From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Nov 14 11:33:07 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA10375; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:33:07 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id LAA10364 ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:33:05 +1300 Received: from phaeton.ihug.co.nz (p26-max36.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.105.218]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA30547 ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:22:09 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981114111702.007af940@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: phaeton@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 11:17:02 +1300 Subject: Re: Reverse engineering concealment magics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Keith Smith To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. >That is not my assumption. My assumption, such as it is, is that the game >doesn't need to have an underlying, logical or even consistent rationale. I'm sorry but I don't think I understand exactly what you're trying to say here. There has to be some consistancy in the basic structure of the game world, otherwise we're looking at a chaotic state. Isn't it expected that the same spell cast would have the same effects each time (backfires notwithstanding). That does imply some consistancy. However the characters don't need to worry about it. All they need to know is that it works, not the whys and hows of it. Leave that to the philosophers :-) >It is science fiction because it is psionic in nature. That is an >inherently science fiction concept. Magic has more to do with poetry than >psychology. If we are trying to develop the college, then we should try and >develop the side that has had the least attention over the years, rather >than walk down the path most taken. Please satisfy my curiosity. What do you mean by 'the side that has had the least attention'? >Mind-editing is a term that one finds in science fiction and space opera >regularly. And, although that is fine in that genre, it jars in fantasy. >I don't think it's absurdly picky. I think it's germane. This is a game >based around words and the way we use them to describe something. You can >change a spell description, and take it from being boring to interesting >without in anyway altering the mechanics. That is not minor. That is a >powerful effect. One that we regularly ignore. So what you're saying is that we should be trying to describe things in a way that fits with the genre and also provides a mental picture of the effect that we're trying to achieve i.e. a viewing screen as a 'piece of crystal that illusionary moving images appear on'. >The adept travels along a path that borders the mortal realm, and is >subject to most of its laws and limitations, except that they cannot be >seen, except by those people who have Witchsight. At Ranks greater than 15, >the adept has such control over the path they tread that they can even >initiate an attack and stay invisible to observers. Sort of like the Border Ethereal of AD&D. Which reminds me. Has the Ethereal and Inner Planes been used in DQ before? Are they a part of our established multiverse? I'm considering running the odd adventure using the Elemental and Ethereal Planes. >Aside from becoming invisible, they acquire no other special abilities as a >result of this spell. > >That is not tech. That is magic. And feels like magic, too. Agreed. >My view is that magic should be cool, and bugger logic. It should engender >wonder and amazement. Yes, and it should for most people in that world. I can still see magic having to obey some sort of axioms otherwise we wouldn't have Colleges. However, that doesn't mean that we, as Games Masters, need to define them exactly(the axioms that is). A random thought: I can just see a bunch of Alusian philosophers sitting in a pub somewhere arguing this very topic over a few ales. After all the Ancient Greeks had a good go at explaining the real world by logic. They didn't get it exactly right but it was good enough for their purposes. Keith (phaeton@ihug.co.nz) -- See message headers to unsubscribe from --