. For example, I couldn't suddenly create flame in mid-air. I could, however, cause the flame from a torch to grow fill a room. I couldn't create a boulder from nothing, but I could grow a pebble into a 10 ton boulder.

This method is more consistent with many of the descriptions in the book (Oujha picking up the barbarian on his fingertip, the stat changes in Curse of the Dwarf).

2) Using a strict conservation of matter interpretation.

Saying that something cannot be created from nothing is very different from saying that there must be a strict conservation of matter.

-Rich-

[Bob Richter]

Part of our disagreement may have to do with word choice. When I talk about changing the world's physics, I'm really talking about taking that knowledge out of the game world, and black boxing the magical effects in a way that particle physics and other sciences are not necessary to explain events. What happens under the surface may or may not conform to modern scientific theories. But it doesn't matter and is not part of the game itself.

How do you black-box something that the sorceror can actually SEE?

Vision can see minute particles. Movement can move them.

Clearly something has to be done to DEAL with them, unless those conditions are NOT true, which they are in the rules as presented.

I do agree with this concept of yours, however it is NOT supported by the TROS magic rules, and attempts to restrict it will only annoy players like me.

These inconsistencies in presentation are what causes headaches. And if you want to convince me that TROS magic is headache free, address the concerns I have raised. For simplicity, let's focus on the Plague of the Dwarf (or Giant).

As written, the spells only effects are 1) They change the target's size (with or without a corresponding weight change is open to debate), It reduces the target's ST and TO by one point per every 30% of reduction.

Now, assuming that we are compressing the atoms, for a hard science interpretation of the spell, how do you explain the following:

1) The target's density should increase as they are reduced, making them more resistant to damage.  

2) How does their reduced biology still work in a non-reduced environment.  

1) Density isn't everything. Distance to vital organs is also important. You may not be able to step on the guy, but burning him becomes a LOT easier. TO also doesn't seem to have much to do with physics. It's apparently a largely narrative attribute.
2) It doesn't. So they die. Have a problem with that?

The spell's effects, as described, are wrong. They need fixing. That is all.

Gandolf's possession of fireworks hardly proves the existence of gunpowder as we know it. His fireworks could very well be created through a mystical (rather than chemical) process. Or even a combination of mystical and chemical processes.

However, they prove the existence of some kind of gunpowder. No matter how it works, it has the same effects. Gandalf was a very minimalist Wizard. He didn't use Magicks where he didn't have to.

The simplest explanation is that gunpowder is present and works the way you'd expect.

Frozen/Armor of Air:

On page 107 it says that Vision is necessary to affect any minuscule targets. Neither of these spells have Vision. They are not affecting the air molecules directly. Rather, they are affecting the volume of air around the target.

Frozen and Armor of Air are actually even worse than that. They effect something you cannot see AT ALL -- air. Air doesn't exist as a volume, that's just an abstraction. It's nothing but free-floating molecules. You can't effect air as a large object, only as individual molecules.

But try Fold out. Fold is tragically flawed in other ways, but definately effects Molecules.

No where in the Movement vagary does it say that it can be used for heating/cooling.

Don't say it can't either.

But it can accelerate and decelerate objects. Does the term "friction" mean anything to you? That was how the old "make fire" spells worked.

I'd say maneuverability and speed would be used in conjunction to control vibration. Animation is used for large, complex things, like zombies, skeletons, and empty suits of armor.

While you have objected to my extending the Growth vagary, because it possibly opens sorcery and allows any vagary to do anything, I say that extending Movement to include heat effects by accelerating or decelerating the motion of molecules allows Movement to perform nearly any effect.

It's not an extension. It's all right there in the Sorcery section.

If I can move individual molecules, I should be able to reshape objects by moving their molecules--creating any Sculpture effect. I should be able to move the molecules in the targets brain cells to stimulate the firing of specific neurons, giving me Conquer abilities. I should be able to diddle with their retina to create visual Glamor effects.  

Sculpture effects appear to be a lot more complex than movement effects. I'm not sure where the dividing line is, precisely, but it is there. Is your Sorceror character also a neurosurgeon? And optrician?

Heating and cooling is SIMPLE compared to all these other effects. No more difficult than plucking a guitar string. You're talking about NEUROSURGERY to do something Glamour and Conquer can do so much more easily.

Any effect that has been attributed to nanotechnology would be possible--including repairing the damage done to a person's body at a sub-cellular level. This would allow them to heal old age, allowing them to apparently grow younger--something specifically forbidden by the TROS rules.

Read it again. Folks can't GET younger, but they can be made to APPEAR younger. Hell, you can do it with Sculpture and enough medical knowledge.

On Growth and the Creation of Matter:

Yes, the rules do say that matter cannot be created from nothing. But this has two possible interpretations.

There's no room for interpretation.

Growing something into something bigger requires extra matter. If it can't be created from nothing, it has to come from somewhere. So if you had a good assortment of minerals, some Movement, and some Sculpture, you could grow a pebble into a boulder, but not otherwise.

Saying that something cannot be created from nothing is very different from saying that there must be a strict conservation of matter.

No it's not. The statements are precisely equivalent.

In fact, that's what Conservation of Matter means - "Matter can be neither created nor destroyed."

[prophet118]

wont this topic ever die...

sheesh... my simple philosophy (as i have been saying the whole time), is that it works...i bet jake is having some fun reading this stuff, probably laghing his ass off..

i look at magic in this game from a simple point of view "it works, we dont know why, and do we truely care why it works?, hell no, it detracts from the game itself"

surely a sorceror should be played by someone who can see that, truely a sorceror should be played by someone you trust.....if you look at the game system, you think about the things you can do with the vageries, you tyhink about how world stopping they can be, and you tell me how to explain stopping the world..oh yes, it can be done, damn difficult, but thats not the point, the point is that IT CAN BE DONE.......

magic has no real world solutions, or answers, however the people behind the magic system make us see that real world physics can apply, as a way to explain it to our 21st century minds, not as a way for our sorcerors to explain it... if jake says that this world exists before and without gunpowder, i will not let your average joe, go create a frigging stick of dynamite....regardless of if he has the real world knowledge to do it....if that was the case, and my character could do what i could... well i wouldnt have to roleplay would i?

the character would have these skills and knowledges:

Black Belt in Taekwondo
expert video gamer
rocking good DM/GM/ST
kickass guitarist
so so bass player
half way good drummer
poet
so so driver
creative editor of many PDF files
computer graphics...

sure i know some high school chemistry, and i know what gunpowder is made of.....have no clue what amounts though........

hell id probably have it blow up in my face... course you gotta remember, what we think of as gunpowder, isnt what the world had when it came out, it was black powder... lots more unstable.....lol

i know im rambling, and ranting, but its my right.

if you think that magic is not complicated enough, then make it more so by requiring the magus to have knowledge of what he is trying to do.....

messing around with someones molecules can get downright messy after a little bit of tinkering

[Jake Norwood]

wont this topic ever die...

sheesh... my simple philosophy (as i have been saying the whole time), is that it works...i bet jake is having some fun reading this stuff, probably laghing his ass off..

Actually I make a habit of generally ignoring the "deep" magic threads. They make my head spin.

[prophet118]

lol

[Brian Leybourne]

I have nothing to say about magic really, you guys can argue that until you're blue in the face :-)

I just wanted to answer a couple of your specific comments, both of which are off-topic really. Sorry about that :-)

As an example of what I'm talking about, lets take a look at Star Trek. This is a program that has a well-established history of using questionable (at best) science. Yet it is beloved by many in the science and technology world.

I think they can get away with this, precisely because they usually black box the actual science. We get to see toys that have very impressive effects. There's a lot of pseudo-technobable. But it's all on the surface. They very rarely get down to the real nitty gritty and try to explain how any of these things actually work (and when they do, it's usually a mistake).

I think one of the reasons there are not more outcrys about the sometimes terribly shoddy science used in Star Trek is because a lot of the time, the writers are actually dancing on the true and very real cutting edge of technology.

The fact that a good chunk of the time the stuff brought up in Star Trek is a very good extrapolation on current (perhaps very obscure and/or very new and/or bleeding edge) theories etc makes it easier to stomach the times they use blatant rubbish as science. A little sugar helps the medicine go down, if you like.

(of course, then they spoil it by having Data report that the temperature of something was minus 312 degrees centegrade (which is impossible, since absolute zero is -274 or so) :-)

Gandolf's possession of fireworks hardly proves the existence of gunpowder as we know it. His fireworks could very well be created through a mystical (rather than chemical) process. Or even a combination of mystical and chemical processes.

It is confirmed in the books (somewhat) that it's gunpowder, but admittedly is never named as such. A lot of people have been complaining about Sauraman's use of gunpowder in the film, but they're forgetting that that's exactly what he did in the book as well, it's just never actually called "gunpowder".

Brian.

[Jake Norwood]

It is confirmed in the books (somewhat) that it's gunpowder, but admittedly is never named as such.

This is also the case with Tolkien and tobacco (in the Hobbit), which he renamed "pipeweed" so that it would sound more old-world.

Jake

[prophet118]

saruman says something to gandalf in the movie... something about smoking too much... i think he says halfling leaf... or something to that nature... lol