Is the matrix getting too magical?, input/discussion welcome Options

[Ravor]

Simple, the description wins over the table hands down every time, just like it does with the rest of the incorrect tables, which to my knowledge also has yet to be corrected, in the case of detect life we are explictly told what the spell can and cannot do, but the table adds elements that aren't in the description and thus is wrong. And yes, detect enemies wouldn't be able to tell you what if any weapons someone someone had either.

[Cthulhudreams]

I think the problem is here that the people I am arguing against all have different positions.

Ravor is hard line but has no rational explaination for the existance of the table but his point is logically consistent.

Max and Tynaeous are arguing stuff between the example is correct and the spell description is only correct which is logically inconsistent

I'm saying the example is correct.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

That ended 5 pages ago (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Back to the new topic. What I do get is what do you think the table is supposed to be for?

Working on your premise that only content referenced directly in the spell description applies, what is the purpose of the table? It is not referenced in the spell description for any of the detect spells, so it is not relevant to them. To me this leaves the purpose very unclear.

It would seriously help my understanding of the argument if you could explain how you see the two rules elements interacting under your rules of interpretation.

My current understanding is thus

A) Only elements directly referenced in the spell descriptions thus apply

B) The table is an aberrant misprint that does nothing at all.

Therefore C) The only information that can be gained from detect life is the number and position of life signs.

to me the issue with your argument, and the mistake one of the dvocates of the position (the table is wrong" is making, is that the table can introduce no news rules elements. To me, the table clearly does introduce an additional rules element - that the detection spells can provide additional infomation about the subjects if net hits are achieved.

Tymeaus Jalynsfe... is logically inconsistent because he posits that the example is wrong, because it introduces new rules elements not mentioned in the spell description in the infomation about the subject, but permits the table to introduce a new rules element not mentioned in the spell description.

My example posits 4 very straightforward cases... I have yet to see an argument that refutes these premises...

With incrementing successes comes incrementing information, none of which relies upon information that the spell can not provide... some of it may be extrapolation, but is consistent with what I see as the intent of the examples, though not in the same light....

Detect life CANNOT determine any information about non-living material... thus the description in the table is erroneous.. you cannot determine the presence of weapons or cultural bias based upon LIFE DETECTION... that is cut and dried... the only inference that seems to be of contention with my example is whether you could identify the Troll (I say you can, it is a funtion of the life essence of the character) and whether or not you can tell if she is being chased (I say you can tell that by observation of the effects of the "chase" through the lense of the sustained spell (Observational on where everyone os located)... Both of which are allowed by the Description of the spell...

Please tell my why these example are WRONG in your opinion... I do not agree with you that the table is useless, I think that you must use the table in light of the spell that is being cast...

[Cthulhudreams]

Ravor just argued against them. He just said that the detect spells only function exactly as described in the spell description.

Troll (I say you can, it is a funtion of the life essence of the character)

Is not mentioned in the spell description. Therefore according to ravor the spell does no do that.

This position is consistent, because he is refuting all rules outside the spell description text.

Your position is inconsistent, because you are letting the table add new rules element (spells can detect additional infomation - the point about which ravor disagrees), but (and this is the inconsistency) you are arbitrarily defining the additional information that can be detected. The table does not make any reference to what information can be discovered, and uses the example to.. promulgate an example.

If you admit the table text *at all* the example is the only guideline in the rules as to what can be discovered as additional information.

But you and ravor quite explictly disagree about the function of the detect spells.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Ravor just argued against them. He just said that the detect spells only function exactly as described in the spell description.



Is not mentioned in the spell description. Therefore according to ravor the spell does no do that.

This position is consistent, because he is refuting all rules outside the spell description text.

Your position is inconsistent, because you are letting the table add new rules element (spells can detect additional infomation - the point about which ravor disagrees), but (and this is the inconsistency) you are arbitrarily defining the additional information that can be detected. The table does not make any reference to what information can be discovered, and uses the example to.. promulgate an example.

If you admit the table text *at all* the example is the only guideline in the rules as to what can be discovered as additional information.

But you and ravor quite explictly disagree about the function of the detect spells.

Actually, from what I have read, Ravor and I Agree far more about this than you and I do...
And I agree with Ravor Here as well, I guess it is time to Agree to Disagree...

Keep the Faith...

[Cthulhudreams]

What the hell?

the most descriptive only says that the Troll Woman is your Contact (you could conceivably know this by her aura) and that she is wounded, also knowable through Detect Life (her Lifeforce is dwindling)...

Ravor explicitly disagrees with that interpretation of the spell, but that is your statement.

Does the spell do that or not?

[Ravor]

*dry voice* Thanks Cthulhudreams but I can pick my own arguements quite nicely. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cyber.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

What the hell?



Ravor explicitly disagrees with that interpretation of the spell, but that is your statement.

Does the spell do that or not?

It was a nitpick of his that he does not agre with the interpretation that the Troll is obviously being chased...

I would tend to disagree over time based upon the description of the spell allowing you to determine location of the lifeforce of those being detected... if it looks like she is being chased, she probably is; remember, the spell is sustained, so you would have time for observational analysis... that is what the 4 hits would seem to indicate based upon the table (more information available due to success, but nothing more than is beyond the spell's capabilities)

[Cthulhudreams]

*dry voice* Thanks Cthulhudreams but I can pick my own arguements quite nicely. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cyber.gif)

I'm trying to work out what the hell the argument is. You guys are advancing 3 seemingly different arguments all at once, then all claiming to agree with each other - but your arguments are mutually contradictory!

It was a nitpick of his that he does not agre with the interpretation that the Troll is obviously being chased...

Lets focus on the wounded troll bit

A) Can detect life tell if a lifeform is a troll

B) Can detect life tell if they are wounded?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I'm trying to work out what the hell the argument is. You guys are advancing 3 seemingly different arguments all at once, then all claiming to agree with each other - but your arguments are mutually contradictory!


Lets focus on the wounded troll bit

A) Can detect life tell if a lifeform is a troll

B) Can detect life tell if they are wounded?

A: Yes, with more than 1 hit...
b: Yes, With more than 1 Hit...

1 Success: General Knowlegdge: There are 4 Metahumans
2 Successes: Major Details, No Minro Details: Troll, Ork, Human, Etc...
3 Successes: Major and Minor Details: Troll is a Female and Orks are Male...
4 Successes: Complete Detailed Information: Troll is Female and Wounded, and appears pregnant, Orks are Male and one is Sterile...

This is an example of incrementing information based upon the successes and is Supported by the Table given in the Books for Detection Spell Results...

What we have benn contradicting abouth the table examples is that the examples provide information that the spell is incapable of providing... Detect Life cannot provide information on non-living onjects... Period...

That has been the crux of the argument, not that the table was inherently flawed, just the examples given...

[Cthulhudreams]

Right. None of that is mentioned in the spell description. So why do you think it applies?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Right. None of that is mentioned in the spell description. So why do you think it applies?

Life is life... you can tell the various types of life apart from each other with an observation... that is what the Spell table is for... You receive information based upon the successes of the spell, but only in what it pertains to the specific spell...

For Detect Life, you get Dog, Cat, Deer, Human, Metahuman, Shifter, Elf, Dwarf, Wounded, etc... all are various forms of life (or stages thereof) and as such are subject to the table description, as long as you remember the limits of the spell itself and the levels of success described in the table descriptions... You just refuse to see it...

Remember, teh effect of the spell is a combination of the Spell in Question and the Level of Success as based on the Detection Spell Result Table...

I would be interested in your opinion of the various levels of success... How do you see them working?

1 Success: General Knowlegdge
2 Successes: Major Details, No Minor Details
3 Successes: Major and Minor Details
4 Successes: Complete Detailed Information

Keep the Faith

[Ravor]

I'd agrue that unlike the curveball out of left field like discovering a spell whose description simply states that it detects lifeforms can in fact also detect weapons and other bullshit it stays true to the spirit of the spell's description, although I'm personally not sure that it could tell you everything in Tymeaus Jalynsfein's table but it doesn't offend my sensibilities like completely making shit up.

[Cthulhudreams]

lol, so it's okay for stuff that isn't in the spell description to apply, just as long as you personally approve? Hilairty aside, that is inconsistent with your previous position, so can I seek clarification.

To me it's clear that the spells detect targets and then the amount of information you get about the targets is determined in accordance with the hit chart. This aligns with the description, the table and the example.

[Ravor]

So in addition to deciding who I'm arguing against you know also think you you get to decide what I said as well?

[Cthulhudreams]

No, hence me saying, and I quote "Hilairty (sic) aside, that is inconsistent with your previous position, so can I seek clarification. "

Meaning that I need clarification because I do not understand your position. You are seeming to say that stuff not in the spell description is acceptable now, but you said that it was not before. I am confused by these statements, and to resolve this confusion, I would like to seek clarification of your position.

To me that was a reasonable response to a seemingly inconsistent position, and I am sorry if you think that is unreasonable.

Additionally, I'd like to know why that if content not in the spell description is acceptable, why the table cannot separately define rules that enable the example.

[Ravor]

Fair enough, I'll try this again then.

The spell description ultimately trumps everything else, that is the baseline that I come from.

The spell description says that the spell detects lifeforms.

There are rules that basically says, the more sucesses you get, the better the result is, and these rules apply to detection spells as well.

Therefore I don't see where allowing a spell that detects lifeforms to give you more details with extra sucesses is in disagreement with the spell discription provided that the extra details are strictly applied to things that the spell can detect.

Hence, I may not agree with everything in Tymeaus Jalynsfein's table, but its a gaint step foward because he has tried to apply the spell's description to the rules we have whereas the table in the book throws in details that are completely missing from the spell description.

And one of the reasons that I don't agree with the idea of interupting "unspoken rules" based off the tables is that quite frankly the tables are simply wrong in alot of places which in my opinion shows that they aren't proofed and fact checked as closely as the rest of the book is, also I believe that it is simply bad form to hide rules like that.



Now, to change tracks for a moment, applying detect life in this fashion makes the spell still useful but no longer a "must have", which in my opinion is a good thing by itself.

*EDIT*

Just a minor correction, there is one thing that the spell descriptions don't get to trump, and that is the Sixth World's Magical Theory, which is why I rail against "Turn to Goo" and it's sibling so much.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Fair enough, I'll try this again then.

The spell description ultimately trumps everything else, that is the baseline that I come from.

The spell description says that the spell detects lifeforms.

There are rules that basically says, the more sucesses you get, the better the result is, and these rules apply to detection spells as well.

Therefore I don't see where allowing a spell that detects lifeforms to give you more details with extra sucesses is in disagreement with the spell discription provided that the extra details are strictly applied to things that the spell can detect.

Hence, I may not agree with everything in Tymeaus Jalynsfein's table, but its a gaint step foward because he has tried to apply the spell's description to the rules we have whereas the table in the book throws in details that are completely missing from the spell description.

And one of the reasons that I don't agree with the idea of interupting "unspoken rules" based off the tables is that quite frankly the tables are simply wrong in alot of places which in my opinion shows that they aren't proofed and fact checked as closely as the rest of the book is, also I believe that it is simply bad form to hide rules like that.



Now, to change tracks for a moment, applying detect life in this fashion makes the spell still useful but no longer a "must have", which in my opinion is a good thing by itself.

*EDIT*

Just a minor correction, there is one thing that the spell descriptions don't get to trump, and that is the Sixth World's Magical Theory, which is why I rail against "Turn to Goo" and it's sibling so much.

I can live with that... as I stated earlier, not everyone will agree with the way I approacehd the explanations, but I think that we are in agreement on the basics at least...

Keep the Faith...

[Ravor]

Aye, and as I said earilier, your example doesn't raise my hackles like the one in the book does.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Aye, and as I said earilier, your example doesn't raise my hackles like the one in the book does.

Works for Me...

Keep the Faith...