From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Mar 24 01:12:06 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id BAA28038; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 01:12:06 +1200 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id BAA28035 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 01:12:04 +1200 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p49-max3.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.17.115.177]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA07505 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 1999 01:11:24 +1200 Message-Id: <199903231311.BAA07505@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Shell of Silence Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 01:09:27 +1200 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 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz ---------- > From: Jacqui Smith > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: Shell of Silence > Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 6:39 AM > > >While it may be true that music is ordered sound, there is no need to > >assume that magic based purely on sound is appropriate to the Bardic > >college. That is a non-sequitur. > > I think the argument was more that the vast majority of sound-based magics > could be phrased in terms which were purely musical. It's just a matter of > semantics. It is a matter of semantics. That is the point. Design is mostly about description. Description is about meaning, both explicit and unstated. When you have fallen into the trap of eschewing description for numbers, you have destroyed any flavour that game element might have had. In any case, whether or not it is a matter of semantics, there are some things that cannot be phrased in musical terms, merely because they have a sound-based rationalisation. Echosense, for example. > > >I dislike it, and the idea of 'sound' magic, because the effects owe more > >to science and technology than they do to magic and mysticism. Magic often > >becomes a technology with a different flavour, and we often seem to end up > >creating a kind of magical technology, but there seems to me no > >particularly good reason to make technology the basis of your magic. In the > >best of all possible worlds, I prefer magic that looks and behaves in some > >mysterious, arcane fashion, perhaps owing more to chaos than to order, but > >having a more 'artistic' feel to it than technological one. > > I suspect that the real source of argument here has to differing styles of > thought, and that as a result of educational background. So sue me, but > I've been taught to think logically and to look for system in the world > around me. Or worlds, as the case may be... I cannot measure the degree of pity I feel for you, Jacqui, if you can only think, as you call it, 'logically'. If you cannot look for resonances of meaning and conceits that capture feeling, without a devotion to rational thought, then you are missing out on a whole other way of looking at life, the world, and the way we interact with other. That, however, is your problem, to correct or not as you see fit. It is not anything to do with educational backgrounds, or thinking logically. It is to do with what is appropriate to a genre. Magic is not science, it should not replace science, and we should stop trying to make it work as if it were science. We don't need to know what each element of a spell does in real terms...We don't really need to know how hot Dragonflames gets in degrees C...We just need to know that it gets real hot. We could argue endlessly, and meaninglessly, about how mana actually causes damage with a bolt spell. It does not significantly contribute to the game architecture to do so. It is better to talk about what sort of things 'feel' right for the genre. You can argue that purely logical rationalisations 'feel' right to you, if you like. I don't believe it. When we talk about Bards, we carry several preconcieved notions of what such a person might be able to do. They are not powerful, dedicated spell users, although they use spells. They are not dedicated warriors, although they use weapons. They are something of a mixture, having both spells and weapon skills. They specialise in carrying news to farflung places, and collecting stories or songs along the way. They are not famous for being able to echosense. Nor does one think of them inflicting harm through powerful subsonic sound generation. It would be better to go with our apprehension of the way a Bard would work, rather than try to cross every tee or dot every i. If nothing else, it's faster. > > Personally I see DQ magic (and indeed the magic of most FRPGs) as far too > codified for the approach you suggest. It cannot be especially mysterious > or arcane when at the same time it must be consistent enough to be played > not just in a single GM's game, but across a multi-GM campaign. What I'm talking about is why the spell works. A lot of your design is tied up with why the spell works the way it does. Who cares? If it is reasonable to the college, most people will work out why it's there. Most players and DMs are actually literate. They don't need to be spoon fed a rationalisation. Secondly, every time the concept of the wonder of magic is raised, someone always says that you have to be consistent, because DQ is played in a multi-DM environment, and everyone has to play the rules the 'right' way. That is unreconstructed drivel. Every DM interprets the rules, therefore every DM changes the basis of the game, one way or another. It is unavoidable. Games vary from DM to DM. Instead of denying this, the Guild is an excellent opportunity to celebrate it. We should be encouraging DMs to develop the style that is most natural to them. This provides us with lots of different games to play with the same characters. What is the problem? Arguments about consistency are really a player inspired argument, because consistency only benefits players. A rule that is only ever played one way means that the player only needs to acquire the right degree of leverage and doesn't have to develop across a wide front in case their characters usual stratagems don't work. DMs, on the other hand, have nothing to gain from consistency. Therefore, they have nothing to gain from pursuing this course of argument. > > >I don't know who wrote this, and I don't know who suggested this plan to > >the writer, but it has to be one of the most poorly thought out plans I've > >ever come across. Surely, if you don't like something, you vote against it. > >If you do like it, you vote for it. What possible purpose would be served > >by voting for something you dislike, because you believe it will fail > >later? This cunning plan is far too cunning for me, I'm afraid. > > I agree entirely... > > >I would rather see the college gone utterly, however, than have a college > >whose magic is really technological effects dresses in the words 'magical > >spell'. By and large, a spell may be described in many different ways and > >yet maintain almost exactly the same characterisitics as other spells of > >it's ilk...bolt spells, for example. It is in large part the description of > >the effect that determines the flavour of such a micro-rule. If little > >effort is made to describe the spell in terms more resonant of the > >wondrousness of magic, then there is little to engage the attention. One is > >forced to deal only with the gross results of such magic. > > What you suggest is true of almost the entire DQ magic system - and of > Bardic less than most Colleges. The Mind and Celestial Colleges, in > particular, are rife with technological references. I'm almost inclined to > think that it's part of the "flavour" of DQ. Even though this is true, it would still be wrong, and such a move needs to be avoided.In any case, the later colleges have usually avoided the technological. Wiccan, for example, Binder, etc, etc. > > >This is something that could be said of any magical design, it's true. The > >Bardic college suffers markedly from what I believe to be poor craft in the > >actual description of the effects. Some spells were hideously tough, and > >that was probably more of an oversight than any other reason. Some of the > >magic that was trashed was very good, albeit powerful, like 'The Sound of > >Trumpets', and I don't know why they went. > > You had the opportunity to comment at the workshop stage, which is where > spell descriptions can most easily be thrashed out. I have been telling you for ages, over the 'net, and in person what I thought about some of these effects. You have chosen to not listen, or consider them valueless. I have given you my opinion on this college, as it stands. It is not open to negotiation. > > >The distinction between Echosense and The Sound of Trumpets is that > >Echosense is just a weird sense that would have a marginal right to exist > >in a fantasy campaign, whereas The Sound of Trumpets has associations which > >give it some greater right to our acceptance as magic. We can point to the > >story of Joshua at the Battle of Jericho and say this is appropriate to a > >fantasy setting. > >You could argue that the Bard was generating intensely powerful subsonic > >sound waves at just the right pitch and volume that they cause structures > >to collapse, but that would be a technological rationalisation. Or, you > >could say that walking x number of times around a building playing a > >trumpet conjured otherworldy forces that twisted the fabric of reality and > >shattered stone...Ultimately, the latter rationalisation does not seek to > >explain the actual mechanics of the effect. But who cares. The important > >thing is that if 'feels' like magic, and we understand what it's effect is. > >Which brings me back to sound and music. Magic does not need any other > >rationalisation other than it be resonant with the idea behind the college. > >Music is resonant of what bard's might be said to do...But everyone can > >make a lot of noise. > > Maybe different things "feel like magic" to different people. > O, come, Jacqui. Are you seriously saying that the 'Sound of Trumpets' has less of a feel of magic to you than 'Echosense'? I cannot believe it. I believe, instead, that you are taking a position and refusing to budge out of intransigence, pure and simple. That is a waste of my time. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --