From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sun Nov 15 08:06:10 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA12089; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 08:06:10 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id IAA12078 ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 08:06:09 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p47-max31.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.104.175]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA03271 ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:55:04 +1300 Message-Id: <199811141855.HAA03271@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Reverse engineering concealment magics Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 18:02:31 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jim Arona" 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. ---------- > From: Keith Smith > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: Reverse engineering concealment magics > Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 11:17 AM > > > >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. Possibly, it does, not that I'm conceding the point. However, that isn't the issue at hand, here. The rationales don't have to be consistent. In fact, you can leave the rationales to players to determine in a lot of cases. So long as the rationalisation doesn't generate any extra abilities. > > > Please satisfy my curiosity. What do you mean by 'the side that has had the > least attention'? We mostly describe things in a way that we, as modern day observers would understand them. There is a place for that sort of thing, but it isn't in spell descriptions. That is a place to explain the rule, and to generate flavour. When your description is technological in nature, then instead of creating a fantastic sense of magic, it becomes an excercise in engineering. In science fiction, you can get away with that sort of thing. > > >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'. No, I don't. We shouldn't have viewing screens if we can at all avoid it. Yes, on occasions you might incidentally describe something that has a technological flavour, but it shouldn't be your aim. Here are somethings to be avoided: Glasses, television, pistols, telephones, watches, etc. If you have to use them, then I suppose you're forced to describe them in a fantastical way. > > > 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. > No idea. I didn't intend to suggest any kind of specific plane to use. It was just an example of a way to describe a spell that was devoid of technological flavour. As for whether or not these things exist in Alusia, then if they don't already, then somebody will invent them in a game somewhere...Maybe you. > > >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. I don't see why it has to obey any axioms at all. It may have to conform to a descriptive form, but it doesn't have to represent any sort of underpinning of the universe. > 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. The Greeks had a lot of empirical evidence on their side to help them make those kinds of insights. We are in position of looking at a purely conjectural universe, with purely conjectural physical laws of the universe. That might be interesting to some people, and they should take every opportunity to excercise. It is not, and I think, it should never be an important part of game design. Jim. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sun Nov 15 08:08:28 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA12118; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 08:08:28 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id IAA12106 ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 08:08:27 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p47-max31.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.104.175]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA03330 ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:57:23 +1300 Message-Id: <199811141857.HAA03330@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Fw: Reverse engineering concealment magics Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 07:56:01 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jim Arona" 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. ---------- > From: Keith Smith > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: Reverse engineering concealment magics > Date: Saturday, November 14, 1998 11:17 AM > > > >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 -- -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sun Nov 15 20:43:11 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id UAA12853; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 20:43:11 +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 UAA12843 ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 20:43:10 +1300 Received: from highcastle (p79-max54.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.110.147]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA17892 ; Sun, 15 Nov 1998 20:32:00 +1300 Subject: Flyer posted on the Wall near the door. Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 20:31:05 +1300 Message-ID: <000101be1069$e7663c00$03656565@highcastle> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0 From: "Struan Judd" To: dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: X-Loop: dq-pub@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. {In large letters} See the fabulous travelling performance from over the seas of a historical drama set in far off Franc about a man, his daughter and the rebellion that surrounds them. {in smaller letters} See Gerald de Claary-Graal (AKA Glass the Illusionist) for boat times, venue and silver penny requirements. {in bright letters across all the above} LES MISERABLES ---- Struan L. Judd <*> Email: neon@sf.org.nz ICQ: 4498196 -- See message headers to unsubscribe from --