tgm@ukc.UUCP (T.Murphy) (04/15/85)
>net.games.frp.physics is a great idea! I'm a technical type, and i always >enjoy a game more when there is a semi-plausible physical explanation. >This also helps figure out tricky questions, such as mana depletion. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Kahn. To me, a system of physics governing magic is essential. The way I see magic is as a subset of an overall system of physics. In no way inconsistent with the normal laws of physics. This brings up arguments like the following: Argument: If you are invisible then all light passes through you so you aren't seen. But if this is so, then there is no light reaching your retina so you shouldn't be able to see. Counter argument: The invisibility spell is illusion/phantasm not alteration. So you are in effect invisible because Those who are affected refuse to acknowelege your presence (like a S.E.P. field). This is why it is negated when you attack (How can you ignore someone who is attacking you?).Discovery: So if you are invisible and you stand in front of a small object (a secret door, say) then your oponents should not be able to see it since they `refuse' to look at you. Answer: Try it and find out! Physics is still physics; the heat has to go somewhere after a fireball. You don't end up with such idiotic things like gunpowder not working for unexplained reasons (cf. Greyhawk by the Great Ghod Gygax). I prefer my players to know the how and why of the world they are living in so they can make intelegent decisions instead of stumbling around in the dark. I admire Niven's fantasy stories for their adhearence to the laws they set up and I get many of my ideas from him. Magic in my world is driven by taping the power flow from the positive material plane to the negative material plane. (I see these not as being the source of good and evil but as the source of light and darkness, no mysticism) Normal space has a certain permability to this power flow. Thus effectively causing your regions of high and low mana. An apprentice learns you to create micro- scopic gates to both planes and to chanel the power flow from one to the other (the notation black and white holes has just occured to me). The higher in level the larger the gate one can control. So a fireball is a split-second gate to the positive material plane 1mm cubed. This is effected by opening your gates and shutting the negative of just before the positive. Cold is a bit more tricky. You have to open a gate to the negative slightly larger that the positive and create a siphon effect. Sorry to be so technical but I find this type of discussion a large part of the enjoyment I get out of D&D. Of course those who run a hacking campaign or a `lets keep the players in the dark so I can fiddle it as I want' or a `I make it up as I go along' will probably find this /realistic/ viewpoint objectionable. Just to Theoretical Physics and Magic go hand in hand. {decvax,seismo}!mcvax!uck!tcdmath!jaymin Joe Jaquinta; c/o D.U. Maths Society; 39.16 Trinity College Dublin; Ireland -------------------- Please don't use reply. I don't live where this came from. Send mail to the above address.
jeff@alberta.UUCP (Curt J. Sampson) (04/21/85)
In article <5047@ukc.UUCP> tgm@ukc.UUCP (T.Murphy) writes: >Argument: > If you are invisible then all light passes through > you so you aren't seen. But if this is so, then there > is no light reaching your retina so you shouldn't > be able to see. >Counter argument: > The invisibility spell is illusion/phantasm not > alteration. So you are in effect invisible because > Those who are affected refuse to acknowelege your > presence (like a S.E.P. field). This is why it is > negated when you attack (How can you ignore someone > who is attacking you?).Discovery: > So if you are invisible and you stand in front of > a small object (a secret door, say) then your > oponents should not be able to see it since they > `refuse' to look at you. Actually, the invisibility spell in my games creates a "blind spot" for anybody looking at that person. You don't see anything there, but you don't know you are missing anything. You know the door is there because you can see parts of the door around the person, or you saw it before the person moved there. You mind will fill in the details that you are not "seeing." -- Curt Sampson ihnp4!alberta!jeff "There is a theory which states that if every anyone discovers exactly what the Usenet is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by somehing even more bizarre and inexplicable. "There is another theory which states that this has already happened."
euren@ttds.UUCP (Leif Euren) (04/26/85)
Quote Curt J. Sampson: : >Actually, the invisibility spell in my games creates a "blind spot" for >anybody looking at that person. You don't see anything there, but you don't >know you are missing anything. You know the door is there because you can >see parts of the door around the person, or you saw it before the person >moved there. You mind will fill in the details that you are not "seeing." This will also explain why intelligent, high-levelers will understand that there is an invisible present, as stated in DMG. A very good explanation, me thinks. Leif Euren
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/01/85)
> >Actually, the invisibility spell in my games creates a "blind spot" for > >anybody looking at that person. You don't see anything there, but you don't > >know you are missing anything. You know the door is there because you can > >see parts of the door around the person, or you saw it before the person > >moved there. You mind will fill in the details that you are not "seeing." > > This will also explain why intelligent, high-levelers will understand that > there is an invisible present, as stated in DMG. A very good explanation, me > thinks. > Leif Euren Does this mean that creatures with magic resistance also get a chance to see someone who is invisible? With this interpretation of invisibility, it seems as though the spell affects the minds of the people who look, so magic resistance should apply. Personally, I run invisibility as though it really makes people invisible. It's more reasonable to think that a second level spell with a duration like invisibility works that way than to think that it affects everyone who looks in your direction from any range with no saving throw. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Did you ever wonder ... why you're supposed to drive on a parkway and park on a driveway?"
mike@wuphys.UUCP (Mike Jones) (05/03/85)
You want fizics, you got it. I use invisability as an actual bending (more like light piping) of the light around the invisible object (or person). This avoids making invisability a mental attack of the "you don't see me" type. The reason I don't like this is that most such mental influences have saving throws. Invisability dosn't have a saving throw, so it isn't like that. (Clerical sanctuary is exactly like that, and it does have a saving throw). The objection is that if all the light is bent around the person then the person can't see. The key word is all. How much light do we need to see? From my handy Physics Vade Mecum (handbook) we find that unobscured sunlight is ~10^5 lux (lm m^-2). A quarter moon at 30 degrees above the horizon (still adequate visability) is about 10^-2 lux. So the human (not to mention elven or dwarf) eye is capable of seeing over a range of 10 million in ilumination. So all we need to allow is an inefficiency of 1 part in 10 million and the person inside can see. We can do better than that if we need to. One in 10 million is allowing a hole in the invisability the size of the pupil (all the rest can be 100.0000% effiecient), since we are bending light anyway, its perfectly reasonable to focus light in from a slightly larger area, so all we need to see is a patch of perhaps a few square cm which is 99.9999999% effiencent and we can see fine (in full daylight). This has to be scaled for lower light, but in full darkness invisability dosen't have to work very hard anyway. The detect invisable chance at high levels is based on slight ineffencies which mean the exact direction of bending is not perfect or perhaps diffraction effects at the invisability/ normal space interface. Sorry this got so long winded. Mike Jones Physics Dept. Washington University St. Louis ihnp4!wuphys!mike