TROS magic system and spells

[Stephen]

And I say that Glamour does create light, because if not Glamour, then what? Vision...I can see that, sight is a sense, and glamour effects the senses. For example, glamour can make me see a dragon when there is none, and when that dragon breathes flame I see the room around me lit up. I think it's insane to require that Vision be added into the spell so that the fire looks real. Fairy lights and dazzling effects--this is obviously glamour, guys. There's way too much of a pedantic thing going on in here.

Without wanting to be pedantic, Jake, I gotta disagree with you here.

Glamour doesn't create the actual physical energy of light.  Glamour creates the impression in my brain directly that that light would normally produce by bouncing off the real version of the object that's been illusorily created.

In other words, a Glamoured torchflame looks and glows exactly like the real thing... but it doesn't illuminate the room, because it's not objectively generating real photons of light that can bounce off other objects and hit your retina, thus creating the nerve signals that create the sensation of sight.  It appears to be generating light because the magic is creating that impression directly in your brain for the torchflame itself, but if the creating sorcerer didn't know what else was in the room, he couldn't illusorily depict it in your brain.  So you can see the torchflame itself perfectly clearly, because that's what the sorcerer is creating through Glamour; you can't see what that torchflame would normally illuminate, unless the sorcerer already knows this and adds it to the illusion.

Now the Glamour-dragon's fiery breath might well make a cavern appear brighter if it is already dimly lit, because your brain has already received data about the room and is simply making a reasonable subconscious extrapolation about what it would look like in brighter light.  But it couldn't illuminate a pitch-dark room accurately unless the sorcerer already knew what was there, because Glamour doesn't manipulate energy; by its very definition as a Mental Vagary, it manipulates information, specifically the false creation or reproduction thereof, and what a sorcerer can't see he can't create an accurate illusion of.

My solution to the "how do you make your staff glow?" is a Gandalf-style thing; find large, relatively unflawed crystals, sit them in sunlight, use Imprisonment to trap the sunlight in them over the course of a day, then release the light later when you need it by activating the crystal and placing it in your staff.

[Jake Norwood]

And I disagree. Glamour can light a room. Glamour is the magic of light and illusion. If it's "just illusion" than it's really only "conquer."

Jake

[Valamir]

This is beginning to sound like a bunch of Trekkies argueing over how the holodeck works and what should and shouldn't be possible based on the description of what it does.

Glamour is not illusion.  Glamour is real...Faerie Real...
Faerie Real is not the same thing as our real...but it is not illusiary either.

If you eat a Glamour Meal, you really ate a meal.  It had taste, it had substance, and someone watching you would see you eating, not sucking down air.   Its just that the meal is not filling, nor does it have nutritional value...its faerie real.

Faerie reality does not follow logic nor is it consistant.  Fey are supposed to be unscruitable...is it any wonder that their magic is also.  

So you burn a house down with Faerie Magic...its burned down...its char...you can sift through the ruins and get covered in ash.  By dawn the house will be there as if nothing ever happened (with perhaps a tantalizing smell of smoke in the air).  If you try to watch to see it come back...you won't.  You can't.  Why...because that's how it works.

[Shadeling]

Not to mention-Jake has repeatedly said it does what it does-end of story. When the creator of the game comes out and says "X is True" than X must be true in regards to the game. Want Glamour to work differently in your game-fine-do so. Just don't come yelling here that it is the way things work.

[Stephen]

And I disagree. Glamour can light a room. Glamour is the magic of light and illusion. If it's "just illusion" than it's really only "conquer."

Well, it's your game; you oughtta know.  ;)

Apologies for being nitpicking; it's simply that the relationship between perception and reality that illusion spells examine has always been fascinating to me.  I love to speculate about what is "real" in an illusion spell and what isn't, and where the energies of illusion magic go and what they do.  Kinda evokes that whole how-do-we-know-ANY-of-our-perceptions-are-"real"? philosophical mindset.

For myself, I'll continue to play Glamour as a perception-only magic; if you define Conquer as necessary to induce internal sensations like pain or hunger, or to affect memories or willpower, then there's still plenty of room to distinguish between them.

I've always liked the idea that magic still has logical, self-contained limits, like the need to have seen something before you can create a Glamoured version of it (you must have the memory in your brain so your subconscious can recreate it convincingly; otherwise, you need to have the artistic skill to reproduce it consciously, which is 10 times harder), or the inability of an illusory torch to show what's actually there (this is often how illusions get broken in fantasy literature and myth; the hero notices something vital the illusionist has overlooked or forgotten), or the idea that illusory pain can only kill you if you are willing to be killed on some level (do characters with high "death-wish" type SAs become more vulnerable to such things?), etc....  To me, this makes magic more interesting to explore and play.

[Mike Holmes]

This is all well and good, y'all.

But first, I feel that it would be nice to hear from the designer. Jake did not design the magic system, a fact that he himself pointed out earlier in the thread. And while I personally think it's a good idea for a designer to take an active roll in helping interperet a rule for his audience, I find it odd that Jake, who is normally the guy who says, "it's your game, do what you like", has dicided to take stand on the subject, especially one that seems to be intended to eliminate the discussion of the topic. I'd even be willing to accept his fiat if I didn't see a problem with the proclamation, and an interesting and effective way out of the problem.

As far as pedantry, well I'd rather be pedantic than didactic. The entire opposing argument seems to be "that's how it is, just accept it", which is no argument at all. My pedantry, such as it may be, was in response to a similar attitude that occured first in the oppositions responses (such as implications that our side doesn't understand what magic is).

Anyhow, that's enough debating the debate for me. I'd like to continue to debate the point in question (I still feel that I have an important point that people are not understanding), but it seems that some people actually don't want to hear the opposing argument. So, I'll just walk away at this point.

Mike

[Shadeling]

Illusions are plays of light, shadow, and sounds...so why is it so beyond the realm of possibility that Glamour affects all of the above?

[Amy1419]

Without wanting to be pedantic, Jake, I gotta disagree with you here.

LOL I find this to be hillarious... I personally could never say that the creator of the game is wrong when he talks about his game. To me that just seems silly, Jake made the game so doesn't that make his decision final pretty much? I think he knows more about it than any of us!
Just my personal thought

[Stephen]

Illusions are plays of light, shadow, and sounds...so why is it so beyond the realm of possibility that Glamour affects all of the above?

It's not a question of possibility, it's a question of internal consistency and logic, which magic (for me anyway, YMMV) has to have in order to be believeable.  My characters don't have to know or understand all the internal principles, but I do.  If a spell can manipulate the Temporal forces of light and sound, then to me it's not a purely Mental-Vagary spell any more.

What Jake says goes, goes, as far as official definitions go, and I ain't arguing with that or even saying he's "wrong" -- the game is what he and Rick say it is; how can he be wrong?  All I'm saying is that his definition breaks an element of suspension-of-disbelief for me, and I'm just trying to explain why it does so, how I do it differently, and why.

(And being exceedingly pedantic and nitpicky in the process, which is why Jake et al have every right to gripe.  Apologies, guys.  :D)

[Jake Norwood]

Stephen et al:

You gotta do what you gotta do for the game to work for you. Nowhere is this more true or more intentional for magic. Our intentions for Glamour was what I have stated. What it does in your game is up to you. I just wanted to make it perfectly clear what our intentions were.

Jake

[Brian Leybourne]

LOL I find this to be hillarious... I personally could never say that the creator of the game is wrong when he talks about his game. To me that just seems silly, Jake made the game so doesn't that make his decision final pretty much? I think he knows more about it than any of us!
Just my personal thought

Keeping right out of the actual Illusion vs Light argument, can I just say that this particular statement is very unfair.

What it means is that Jake can never engage in any conversations on this board, because as soon as he speaks everyone else has to shut up because "God has laid down the law".

That's crap, and I know Jake doesn't want that to be the case. It's already hard enough for him to open his mouth (so to speak) because he's afraid of accidentally shutting down conversations.

Brian.

[Amy1419]

LOL I find this to be hillarious... I personally could never say that the creator of the game is wrong when he talks about his game. To me that just seems silly, Jake made the game so doesn't that make his decision final pretty much? I think he knows more about it than any of us!
Just my personal thought

Keeping right out of the actual Illusion vs Light argument, can I just say that this particular statement is very unfair.

What it means is that Jake can never engage in any conversations on this board, because as soon as he speaks everyone else has to shut up because "God has laid down the law".

That's crap, and I know Jake doesn't want that to be the case. It's already hard enough for him to open his mouth (so to speak) because he's afraid of accidentally shutting down conversations.

Brian.

I didn't mean to come across by saying that everyone has to shut up when Jake speaks. Obviously everyone has their own opinions which is great but isn't it kinda crazy to tell the creator of the game that he is wrong basically? I dunno obviously we all have our different views and please don't think I am bashing anyone or anything. I just feel that if the creator says something was meant in the game to mean x than it means x unless you don't like it which of course is your decision. I just thought people were telling Jake that he doesn't know how he meant to write his game, thats all.
Sorry for the confusion.

[Brian Leybourne]

Sorry for the confusion

Amy - no harm, no foul.

Sucks to be Jake sometimes, I guess. He's mentioned once or twice before that he's sometimes hesitant to enter conversations for that very reason. Maybe the fact that he has entered this one, and made a very definitive statement should be enough to tell me to shut my trap and stop putting words in his mouth. :-)

Brian.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

I just feel bad that I feel more confident about my definition of glamour than my definitions of didactic and pedantic......

[Lance D. Allen]

I'd like to see where it specifically states that Glamour is an effect that only exists in the minds of the viewers. Yes, it's placed into the mental set of vagaries, but I still maintain that it was only done so because it was the only appropriate place to put it, (it certainly didn't go into the other two, and besides, they were already full) and it didn't seem like it would do the harm that it is obviously doing. But the argument seems to have finally wound down into the "agree to disagree" phase, so I'll let it lie.

I will note this, however... It is a game of some note and success that has people arguing so vehemently over points of trivia and what is ultimately opinion. But then, we already know TRoS is great.

Also, I view Jake's interjections on such things as this, even when he is being firm, as a matter of stating the intent of the designers. If the game is run as it was originally intended, then it is so. That does not make anyone who still chooses to disagree wrong in their play, nor does it make him necessarily right for their games.. Thus, direct disagreement with Jake, Rick and Ben is okay, so long as it is done respectfully, and with the knowledge that it does not make them anymore wrong than the person arguing the point.