Maybe this should be three posts; but I'm tired right now so please forgive me.
[Somebody brought MyDoom.f into my office and I'm 8 hours into cleanup.]

Q1: I've seen a lot of discussion here about creating heat with friction (rubbing air togeather) and finding other creative ways around the "something can not be created from nothing" rule. But what's the practical difference between creating heat from nothing and creating light from nothing. Ecited molecules emit radiation. So Movement can create photons esentially "from nothing." What about E=Mc^2, Scupture 3? Why don't we use Movement/Vision to recombine the fermions in ordinary air into somethnig solid and *pow* matter from "nothing". I understand the need to discourage D&D style thoughts about magic but I don't see how a ban on creating "something from nothing" helps. Heck, we could just go the WhiteWolf route and require Summoning, or does Summoning already allow that?

Which leads me to Q2. Besides spell-pool refresh what the heck is Summoning used for (other than spirits/demons)? Does it summon the energy needed to create a spell with a duration longer than instant? Does it summon energy so that the spell can maintain itself? Can is summon raw energy for use in a Lightning Bolt? Can you Summon raw energy and then Sculp it into an object? Many of the example spells use Summon, but I'm not real clear why they require it. [Don't have my book here, can't give an example, sorry.]

Also my Saffron Sage (my first tRoS character) needs a spell to feed the hungry, but would this work?

Stone Soup: CTN 5, 5 seconds
This spell turns a pot of rocks or dirt into healthy, nutritious vegetable stew. Enough to feed about ten people, or whatever will fit in the pot.
Target: 1 - Inanimate
Range: 1 - Touch
Duration: 0 - Instant
Volume: 1 - 20 lbs
Level: 2 - Sculpture 2 ( concept 2, composition 2)?

Now, can I do it with only Sculpture 2, since it's a simple transformation of rocks into veggies and both are inanimate objects; or do I need Vision 3 because I'm changing the substance on a molecular level?

Last question: I read a post back in 12/02 that there was an updated version of chapter six available. If it's true, or you know of any other resources that can help me figure out the scope of each of the Vagaries please let me know.

I would say require Vision 3 unless they're just rocky vegetables. Requiring Vision 3 is the big bottleneck for these molecular-wackiness spells, and personally I like it that way.

Scupture 3? Why don't we use Movement/Vision to recombine the fermions in ordinary air into somethnig solid and *pow* matter from "nothing".

No problems there, you just need moor umph.

Movement/Vision/Sculpture/Summoning/Glamor all 3 for a realistic "something", created from "air," IMO.

The caster would need to sustain the photonic construction based on the memory of an experience, allow it to adapt to interaction, and convince the person interacting with that it was in fact real, despite glaring errors in the tacticity of the construct such as smell, taste, and sound


Does it summon the energy needed to create a spell with a duration longer than instant? Does it summon energy so that the spell can maintain itself? Can is summon raw energy for use in a Lightning Bolt?

Yes

Can you Summon raw energy and then Sculp it into an object?

Yes, with other vagaries (see above)

Also my Saffron Sage (my first tRoS character) needs a spell to feed the hungry, but would this work?

Stone Soup: CTN 5, 5 seconds
This spell turns a pot of rocks or dirt into healthy, nutritious vegetable stew. Enough to feed about ten people, or whatever will fit in the pot.
Target: 1 - Inanimate
Range: 1 - Touch
Duration: 0 - Instant
Volume: 1 - 20 lbs
Level: 2 - Sculpture 2 ( concept 2, composition 2)?

Inanimate objects should be classified as non bio degradable. I would consider altring it to:]

Sludge soup

This spell turns a pot of slime or sludge into healthy, nutritious vegetable stew. Enough to feed about ten people, or whatever will fit in the pot.

Target: 2
Range: 1
Duration: 0
Volume: 1

Sculpture 2/Growth/2/Vison 3

I'm anal though. My question is always what doesn't the spell cover? Taste might be an issue without glamor, and any time you are changing an object physically, I would impose the need to study the target as well as the result with vision to make sure it is correct.

Good questions though. The system is designed to let you do anything, provided you have enough research and vagaries to er, ah, theoretically justify it. It is just a game after all.

Questions answered in reverse order.

Revised sorcery chapter: If you have the pre-release edition, that is the only way you'll need the revised sorcery chapter. The best way that I've found to tell which edition you have is to flip several pages back from the back of the book. If you see an ad for the roleplaying game Sorcerer, from Adept Press, then you have what is sometimes referred to as the "revised" edition. The updated sorcery chapter is only for those who bought a pre-release printing of the book, because much of the input on these forums went into a serious rewrite of the sorcery chapter, which was then put into the main printing or "revised" edition.

Magic Summoning is used, aside from Mana spells, to add a duration to non-sustained spells with a duration above instant, as you guessed. If you are creative, it can probably be put to other uses, as well. However, "raw energy", as you call it, is not a function of the vagary in the rules as written, but if you chose to use it that way, then it could work there, too.

Stone Soup: By one interpretation, you'd need Sculpting 3, for Intricacy 3, as vegetables are technically living things. By another interpretation, this would only be necessary for animals. If I were your Seneschal, I'd okay the spell at Sculpture 2 because the vegetables are not required to be alive at the time of stewing, only organic and nutritious.

Physics of Sorcery: There's a lot of debate about the level of physics in Sorcery. Many of us dislike the idea that vision is required for many spells, as that assumes a scientific approach of rearranging molecules, etc. For my part, I remove any references to science in my reading of the rules, and refuse such explanations of rubbing molecules together to create heat.

On the other hand, such things as can be observed by the sorcerer, such as rubbing two sticks together and getting fire, can be used.. but the sorcerer will not be rubbing air together, or changing air molecules into anything else.

If, however, the physics turns you on, then have a ball with it. If you can break the "limits in a limitless world" while not breaking the rules (quite possible in almost every case if you take the literal writing of the rules) and think this is okay, have fun.

(If anyone wants my take on resurrection a la TRoS, I can expound on that, too)

I love the tRoS magic system, it does many things right that are so often done worng. But it is overly vague and, I think, misrepresented by it's scientific framework. I find that questions about how each vagary works is a very common theme in the forums, and it's more than a little confusing to tRoS newbies like myself.

tRoS attempts to be realistic, and does a fair job of it; but I don't think real world physics has any place in a magic system, especially not a fantasy one. My Saffron Sage has *no clue* what molecules are or how to rearange them, does that mean he can't turn stone to water or light a candle? And I need mastery level in five vagaries to create an apple out of thin air, that's not even possible for a starting character. (Sure, I could use Movement/Vision to snatch an apple from the king's orchards, but that's not the point.) I guess what I'm saying is that because people like myself are so confused about how each vagary works we have taken the scientific a little too far, as a substitute for understanding the system. I'm looking for a clear understanding of the scope of each vagary, what they can and can't do and why.

That isn't to say that physics has no place in fantasy magic. But I think they need to be consistent. My interpretation of the "you can not create something from nothing" rule would include energy. If you add energy to a system in order to move it or heat it up you have to take energy from some other part of the system, slowing it down or making it cold. Conservation of matter/energy and all that. I don't see that kind of consistancy in the way tRoS magic is being interpreted here.

The problem with the argument on pro vs anti science is this:

On the one hand, the book itself speaks what amounts to not using science in the equations... and I've seen the Powers That Be say similar things on threads here.

But then they turn around and have things like Vision as a requirement... to see molecules, cells, etc. Frankly, it seemed rather contradictory.

As such... each person should probably decide whether they use science in their sorcery or not. and if not... dump the vision requirement in a lot of those spells. :)

What really happened here was too many fingers in the Sorcerous pie when it was conceived. Rick McCann designed it based on some extremely vague specifications I gave him in 2001, and wrote most all of the text for it. Rick's a real logical guy, and he likes science (I never did). I liked what the effects were for the sorcery system, and I liked the fact that it was set up so that Rick can use Vision to make his healing spells, but I could be more abstract with it. It's very, very flexible that way. Using "science" as the measuring stick for TROS sorcery makes things more predictable for the players and easier for the GM to govern, theoretically speaking, without pages and pages of Weyrthian Laws of Nature.

The purpose of science in the book was to give a standard to measure by, but that's it. Use it that way, or rely on GM-fiat/player consensus.

Jake

Very good. So tRoS magic uses scientific principles for consistancy and predictability. The merits of this are arguable but I like it because I like science. If I ignore most of the example spells it makes sense. But I lose it once we start using the application of science in magic. i.e. Movement/Vision to teleport photons from one side of me to the other, or rubbing molecules togeather to create heat to start a fire. From the point of view of a medieval scientist such things just don't exist; but conservation of mass/energy probably would. (But that may be a setting choice.)

I want to be constructive here, and not just complain about what I don't like or don't understand. I accept that there will be many interpretations of each vagary, so I'll try and stick to pointed questions without getting too far out.

1) Can you transmute one non-living substance into another with Sculpture alone? For example, a rock into an apple.

2) Do you have to use Summoning for a spell with a duration of days? For example, a floating halo above your head (Glamor).

3) Summoning can create magical energy, to power a spell or rechange your spell pool. Is it required for any magic that creates mass/energy, such as growth or movement?

4) Is Summoning/Banishing/Imprisoning *only* useful for spirits/demons/magic or can you summon magic energy and shape it into matter?

5) I couldn't find the section on Talismans and embedding spells into objects. I would assume that it works the same way as embedding spells into people except using Imprisoning instead of Conquer, but can I get confirmation or a page number please?

6) Movement is an extreamly powerful vagary, but only if you allow direct manipulation of molecules (combine with Vision 3) and asuming a very modern understanding of chemistry. There has to be another way to create heat/light/energy. Any ideas? Could Movement be interpreted to encompas all kinds of energy?

1. Apples are generally still alive at the time of consumption, unless you like your apples dried... All the same, I would say yes, as fruits and veggies are generally much less complex than a larger plant such as a tree. Alternate interpretation: Fruits and veggies are prototypical objects, the same as rocks. Because they share some prototypical similarities (size, "unliving-ness" etc.) they can be transmuted simply.

2. Yes, summoning is required for a spell with a duration of days, UNLESS your sorcerer wants to sustain the spell with their own SP for several days, which is possible only if they retain consciousness.

3. No, unless the spell requires a duration or in some way uses magical energy directly, summoning is not necessary.

4. Magic is not "energy" in the physics sense of the word, and as such has no mass. Hence the "no creating something from nothing" rules. However, as is usually said, your mileage may vary, and you may do it however you wish.. But I feel it best to think of magic "raw life force" as I believe it's referred to in the book, as a purely metaphysical energy with no direct physical application.

5. Sorry, working from school, don't have my TRoS book with me. But I believe you are correct about the essential difference in embedding spells. Remember also that a second aging roll is made when the spell is triggered, and the object suffers the aging at this time.

6. Yes it is very powerful, though you're wrong about it only being powerful when used on the microscopic scale. Look for posts about destroying the world to see what I mean. No advanced physical understanding is needed to understand that a dense object (perhaps made using sculpture or growth) moving fast breaks things.. so a very, very dense object moving at exceedingly fast speeds could break really big things, like mountains, or the planet.. It only requires a basic intelligence, ability to observe and make conclusions, and a severe "mad scientist" complex.

As such, I say that fire and heat can still be made by rubbing two objects (not molecules) together very quickly, (observed and known fact even pre-physics) Light can be made either with the fire made in the aforementioned manner, or using Glamour. (we'll not even get into the concept of mental illusion with Glamour..) As for energy, I'd say that it was a fairly crudely considered concept before people up and decided to think up physics. Sorcerers probably think of energy as a measure of how energetic you feel, or how much fatigue is garnered by doing a given task.

I say leave physics out of it.. But this is just me. Sorcerer exists as a way to break the "laws" of physics, not slavishly adhere to them, or use them in ways they're not meant to be used.

Thank you Wolfen. I guess I should have RTFM more carefully though, several of my questions were at least hinted to in the text.
Here is my interpretation of the text:

1) Emphatically Yes. "Sculpture: magic that changes the physical form or shape of matter." It looks like I would need Intricacy 3 (replicate reality), Composition 2 (plant), Concept 2 (something remembered) Also, all the example spells that change living things use Sculpture but not necissarily Vision, i.e. Seal Wound.

2)Yes, page 104 "... Summoning ... any spell with a unconscious duration longer than instantaneous ... requires it's incorporation"

3)I was confused because of the way I was reading the example spells, thank you.

4)Looking at the text, the Spiritual vagaries only apply to spirits, demons, and spells; thus there is no "undirected energy" in tRoS magic. However I would probably allow the use of Summoning to cast a lightning bolt, since it uses raw magical energy in a directed way.

5)I still can't find where it talks about imbedding spells in objects, only imbedding them in people, "Domant Spells" page 122.

6) By "powerful" I meant "useful". Any of the vagaries can destroy the world, but that isn't interesting. Upon further consiteration I think I *am* wrong. Moving molecules around may be great at producing heat, but it isn't really any better than using Sculpture to transmute something into a dense plasma (which is still a form of matter). Movement is really much better at mimicing forces that we would call electromagnetic or gravitational forces, but it is not really useful for chemical reactions.

Finially I came to the conclusion that there are a whole lot of things that tRoS magic can't or won't do; the kind of things that a classical scientist wouldn't have known about. i.e. changing the way light travels (in spite of the example spell in the book, light is not matter, it is not somthing you can "see", thus it can not be the target of a spell), That isn't to say that invisibility and such are not possible, just not using movement. I also agree with Jake that Glamour has physical effects, in spite of the word "illusion" it also says Tangibility 2: The illusion is solid and ... real tactile components." (But don't take this as an invitation to restart that discussion. :) Also I find it very up-in-the-air as to whether you can create things "from thin air", it really depends on if you consider air a "thing", something that has mass. It is fairly easy to prove that it does, but you still can't see it, and for most of history it was considered empherical. Can you target an area and transmute a volume of "nothingness" into something tangible? I guess it depends on the setting and the way your group chooses to interpret the rules. And again, the example spells are often contradictory to other spells or directly with the text. i.e. Seal Wounds vs Regrowth, one requires Vision to see the cells dividing, the other doesn't even though it has a similar effect.

A few final points as this discussion winds down.

Lightning: Not saying your way is the wrong way, but there is a lightning sort of spell already in existence. It is one of the Spells of None in the back of the Sorcery section, Lightning of the Soul. I can see your way working if you choose to do it that way, though.

Embedding Spells: Mm. It seems you are correct. It does mention talismans under Dormant spells(p. 121), but it doesn't discuss them. It also makes mention of them under Imprisonment(p. 108) but again, there isn't much discussion. We've discussed it here on the boards so long ago that I'd thought it was in the book. Heh.

Okay, do it like so: Dormant spells in objects, use imprisonment instead of conquer. When the spell is triggered, the object ages the appropriate amount. There's some debate on whether the object ages it's equivalent in months (as a year's worth of aging means fairly little to a cured wooden staff, or a sword) or just normal months. You make the call for your game. Additionally, an active spell can be cast on an object and imprisoned, making it anchored to the object until the duration is up, or permanently as defined under Imprisonment. In this way you could create magical weapons and items.