While I'm still rather new to TROS (I've made characters, and I'm dying to try it out, but I haven't played it yet. Mostly due to a lack of good players in the area.) I'd like to say that I'm really impressed with the game as a whole.

However, I'm having a little trouble with the magic. More with the way it has been described here than the way it is described in the book--but the seeds of my trouble are in the book.

This is mostly a style, or description thing. Not an actual rules thing. I'm just not sure about the whole scientific magic slant. It's not that I'm totally opposed to mixing magic and science, however, I do feel that the mix works better in a steam-punk or similar variant. Mixing discussions of molecules and medieval combat does seem a bit discordant. But my main problem is, once you open the whole scientific-explanation can of worms, it's going to lead us places we really don't want to go.

Coming from an SF writing background, I feel that in any given story, the rules of the world need to be consistent. If you black box the science, and don't try to explain it, then you can get away with almost anything. But once you start explaining things in detail, then people (like myself) start examining every aspect of the story. And everything needs to be consistent and correct, or it is hard to suspend disbelief.

Good examples of black-boxed science are most of star wars, and stories like Terry Bisson's "England Underway." In that story, the English isles start drifting around the world. The Bisson story is a good example, because he handles the science side very carefully. There are scientific discussions about some aspects, but he's very careful to not look directly at the issue of how and why the island is moving. As a result, the reader can suspend disbelief and just accept the story, and focus on the human elements, which are the real point of the story.

Bad examples are the US Godzilla movie. Unlike the old Japanese movies, the US movie tried too hard to make a "scientific" explanation for the giant lizard. As a result, I can't just sit back and enjoy the big lizard. I'm forced to think about it and how it was created. The scientific explanations don't work (for me at least), and end up seriously detracting from the story, rather than adding to it.

OK, back to TROS. I don't like the discussion of affecting molecules. I think it takes us into dangerous ground. For example, if we are going to allow mages to affect molecules, then we need to take molecules into account at all levels of our sorcery.

However, now we have trouble with the growth spells. If I cause a person to shrink to 1/100 their size, what is happening on a molecular scale? Where does the matter go? Is it being destroyed? Are the molecules themselves being reduced in size? If so, how does the shrunk person breath? The air molecules around him are now 100 times too big for his cells. Are the number of cells just reduced? Surely reducing the number of brain-cells would drop him to ant-like intelligence. And can a reduced anatomy even function properly?

Growing a target by 100 times is even more difficult, since it involves creating matter. And the target's skeleton is undoubtedly too weak to support its own weight.

Without the discussion of molecules, none of these problems exist. We simply black box the magic, and accept that the mystical forces take care of all these details. But once we start talking about how the magic affects molecules, I need an explanation for all of this and more.

I prefer to see the mentioning of molecules in the Vision vagrancy as a shorthand for the player. The character simply uses Vision 3 to affect things that he cannot see. Vision 3 doesn't give the character the ability to see the molecules. Rather, it gives him an intuitive connection to the non-visible target, allowing him to affect it.

For example, to use a fire/heat attack, several people have suggested using Move to agitate the molecules. I would actually prefer to use growth (to increase or decrease the heat) or Move (to concentrate the heat of a large area into a small point.) Heat itself is something that can be affected with magic, however it requires a Vision 3, since it is not visible.
This avoids the whole molecule madness, and creates a style of sorcery that I feel mixes well with the general tone of the game.

Similarly Sculpture could be used to affect the form of an object, turning liquids into solids, or solids into gas. No need to worry about it at a molecular level.

Of course, this means there are several ways to accomplish the same task. Say you want to make an ice bridge across a river; you could use either Sculpture to solidify a path of water (which would be instantaneous, the water would be permanently "hard", and it would be the same temperature the water was originally). On the other hand, you could use Growth to freeze the water solid (Also instant, but since it is normal ice, it would melt normally.) You could also use movement to stop the motion of water, making it solid. But this would need to be maintained.

This raises an additional concern. When are the different durations used? When can an affect be considered instant/permanent and when does it need to be maintained?

Sculpture and movement are instant/permanent. But the object will then be affected by normal forces. For example, using sculpture to shape water needs to be maintained. Once the magic is gone, it becomes normal water once more, and rapidly loses its shape. In the hard water example above, I'm shaping the actual nature of water. Since water doesn't normally change in this way, it is not going to change back.

The hard water (and growth affects) could actually be either instant/permanent or have duration. If the sorcerer wants it to just be temporary (and be able to dispel it easily) it would need to be a maintained spell.

However, some of the spells in the book don't seem to be instant/permanent almost at random. A good example is Frozen. This uses movement to hold the air molecules around the target still. In my mind, once the movement magic stops, then the object is affected by the normal laws of physics. For example, you could use movement to freeze the person, but you would need to maintain the spell, otherwise the air would begin moving normally again.

Or, to look at it another way, if I use an instant movement spell to toss a rock at someone, that rock does not continue to move in the direction I sent it, completely ignoring all obstacles and plowing through all barriers. It becomes a simple ballistic object, it's trajectory set by the spell. It bounces off the target and ricochets down the hallway.

I would allow Frozen, if you replaced Movement with Sculpture. On the other hand, Armor of Air needs to be done with Movement, since the armor needs to move with the character. And it needs to be maintained (hence the duration 1).

That makes sense to me (and possibly only to me).

-Rich-

I mostly agree on your points about molecules. I won't allow anything that deals with molecular sculpting in any game I run, because it's not the kind of fantasy I want to play.

As for duration, think of it this way.. If the end result is a natural occurence, then it does not need to be sustained. If I freeze water into an ice bridge, it does not need to be sustained, because ice is natural. If I use sculpture to shape it into a bridge of solid, but unfrozen, water, it is unnatural, and will collapse as soon as I release the spell. If I turn you into a frog, then you will remain a frog, because a frog is a natural creature.

Some areas are grey, however.. If I shrink you, do you revert to natural size when the spell is released? I'd say no, even though a mini-sized human is not natural. The reason why, in my explanation, is because it is not natural for a human to grow suddenly many times in size.

This is simply my interpretation. The system is purposefully loose, so that we are each able to use it in ways that fit our style of play.

Basically I agree with you. With only two small hitches. I allow some things to be unnatural but stable, much like your mini person. I'm not sure why, but I would throw the hard water into that category. I guess it's because most sculpture effects are instantanious/permanent, and I want to be consistent.

On the other hand, a strict natural/unnatural division would be easier to judge in the game. But it would contradict even more of the spells listed in the rulebook.

I'm also leaning strongly towards having the sorcerer decide weather the effect is instantanious or needs maintained for growth, sculpture and similar effects. So the sorcerer could decide weather the shrinking spell was instantanious (and the target permanently shrunk) or temporary (and probably needs a duration--thus increasing the difficulty).

This would be useful, for example, when casting on yourself or your friends. You don't want them permanently minified, so at the cost of increasing the difficulty, you only have to cast one spell (instead of one to shrink and a second to enlarging again).

But I still haven't thought out all the ramifications of this (for example, how much more difficult will the spell become, and what effect will this actually have--does it actually benifit the sorcerer at all, etc.).

-Rich-

The unfortunate thing is that TROS Sorcery DEMANDS physical examination, due to the nature of the Temporal vagaries. Take out Movement, Sculpture, and Growth, and you can get the high-level physics out of TROS.

For me, it is impossible to imagine a universe NOT composed of molecules, and the various powers of TROS Sorcerors assure that they can deal with them.

rikiwarren wrote: Basically I agree with you. With only two small hitches. I allow some things to be unnatural but stable, much like your mini person. I'm not sure why, but I would throw the hard water into that category. I guess it's because most sculpture effects are instantanious/permanent, and I want to be consistent.

i doubt very seriously if the sorcerers from TROS would call them molecules, or atoms, or anything of that nature... however they still exist, and to do alot of effects, you use vision to see what you are doing... if that guy who started this thread is still going to have vision in many spells he has people do, then he accepts that on an atomic level, something is going on that needs the magus' watchful eye...

if the term molecule, or any other science term bugs you, take it out, but dont remove that actual mechanics behind doing said spells

I agree with Rik. If the game was intended as a hard simulation of an alternate world where magic is possible, the molecule business might make sense. Since it's not a simulation at all, that business serves no real function and detracts from the atmosphere of magic immensely.

I propose a whole new set of Vagaries based on effects seen in folklore and fairytales, to be created by somebody with more time on their hands than myself!

well if you want to have fun with different effects... go pick up the white wolf game "Changeling: The Dreaming"...which happens to be one of my top two fav games...

now then, as for a new list....nah ya dont really need one, ya just have to think of a way to use the old ones the way they are...nothing is a magical and mystical as "i shoot a fireball out of my hand", or "i cast mage armor, now its harder to hit me, because the spell says so"..

doing the armor of air spell in this game basically hardens the air around youj, and lasts for a damn long time, and gives you a better armor value than some of the armors do.., but it is just hardened air...

as for fireballs and the like... they can be done, but it isnt as simple as "i throw a fireball" the player in my game who did it, we felt that vision, movement, and as little bit of growth would do the trick... though in hindsight we probably didnt need growth...after everything was calculated in, the TN was like 5.. not too too bad

Bob Richter wrote: The unfortunate thing is that TROS Sorcery DEMANDS physical examination, due to the nature of the Temporal vagaries. Take out Movement, Sculpture, and Growth, and you can get the high-level physics out of TROS.

For me, it is impossible to imagine a universe NOT composed of molecules, and the various powers of TROS Sorcerors assure that they can deal with them.

Bob Richter wrote:
Water, however, is fluid. If it were not, it would be ice. I would argue that you could use Sculpture to bind water in a semi-frozen state (trapped, but energetic,) but as soon as the Sorceror stopped sustaining the spell, the water would still be fluid and energetic and would do what all liquids do -- go to the lowest point not otherwise occupied.

rikiwarren wrote:

Bob Richter wrote: The unfortunate thing is that TROS Sorcery DEMANDS physical examination, due to the nature of the Temporal vagaries. Take out Movement, Sculpture, and Growth, and you can get the high-level physics out of TROS.

For me, it is impossible to imagine a universe NOT composed of molecules, and the various powers of TROS Sorcerors assure that they can deal with them.

I disagree. It depends on how you interpret the Temporal Vagaries, and how you define physics in the game world.

]In my opinion, rpgs are trying to simulate narrative worlds. We are trying to recreate movies, novels, comic books and the like. And like those sorces, we can move as close to or as far from reality as we need to create the appropriate atmosphere and style. The only real requirement is that we keep things as consistant as possible within our game world.

If you insist on real-world physics, you must accept a whole range of limits. Growth and reduction spells must be severely limited. Sorcerers hair and nails shouldn't grow when they age. Invisibility becomes very problimatic. And the list goes on and on.

The real-world physics directly contradict many of the example spells and effects in the book.

In fiction (or at least good fiction) magic is depicted with symbolic or sympathetic logic behind it, not a hard-science logic. For me, this type of logic is more narrativly satisfying--and also allows many of the magical effects seen in stories (and in the TROS book), without getting mired into the mess of mixing magic and real-world physics. (as an aside, this is different from most games, which really have no logic behind their magic systems).

A typical example is requiring something with a symbolic link to someone before you can affect them with magic.

As a personal preference, I prefer a more symbolic interpretation of the vagaries. Back to my earlier example, Growth can be used to grow or reduce things. In an more-symbolic interpretation an object's heat would be an element that could be affected by magic. It could be gown (made hotter), shrunk (made colder) or moved (to dissipate the heat of an object, or concentrate the heat of an entire room onto one spot). The magic manipulates the object's heat directly. These effects still require Vision (since you're affecting reality at a level not normally visible). But we don't need to define it in terms of adgitating molicules.

Bob Richter wrote:
Water, however, is fluid. If it were not, it would be ice. I would argue that you could use Sculpture to bind water in a semi-frozen state (trapped, but energetic,) but as soon as the Sorceror stopped sustaining the spell, the water would still be fluid and energetic and would do what all liquids do -- go to the lowest point not otherwise occupied.

Well, how do you explain the Frozen spell (pg 128)? The solid state of the air remains, even after the instant magical effect expires.

Your interpretation of the hard water idea is perfectly valid. But it isn't the only way to describe the world. We are already accepting that it is a world in which magic works--which means it (probably at least) isn't our world. It works according to a different set of laws. And different things may be possible.

If water had similar multiple states, magic could be used to shift it between states, and each state would remain stable.

Or, to move back to the more symbolic magic, the liquidity of the water is a part of the water's form, and the form can be affected by sculpture. If sculpture allows instant (and therefor "permanent") changes of an object's form, it should be able to do that to the water's liquidity.

I have to disagree with Bob's "Weyrth and TROS have a very serious trend toward gritty realism". A lot of the mechanical elements mimic real life or a scientifically consistent "other real life", but things like Spiritual Attributes move it decidedly away from being a World Simulator and towards being a Literature Creator. Seen in that light, the magic system can't be evaluated on the grounds of realism, it has to be judged on whether it improves the actual play output as real-time literature. In my opinion, that goal would be better served by more folkloric and less scientific definitions within the system.

- too-tired-to-completely-make-sense Henry

Bob Richter wrote:

rikiwarren wrote:

Bob Richter wrote: The unfortunate thing is that TROS Sorcery DEMANDS physical examination, due to the nature of the Temporal vagaries. Take out Movement, Sculpture, and Growth, and you can get the high-level physics out of TROS.

For me, it is impossible to imagine a universe NOT composed of molecules, and the various powers of TROS Sorcerors assure that they can deal with them.

I disagree. It depends on how you interpret the Temporal Vagaries, and how you define physics in the game world.

No it doesn't. That's just a PART of physical examination. The fact that you even have to consider the concept of alternative physics proves my point.

TROS is built to simulate the semi-fantastic world of Weyrth, not a Movie, novel, or comic book. Weyrth and TROS have a very serious trend toward gritty realism, including a speed-of-light limit on the Movement vagary (which suggests Einsteinian mechanics.)

So, for RPGs generally, I would agree with this paragraph, but for TROS, I disagree.

I see no need to limit Growth and Reduction beyond the limits they already have. Make something too big, and it dies. Make it too small, and it dies. Invisibility? Glamour. It's an illusion. (non-temporal. Physics isn't even an issue.)

If that's the kind of magic you want, you will have to look elsewhere for it.

A typical example is requiring something with a symbolic link to someone before you can affect them with magic.

And physics enters into this...where?

Yet all of the heat-afffecting example spells are MOVEMENT effects, clearly unseating THIS interpretation.

Well, how do you explain the Frozen spell (pg 128)? The solid state of the air remains, even after the instant magical effect expires.

Child's play. Frozen uses a Movement effect to arrest the motion of particles, draining energy out of the system and reducing its temperature, actually freezing the air!

This is completely different from the Sculpture effect we were talking about with the bridge...

Magic in TROS can bend, but not break, the laws of physics. Movement introduces energy. Sculpture sets boundaries. Growth makes things bigger and smaller. Think of the Temporal Vagaries as additional laws of physics and you get the idea. :)

Bob Richter wrote:

rikiwarren wrote: If water had similar multiple states, magic could be used to shift it between states, and each state would remain stable.

But it does. Water has three basic states in which it can be said to be water: Solid (ice), Liquid (water), and Gas (vapour.) These states can be changed by increasing or decreasing the ENERGY of a body of water. In TROS magic, you would use MOVEMENT for this.

As I see it, TROS magic is trying to re-create the "gritty realism" of literature with a trend toward "historical fiction" in application. That being said, I think the "scientific element" is there as a guideline and a way to make the many possible interperetations of the vagaries a little more concrete. I play pretty fast and loose with magic myself (magic just seems like that to me), and others--like Rick McCann, who wrote the magic system--really like taking into account all the different little details on the edge of "science." It's a preference thing, and I think that the rules support both modes of play. It isn't possible to really hold to "pure" science and still call it magic...but references to science make it easier fro some folks to get a handle on what's going on.

All things in Moderation, eh.

Happy disintegrating,
Jake

rikiwarren wrote:

Bob Richter wrote:

rikiwarren wrote:

Bob Richter wrote: The unfortunate thing is that TROS Sorcery DEMANDS physical examination, due to the nature of the Temporal vagaries. Take out Movement, Sculpture, and Growth, and you can get the high-level physics out of TROS.

For me, it is impossible to imagine a universe NOT composed of molecules, and the various powers of TROS Sorcerors assure that they can deal with them.

I disagree. It depends on how you interpret the Temporal Vagaries, and how you define physics in the game world.

No it doesn't. That's just a PART of physical examination. The fact that you even have to consider the concept of alternative physics proves my point.

Hmm. I'm not sure I understand your point. I can easily run TROS magic while still avoiding dipping into high level physics.

TROS is built to simulate the semi-fantastic world of Weyrth, not a Movie, novel, or comic book. Weyrth and TROS have a very serious trend toward gritty realism, including a speed-of-light limit on the Movement vagary (which suggests Einsteinian mechanics.)

So, for RPGs generally, I would agree with this paragraph, but for TROS, I disagree.

I know of a number of novels, movies and comic books that also have a serious trend towards gritty realism. TROS may be attempting to simulate those works of fiction--but it is still (in my opinion) more of an attempt to simulate fiction than reality.

I see no need to limit Growth and Reduction beyond the limits they already have. Make something too big, and it dies. Make it too small, and it dies. Invisibility? Glamour. It's an illusion. (non-temporal. Physics isn't even an issue.)

Explain how Plague of the Dwarf works using physics? Where does the extra matter go to or come from?

How is the shrinking or growing performed at the molecular level?

Why doesn't the change in size have the logical real-world affects associated with it. According to the spell description, I can increase someone to 10 times their size and they will still be able to operate normally.

And in the story at the beginning of the sorcery chapter, Oujha shrinks the barbarian so small he can be lifted on Oujha's fingertip. Yet the barbarian is not killed (or otherwise apparently affected) until he is dropped into the burning candle.

If that's the kind of magic you want, you will have to look elsewhere for it.

This statement really upsets me. Why would I have to look elsewhere. I can run my style of sorcery perfectly without changing a single rule. I am merely choosing to interpret the system in a different way than you do. We should each be free to interpret the system as we wish.

Growth just doesn't stand up to any sort of scientific examiniation.

Having a wizard's hair and nails grow when they are aged does not stand up to a scientific examination (this has been discussed in a different thread).

There is one reference to using Vision when spells effect molicules--and I am simply choosing to see that as an explanation for the player (who does live in a scientific world) rather than a litteral discription of how magic works. I am not alone in this.

And there is one spell that I feel needs a duration and the addition of Summoning (Frozen). But I would argue the point on Frozen, even if I was using a more-scientific style of magic.

A typical example is requiring something with a symbolic link to someone before you can affect them with magic.

And physics enters into this...where?

That's my point. The system of magic I described is based on symbolism, not on physics.

Yet all of the heat-afffecting example spells are MOVEMENT effects, clearly unseating THIS interpretation.

I can't find any heat-affecting spells in the book. I've seen several examples in this forum, but in the actual rules... If you find one, please let me know.

Well, how do you explain the Frozen spell (pg 128)? The solid state of the air remains, even after the instant magical effect expires.

Child's play. Frozen uses a Movement effect to arrest the motion of particles, draining energy out of the system and reducing its temperature, actually freezing the air!

This is completely different from the Sculpture effect we were talking about with the bridge...

I'm sorry, but this explanation has several problems. First, Frozen doesn't use Vision, so (even by a scientific explanation) it cannot be affecting the individual particles.

I believe that, based on the spell description, it merely solidifies the air...The air is simply held magically in place.

Magic in TROS can bend, but not break, the laws of physics. Movement introduces energy. Sculpture sets boundaries. Growth makes things bigger and smaller. Think of the Temporal Vagaries as additional laws of physics and you get the idea. :)

Are you serious? Magic in TROS often deliberately breaks the laws of physics. Even with a scientific examination of the system. Movement can throw the laws of thermodynamics right out the window. Being able to instantly accelerate something is not just bending the rules, it's completely ignoring them. Growth does the same for the conservation of matter.

Bob Richter wrote:

rikiwarren wrote: If water had similar multiple states, magic could be used to shift it between states, and each state would remain stable.

But it does. Water has three basic states in which it can be said to be water: Solid (ice), Liquid (water), and Gas (vapour.) These states can be changed by increasing or decreasing the ENERGY of a body of water. In TROS magic, you would use MOVEMENT for this.

OK, maybe I wasn't clear. There's a big difference between the diamond-coal states and the ice-water-vapor states. In water, the water molicules are the same. It is only the amount of energy in the system that changes. The diamond-coal thing is an actual molecular change.

I'm not talking about a simple temperature change here. I'm talking about actually restructuring the nature of the water itself.

Just a note on moderation--

Let's use some. Keep our quote/replies more managable in size and easier to read.

Thanks.

Jake

On Growth:

Simply compressing or expanding the molecules themselves doesn't explain the way the spell effects are described, nor the way the spells are described in the flavor text. And it introduces a whole slew of additional problems.

1) 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. However, if the molecules were simply expanded, they would be ten times less dense. That means their toughness should go way down, since my sword should pass through them like they were tissue paper. Also, if something is grown enough, it would become buoyant and float away. And blowing someone up ten times their size is getting pretty close to Macy's Parade size. And Growth 3 can do even greater effects.

2) Shrinking would increase the person's density, and should therefore increase their toughness (not decrease it). Their skin would be ten times harder than normal skin--which at the very least would provide some additional armor. As you said, it would require Movement to lift the person. But there's no evidence in the text that he used any additional magic. Also, when the minified barbarian was dropped on the candle, it would crush the candle--imagine a 200 lb barbarian stepping on a candle wearing stiletto heels. Sure, the hypothetical Movement effect could still be in effect--but again the scene doesn't make any reference to additional magic use. Finally, his sword would weigh the same amount it normally did. When he swings it, it would have the same momentum. It should, therefore, do some damage to the magician's cuticle.

3) Most importantly, if I shrink or grow someone by 10X, then their blood cells are going to be 10X too big to accept oxygen molecules. With no new oxygen getting into the blood, they will quickly suffocate and die.

Plain and simple, I don't like the extra baggage that this requires. It's easier just to accept that the magic grows and shrinks them. That their weight increases or decreases with their size. This would also be consistent with the strength and toughness modifiers listed in the book.

My problem with using a scientific approach is that I feel it may distract from the story, instead of enhancing the story. For example, during game I would hate to have to stop and argue with a player over the physics behind the game. Magic should be strange and wondrous and at times defy explanation. Basing it on science, for me, makes it mundane, and opens the floodgates for rules-of-physics-lawyers.

On Frozen, Instantaneous and Maintained spells:

On pgs 120-121 TROS lists four types of spell duration, Instantaneous (with possible permanent side effects), Maintained, Constant, and Dormant. Frozen was listed as Instantaneous--not Maintained. So I assumed the frozen state of the air was supposed to be a permanent side effect.

However, looking more closely at the example spells, all the spells are listed as either instantaneous or constant. Some, like Flight are listed as "Instantaneous (but maintainable)". A smaller number (like Regrowth) are listed as "Instantaneous (but with permanent effect)." Both Frozen and Curse of the Dwarf are just listed as "Instantaneous." I'd been interpreting that as "Instantaneous (but with permanent effects)" but it is not clear.

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.

To me that means that speed S can go from 0 to 327,857,019 in time T = 0. This is infinite acceleration. And since F = M * A, it will require an infinite amount of force. This, to me, is not merely bending, but actually breaking the laws of physics.

Now, the laws of Thermodynamics come in. Assuming the Universe is a closed system, instantly accelerating something to the speed of light will require more energy than the Universe has available. The Universe, after all, has a very large but ultimately finite amount of energy.

However, the spell Fold performs this miracle twice. Once to accelerate the person's molecules and once to decelerate them. Also, in spells like Fold, the effects of momentum, inertia and so forth do not seem to apply. While they do apply for Flight.

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.

Again, I don't want to be arguing over these issues at the gaming table. I don't want to have to use my physics books as a reference for a game, or debate over the real meaning of a word. The more tightly-defined and scientifically accurate you try to make the magic, the more you are going to encourage these types of debates. A looser system will tend to sidestep all these problems.

On FireMaking:

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.

So, yes, I have expanded upon the written rules--but then so has everyone who has proposed movement based heat effects. I just chose to do so based on the symbolic meaning of the words, rather than on physics. But we all have (and should) expanded on the rules.

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?

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. If you want to play it more like hard SF, then be my guest. More power to you.

But I don't want to, and I resent the implication that I need to or that I am doing something wrong.

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?

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

rikiwarren wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Henry Fitch wrote: 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 wrote: you are putting way too much time thought, and effort into this.

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 wrote: 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.

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

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.

prophet118 wrote: you are putting way too much time thought, and effort into this.

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

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.

contracycle wrote: (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.

rikiwarren wrote:

prophet118 wrote: 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.

Bob Richter wrote:
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.

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.

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

rikiwarren wrote:
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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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-

rikiwarren wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

prophet118 wrote: 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..

lol

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 :-)

rikiwarren wrote: 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).

rikiwarren wrote: 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.

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