Random thoughts on magic...

[Henry Fitch]

Wow. Crystalline structures, molecular movement, thermodynamics... it's starting to look like I'd need to take some more physics courses to properly play a mage in TRoS.

That a good thing?

[prophet118]

you are putting way too much time thought, and effort into this.

[Bob Richter]

If I used Plague of the Giant to make someone 900% bigger, per the rules on page 130 they would gain +1 ST and +1 TO for every 50% of size, or +18 ST and +18 TO. EN and HT are unaffected.  

Um. We're not discussing this further until you're clear on what the spell actually does.

Plague of the Dwarf reduces ST and TO by 1 for each 10% size decrease. a 50% decrease in size would produce -5 ST -5 TO. I'd probably also have it give you the "Short" Flaw.

Plague of the Giant reduces EN and HT by 1 for each 10% size increase (as per the rules for this spell, perenthetically inserted in the rules for Plague of the Dwarf, on Page 130.)

The spell is called a "plague" for a reason -- it has no beneficial effects.

On causing Newton to roll over in his grave:

The Movement vagary says, "A target may be instantaneously transmitted through open space. Acceleration/deceleration is instantaneous." Now, we can argue over the definition of instantaneous, but I'll leave that up to the dictionary:

in·stan·ta·neous
Pronunciation: "in(t)-st&n-'tA-nE-&s, -ny&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin instantaneus, from instant-, instans, n.
Date: 1651
1 : done, occurring, or acting without any perceptible duration of time

For any value of time T > 0, T is perceptible. Therefore T = 0.

Hold it.

First, "perceptible" is a function of your equipment. I doubt that you, unaided, could percieve a picosecond (for the uninformed, a picosecond is 1/1,000,000,000,000th of a second.) With better equipment, you could, but there will always be some T > 0 which is NOT perceptible.

For the sake of reference, we shall say that T is infinitessimal. (infinitessimal is the least nonzero positive number, and not, by any means, perceptible.)

Second, that definition of "instantaneous" is far from the only one available.

One more relevant definition might be "Done or made as quickly or directly as possible. "

For a non-scientific magic, this is not a problem. Newton's laws hold for Movement 1 and 2, but once you hit Movement 3, they simply go away on a holiday. For a more scientific magical system, the inconsistency should be a problem.

Newton's laws hold for Movement 3 as well. Only Einsteinian Relativity causes a problem, and that's only if you ACTUALLY ACCELERATE SOMETHING TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

The use of Magic may make the Universe no longer a closed system. Somewhere outside the Universe is a limitless supply of energy -- thermodynamics is rendered mute.

Ok, I was criticized for not reading the description of the vagaries because I proposed using Growth to affect heat. Yes, the Growth vagary does not say anything about growing or shrinking heat. On the other hand, the Movement Vagary also doesn't say anything about heating or cooling objects. It only discusses three aspects 1) speed 2) maneuverability and 3) animation.

Speed and maneuverability manage the trick just fine. Strike a match. What did you just do? You used Speed.

In fact, temperature is just an expression of the average energy of an object (or arbitrarily designated volume of gas.) Moving particles (whether they be molecules, slivers, balls of gas, whatever) faster introduces more energy, increasing the temperature.
Similarly, moving them SLOWER removes energy, decreasing the temperature.

Ignite, Combust and Burn: I can't find these spells anywhere in the TROS rulebook (I even looked in the index). What page are they on? Is it possible we are looking at two different sets of rules?

They're Movement Spells of One. They're on pages 130-131. Don't make me hurt you.

Again, based on reading the TROS rulebook, I feel that the rules could equally support either a scientific-based magic or a looser, more symbolic magic system.

Rather, based on NOT reading the TROS rulebook, you feel this to be the case. :)

[Bob Richter]

Wow. Crystalline structures, molecular movement, thermodynamics... it's starting to look like I'd need to take some more physics courses to properly play a mage in TRoS.

That a good thing?

Physics is always a good thing. So is it being hard to play a Mage in TROS.

Then again, you never need to know more Physics than your Seneschal. :)

[Bob Richter]

you are putting way too much time thought, and effort into this.

This is what I do for fun.

I enjoy it.

Have a problem with that? :)

[Bob Richter]

My apologies, It has been recently brought to my attention that I am using the OLD Sorcery Section.

I shall attempt to find the correct references in the new one.

Urgh.

[Bob Richter]

My apologies, It has been recently brought to my attention that I am using the OLD Sorcery Section.

I shall attempt to find the correct references in the new one.

Urgh.

Responding to myself, it seems that no such references exist anymore.

It seems you are correct. My reading of the new Sorcery section does not uncover spells that light fires, the Limits in a Limitless World section (the rules on what TROS magic couldn't do, such as bring the dead to life,) the note on the Expansion and Contraction effect conserving mass, or any reason why Becoming a Giant would be Regarded as a Curse rather than a blessing.

As such, I find myself retreating on several fronts...

[prophet118]

well BOB... it seems things get crossed once again, i wasnt referring to you, granted i should have quoted the guy you are talking to, but with his huge post, i didnt feel like it

i do still feel that some of the people on this thread are putting way too much effort and thought into figuring out the mechanics behind a fantasy setting

physics to understand something that doesn exist anyway...seems like an excercise in futility

but whatever floats your boats i guess... personally, movement causes friction, friction causes heat, viola, fire...

growth increases or decreases molecules, voila growth or shrinkage......its not that hard

[prophet118]

as for growing or shrinking... well  the intent is clear, and devastating..

shrink someone down, then step on them.....or make em growth, but dont make their armor grow........they had a mad magazine one time about how super heroes died... turns out the hulk died because he found out that while he grew, his jock strap didnt.

[rikiwarren]

you are putting way too much time thought, and effort into this.

I think this was probably aimed at me.

I'm sorry if I've upset anyone. My whole point in arguing about the physics behind the magic is that, the more you try to force the system into using real world science, the more problems you create. And, I feel, a looser system is better. You're mileage may very--but I suspect there are others out there who feel as I do.

This was initially a response to several posts where I felt people had gone too far (e.g. using movement to accelerate the molicules and heat something up--which I didn't realize had been previously part of the rules). And an attempt at providing an alternative to the ultra-science interpretation, an alternative that I thought would create a better flavor for the game as a whole.

I was also worried about the effect the scientific interpretation would have at the table. I often game with engeneering and physics grad students, and I can easily see any attempt to use magic devolve into an argument over scientific theory.

Personally, I think magic should be wild, strange and often inexplicable. Yes, it has limits. Yes, some of the effects can be described by modern physics. But it shouldn't be limited by physics. The GM should always hold the trump card, and should be able to decide how magic (as a capricious artform) works in any situation--without having someone argue "Oh, but if you actually reduced the size of the atoms...blah...blah..blah).

I want a magic system where I can reduce someone to ant size and squash them under my heel (or better yet, put them in a tiny silver cage and keep them on the top shelf in my study).  I don't want to have to worry about weather they become 100 times denser (and thus unsquishable), or weather they suffocate because their blood cells are too small to accept oxygen molicules, or weather the number of brain cells drops to the point where their body just can't keep itself functioning. Or any number of scientific issues that might arise. I just want to create a smaller, weaker version of the target.

The way the rules are written (or at least my version of the rules), it was OK. They flirted with science, but still gave me the wiggle room to interpret things as I wished. However the interpretation I had seen in many places in this forum (much of which is probably based on the old sorcery rules) crossed a line.

So I deliberately pushed the scientific interpretation to (in my opinion) it's breaking point.

Again, I'm sorry if this discussion has gone on too long. Or ruffled any feathers.

Anyway, I'll shut up now.

-Rich-

[Jake Norwood]

Rich-

No worries, man. Discussions about magic always (and I mean *always*) end up this way. You original question is actually a very good one (or it wouldn't have sprouted so much debate).

Jake

[contracycle]

Just to chime in...

I totally agree with the problems.  Real physics is not appropriate for FRPG becuase players actually think through problems; you can't just handwave it away.  (And I don'[t think Bob Richters rationalising away of the word "instantaneous" was convincing either).

Fortunately, the problem is fairly easu to solve; bar establishing the existance of demons and the like, the magi system says almost nothing about the world.  So there is no reason you could not compose your own cosmology upon it, it would actually be very suitable for such adaptation, more so than most.

I would be inclined to wish for such a thing in a magic expansion; IMO the problems with integrating reaisting and fantastic realities are too complex.

[Bob Richter]

(And I don'[t think Bob Richters rationalising away of the word "instantaneous" was convincing either).

(naturally, you would have a problem with words actually meaning things contesting an argument you like. Feh.)

Fortunately, the problem is fairly easu to solve; bar establishing the existance of demons and the like, the magi system says almost nothing about the world.  So there is no reason you could not compose your own cosmology upon it, it would actually be very suitable for such adaptation, more so than most.

Making a new cosmology (especially one that works) is actually HARDER than using the one we already have, and creates the same problems.

Let the players assume that Weyrth is mostly like the world we know. What's the harm in that?

[Bob Richter]

I was also worried about the effect the scientific interpretation would have at the table. I often game with engeneering and physics grad students, and I can easily see any attempt to use magic devolve into an argument over scientific theory.

As Seneschal, you have the final say in everything, even physics.

My point was simply that technology and physics do not and can not go away just because you're in a fantasy setting. Tolkien's Middle Earth didn't lack cannons because gunpowder wouldn't work, only because the making and use of it was in the hands of only a few (such as the Wizard Gandalf.)

Swinging a sword kills people because of physics. You mess with physics, you give people who understand it a headache.

Headaches are not desirable.

I'd suggest you take a hint from TROS and leave the nature of the universe somewhat nebulous, and when one of your players decides to strike up a physics argument, remind them that your ruling is final.

That being as it is, aside of destroying the universe with a CTN 5 spell, I haven't found that advanced physics cause a problem with my gaming group(s).

I want a magic system where I can reduce someone to ant size and squash them under my heel

Fine. So make one. Or adapt one from somewhere else. Or just change that particular rule in TROS Sorcery. I actually think it's infinitely more fascinating to contemplate a 200lb man only an inch tall.

The way the rules are written (or at least my version of the rules), it was OK. They flirted with science, but still gave me the wiggle room to interpret things as I wished. However the interpretation I had seen in many places in this forum (much of which is probably based on the old sorcery rules) crossed a line.

A line you drew, a line a number of us (it's NOT just me, no matter what it looks like) don't agree with.

The worst thing, I think, was twisting the Growth vagary around to heat. Using that kind of interpretation, you can Steve any vagary to do anything.

Suppose, for example, that there's a symbolistic dial in everything, and that I can use movement to effect it to say...change its color.

Or maybe heat is directly linked with DEMONS, and so banishing the DEMONS from a given volume might freeze it.

The only reason I'm continuing this is that I don't think I've brought my point home to you. I get you -- I just disagree, vehemently, and with good reason.

[rikiwarren]

As Seneschal, you have the final say in everything, even physics.

My point was simply that technology and physics do not and can not go away just because you're in a fantasy setting. Tolkien's Middle Earth didn't lack cannons because gunpowder wouldn't work, only because the making and use of it was in the hands of only a few (such as the Wizard Gandalf.)

Swinging a sword kills people because of physics. You mess with physics, you give people who understand it a headache.

Headaches are not desirable.

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.

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. To do otherwise is to change the rules in the middle of the game--and that's not fair to the players.

I don't think changing the physics of the world creates headaches. There are thousands of examples in works of fiction. In fact, I'd argue that most SF and Fantasy novels, comics, movies and TV shows use bastardized physics. They alter, discard or handwave away real science in order to tell a good story. And this is a good thing.

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.

Notice, I'm talking about invisibility effects which make you completely transparent. Not some sort of adaptive camoflauge (like the evlish cloaks in Two Towers) or mind control effect.

Yet, I can sit down and read "The Invisible Man" without worring about that issue (or any of the sub issues that follow). Mad scientist creates a potion...turns invisible...cool.

Often in fiction, less is more. The more you try to explain things (unless you are very, very good and very, very thorough) the more problems, questions and complications you create. Once you start down the road of trying to make things scientifically accurate, you need to keep everything at the same level of accuracy. However, real world science is very, very complicated. And the odds of any of us getting it completely right at the gaming table is virtually zero.  

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.

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.

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.

Yes, there are other ways to handle this situation. But the simplest (if you don't want gunpowder in your world) is to simply say it doesn't work. That particular combination of ingrediants does not create an explosive in this world.

I'd suggest you take a hint from TROS and leave the nature of the universe somewhat nebulous, and when one of your players decides to strike up a physics argument, remind them that your ruling is final.

I think it is important for both the players and the GM to have a common understanding on how the world works. Starting the game by saying, "Yes, this game uses hard, real world science", and then suddenly saying "Well, except in this situation," is inconsistent, capricious and bound to cause problems. The GM should not be making up or changing rules as he goes.

If anything, that is what will cause headaches.

The worst thing, I think, was twisting the Growth vagary around to heat. Using that kind of interpretation, you can Steve any vagary to do anything.

Suppose, for example, that there's a symbolistic dial in everything, and that I can use movement to effect it to say...change its color.

Or maybe heat is directly linked with DEMONS, and so banishing the DEMONS from a given volume might freeze it.

The only reason I'm continuing this is that I don't think I've brought my point home to you. I get you -- I just disagree, vehemently, and with good reason.

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.

However, in the sorcery rules (at least my version) there are no heat effects at all. If you are going to allow heat affects in the game, you need to extend one or more of the vagaries.

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.

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.

Just because I allow the extension of the Growth vagary to include changing a few intangible aspects (an object's heat, perhaps the amout of light emitted by a fire, etc.) doesn't necessarially mean I've opened up the floodgates to a chaotic mix of magical alternatives. For example, players couldn't use the Banish to dispell heat demons, because I've never established that demons are the root cause of heat. They could try, and I could decide weather it works or not (most certainly not).

On the other hand, it might be very interesting to play a game in which heat is caused by demons. This, however, is a drastic change to the game world, and like the inculsion of hard science, it needs to be thought through carefully before being attempted. Otherwise inconsistencies and complications are bound to arise.

Given that the sorcery rules (at least the new version that I have) don't say how to create heating/cooling effects, each game group should be allowed to decide for themselves. If you prefer Movement, more power to you. I don't.

Same goes for growth. The rules don't say weather or not it affects the object's weight. I could argue that the rules imply a weight change (the stat changes are more consistent with a change in weight than a change in density), but each group can come up with their own ruling.

-Rich-