IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Manadynamics, musing on what is known about magic's behaviour
Kagetenshi
post Sep 25 2010, 02:38 PM
Post #1


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



So this thread doesn't really have a point, except insofar as to collect some knowledge about the way that magic works from a "magical energy" standpoint, analogous to thermodynamics for typical energy. I'm also going to try to tie the two together, but the links are tenuous.

First off, let's start with the obvious: without the existence of a magical form of energy, magic blows conservation of both energy and mass right out of the water. Basic combat spells like Manabolt or Powerball aren't a problem (Powerball even increases entropy), but all of your elemental manipulations produce matter or energy, to say nothing of Create Food, shapeshifter form-changing, etc. etc. etc.

Now, prolonged magical activity produces Background Count. Background Count generally reduces the useful magical work that can be done; there's a clear analogy here to a heat engine and the decline in source temperature differential. We then have an easy patch for thermodynamics—magical energy exists and can be converted into other forms of energy, consuming the magical energy in the process.

There are a few holes here, some easily explained and some less so. I'll start with the easy one: where does the mage come into this? Why doesn't magic (usually) spontaneously convert to other forms of energy?

The easy resolution is to interpret the mage as a conduit or catalyst. This serves to explain why Drain is so unpredictable; the mage isn't (in this interpretation) so much actively forming and manipulating the magical energy (I'll call it "mana" from here on) as directing it and letting it flow through them. In this case, then, drain represents the consequences of failure to let mana flow through; it instead remains with the mage and causes injury (maybe this is mechanic for the combat spells? But that's neither here nor there.). This is close to canon descriptions, though they imply a bit more of an active role for the mage.

Trickier is the fact that this implies that Background Count is caused by depletion of mana. Background Count is Horror-Taint in Earthdawn, but the Horrors require a certain magic level to exist here, and they certainly don't seem too bothered by astral corruption. Perhaps then the primary effect is not expenditure of mana but increase in mana entropy; some mana must be converted to other forms of energy, but that need not be the primary effect (again, see heat engines).

Hardest to resolve is why matter is so easy to create using Mana. Create Food can, in the hands of a competent starting PC mage, reliably create enough matter to feed five or six adults with only +1(S) drain and no particularly unusual creation of Background Count. The spirit Wealth power does likewise. Mana's "exchange rate" with matter must be proportional to that of other energy, otherwise you get infinite energy by a three-way cycle. There's really nothing I can see to address this that isn't patched out of whole cloth, and in a way that adds nothing to the world.

Other things to consider: in this formula, Cleansing ought to take energy (it reduces magical entropy), as should Filtering which would be interpreted as localized Cleansing (you Cleanse the mana you're using right now rather than the whole area—presumably a win because whatever energy you use can't be converted into what you want the way mana can). On the other hand, Cleansing has severe Drain—I'm not sure where the energy comes from if the mage resists it all, but it's high enough that it's only moderately unreasonable for the mage to be the source of the energy.

Aspected Background Count is also tricky, and I don't have a solution that isn't epicycles.

Anyway, that's all I can think of at the moment.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Sep 25 2010, 06:24 PM
Post #2


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



This is about how I run magic. Mana is a form of background radiation caused by 'sentience' (using the term a little loosely) - or more broadly, a particular method of interpreting and responding to impulses.. Different levels of sentience create different levels of background count. Even plants have a limited sense of sentience, and so contribute (but animals have more, and humans have most). This also reflects why cyberware has a negative impact - Even cells have a degree of sentience, and our body is a concentrated dose of it, serving both as a generator of mana, but more importantly, a conductor. The introduction of cyberware removes our pseudo-sentient cells and critical, conducting lines of sentience. Theoretically, one could create a new kingdom of sentience based off of a more cyberware-like model. If you went to the Transformers' planet, it may have magic as well (and may not) - but since the mana is created by a different source, it would be of a different type and would follow different rules. Currently cyberware is below the critical point where it generates sufficient mana for it to be manipulated. This also accounts for some degree of background count - oftentimes it isn't a lack of mana, but a lack of mana in the format you are used to working with. A bug nest is creating a different form of mana that you cannot use without understanding their magic.

Because mana is simply another form of energy, magic is simply converting energy from one type of energy to another, or alternatively, alternating the mana fields in the local area (which in turn, impacts the mana-source, just like adding heat or magnetism to a computer will create altered operating states). I permit all the spells in the standard book. I do NOT permit any spells which create matter - the math simply doesn't support it. It would be easier to literally 'eat' the mana to support your life functions than it would be to convert it into a ham sandwich that you can then eat to produce mana.

Spirits wealth power is okay because spirits can access universes where the same rules don't apply. A spirit may go to a metaplane where the energy-mass conversion ratios are more favorable - or almost as likely, just find gold there and bring it back.

I don't deal with metamagic techniques, so I can't offer much on that. However in many of these cases, I assume that one form of energy can replace another. If I am doing physical work, that takes energy, but the drain from it is normal fatigue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KarmaInferno
post Sep 25 2010, 06:34 PM
Post #3


Old Man Jones
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,415
Joined: 26-February 02
From: New York
Member No.: 1,699



I was expecting a thread about dynamic men.




-k
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dwight
post Sep 25 2010, 06:42 PM
Post #4


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 595
Joined: 20-January 09
Member No.: 16,795



QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Sep 25 2010, 08:38 AM) *
Trickier is the fact that this implies that Background Count is caused by depletion of mana.

I disagree. As least as valid an inference in same mana level but it's no longer aligned with [normal] people. So trying to channel it there is more friction/resistance/impedance from normal people which means more power hits the caster and doesn't get through.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Sep 26 2010, 12:13 PM
Post #5


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 25 2010, 01:24 PM) *
I permit all the spells in the standard book. I do NOT permit any spells which create matter

How do you resolve the contradictions around Acid Stream/Toxic Wave?

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Sep 26 2010, 06:31 PM
Post #6


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



It's basically a loss of molecular cohesion. Everything else is color.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tanegar
post Sep 26 2010, 07:35 PM
Post #7


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,654
Joined: 29-October 06
Member No.: 9,731



QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 25 2010, 01:24 PM) *
I do NOT permit any spells which create matter - the math simply doesn't support it. It would be easier to literally 'eat' the mana to support your life functions than it would be to convert it into a ham sandwich that you can then eat to produce mana.

Yes, but what you're forgetting is that IT'S MOTHERFUCKING MAGIC!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dwight
post Sep 27 2010, 02:50 AM
Post #8


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 595
Joined: 20-January 09
Member No.: 16,795



QUOTE (Tanegar @ Sep 26 2010, 12:35 PM) *
Yes, but what you're forgetting is that IT'S MOTHERFUCKING MAGIC!

There-in is the rub. Magic isn't suppose to follow the rules of physics, it is by definition something that we don't understand. Sadly, by having numerical formulas in the rules this encourages the assumption it's pretty cut and dried, discoverable, and objectively measurable within the game's fiction. That it's easy to just apply a little stat analysis and the secrets of magic pop open. That it will bend to the will of scientific methodology, just another branch/extension of physics waiting to be catalogued, hell by this point in the SR timeline it should be well catalogued. I've had that exact discussion on this board about 4 or 5 years back. But that view is flawed in that it undermines the mysticism of magic, thus the whole underlying concept of making it a counterpoint at the junction of it, man, and machine.

Why isn't teleportation in Shadowrun? Why isn't time travel? Why isn't resurrection from the dead? Why isn't permanent matter creation? Not because of it doesn't mesh with sub-atomic physics but because it undermines classic conflicts, conflicts that people can readily wrap their head around. It's fine for elemental spells to have an actual matter component because they are only borrowing the matter, it doesn't stick around. It's there and it's gone. Where did it come from? Why can't we bottle it to keep it? How the hell can it be actual matter when the energy [required by physics] needed to form that much matter, as predicted by E=mc^2, is enough to level the better part of a city? How can it just wink out afterward? Well well shee-at son, it's MAGIC! As long as it doesn't entirely do away with the resource crunch conflicts, that's just fine.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Sep 27 2010, 05:52 AM
Post #9


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



QUOTE (Tanegar @ Sep 26 2010, 03:35 PM) *
Yes, but what you're forgetting is that IT'S MOTHERFUCKING MAGIC!

Right, but that's the gaming equivalent of the Turing Tarpit: everything is possible and nothing is interesting.

QUOTE (Dwight)
Why isn't resurrection from the dead [in Shadowrun]?

Because Death escaped from the Caspian Sea and it stopped being on fire.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dwight
post Sep 27 2010, 06:31 AM
Post #10


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 595
Joined: 20-January 09
Member No.: 16,795



QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Sep 26 2010, 10:52 PM) *
Right, but that's the gaming equivalent of the Turing Tarpit: everything is possible and nothing is interesting.

I don't think the Turing Tarpit is what you think it is....or you are entirely missing the point of "It's MAGIC!"...or, more likely, both.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Sep 27 2010, 01:05 PM
Post #11


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



QUOTE
Magic isn't suppose to follow the rules of physics,


1) Magic must follow rules, otherwise it's not magic, it's nonsense.

2) Magic must follow the rules of physics unless it has a good reason not to. Otherwise, there's no reason why fireballs should burn, why acid pools stick to the ground instead of floating off into space, and invisibility just gives everyone a headache. "A good reason not to" is pretty broad - a fireball can launch into existence and burn even non-flammable things because it's exciting, makes narrative sense, simplifies the rules, and is fun. However, I don't think "I am hungry and want a ham sandwich right now" is a good reason to bend the rules. Hence, no 'create food'.

3) By setting rules as to what magic can and can't do, it helps us as players and GMs create a more cohesive, adaptable world, and permits more unique and dangerous characters. If you take Shadowrun magic, as it appears in the book, and ask a GM, "is there magic on Mars?" he would answer yes or no - probably no. If you take my magic model and ask "is there magic on Mars?" the answer would be yes - but that it is wildly different, and offers the first suggestions as to why it is different. By establishing rules to magic, when a monster breaks the rules by apparently creating a sword, the players now know that this creature is special, and have a true mystery - how is it doing the impossible? Is it a level of magic we don't understand, or is it a different mechanism (we also don't understand)?

I can say from personal experience, I've played it both ways. I've run SR's magical system from 19th century England to Eclipse Phase and everything in between, and in my experience, clearly defining the expected behaviors and limitations of magic makes it more enjoyable for the players, easier to run for the GM, less likely to hit rules debates, and more adaptable, all without losing any mystery or excitement. You lose mystery by letting people call on said cosmic powers, guaranteed, with clearly defined results, within three-second timeframes, not by saying "you, and no one else on Earth, knows how to make magic make a ham sandwich".

QUOTE
it is by definition something that we don't understand.


Describing magic and how it behaves does not mean we understand it. I have no problem saying 'magic obeys the laws of conservation of mass and energy' and still having an argument over Kage about whether the source of magic is the human interference in natural fields, or the divine intervention of an external diety. You can say that magic doesn't turn black into white and cats into dogs, while still maintaining that it is something we really don't understand further.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dwight
post Sep 27 2010, 03:39 PM
Post #12


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 595
Joined: 20-January 09
Member No.: 16,795



QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 27 2010, 06:05 AM) *
1) Magic must follow rules, otherwise it's not magic, it's nonsense.

Which is something entirely different. Also different than all the details of the 'rules' being pre-known. Not to mention that nonsense actually is a perfectly valid allegory...and that's what magic runs on, allegory.
QUOTE
2) Magic must follow the rules of physics unless it has a good reason not to. Otherwise, there's no reason why fireballs should burn, why acid pools stick to the ground instead of floating off into space, and invisibility just gives everyone a headache. "A good reason not to" is pretty broad - a fireball can launch into existence and burn even non-flammable things because it's exciting, makes narrative sense, simplifies the rules, and is fun. However, I don't think "I am hungry and want a ham sandwich right now" is a good reason to bend the rules. Hence, no 'create food'.

"I am hungry and want a ham sandwich right now" is an absurd reason because it's the reasoning of characters, it's kicking out the 4th wall. On the other hand "my character is hungry and I want them to have a ham sandwich"....
QUOTE
3) By setting rules as to what magic can and can't do, it helps us as players and GMs create a more cohesive, adaptable world, and permits more unique and dangerous characters.

Again something entirely different than adherence to the laws of physics, magic itself functions indifferent to laws of physics...by definition.
QUOTE
I can say from personal experience, I've played it both ways. I've run SR's magical system from 19th century England to Eclipse Phase and everything in between, and in my experience, clearly defining the expected behaviors and limitations of magic makes it more enjoyable for the players, easier to run for the GM, less likely to hit rules debates, and more adaptable, all without losing any mystery or excitement.

Which, again, is NOT connected to my statement that you quoted. Plus you are cherry picking an example of ambiguity... and then passing judgement with incredible bias because after reading your post I did NOT get the impression that it was certain that it was "Yes" for Mars. All you've done is take SR, whose authors have left things open-ended, and filled in the blank with what you want that particular answer to be [and then, at least in that post, not clearly explained what answer you gave.]
QUOTE
You lose mystery by letting people call on said cosmic powers, guaranteed, with clearly defined results, within three-second timeframes, not by saying "you, and no one else on Earth, knows how to make magic make a ham sandwich".

Wait, did you just start arguing against the rest of your post so far???
QUOTE
Describing magic and how it behaves does not mean we understand it.

Being able to accurately predict how it will function in all situations, however, does. ;) Of course the tricky part is conveying to the player the sense of this lack of knowledge by the character while having something that you can play with.
QUOTE
I have no problem saying 'magic obeys the laws of conservation of mass and energy' and still having an argument over Kage about whether the source of magic is the human interference in natural fields, or the divine intervention of an external diety. You can say that magic doesn't turn black into white and cats into dogs, while still maintaining that it is something we really don't understand further.

You are missing that the breaking of our RL physical laws does happen, in whatever ways it does, because if it didn't then then there wouldn't actually be magic. It would just be more mundane stuff.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Sep 27 2010, 04:46 PM
Post #13


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



QUOTE (Dwight @ Sep 27 2010, 11:39 AM) *
Which is something entirely different. Also different than all the details of the 'rules' being pre-known. Not to mention that nonsense actually is a perfectly valid allegory...and that's what magic runs on, allegory.


The rules must be known to the GM. Whether the source is the book, himself, or a forum post is irrelevant. The GM must have a framework from which he can narrate magic.

QUOTE
"I am hungry and want a ham sandwich right now" is an absurd reason because it's the reasoning of characters, it's kicking out the 4th wall. On the other hand "my character is hungry and I want them to have a ham sandwich"....


I have no idea what you're saying here, or how it applies to the point at hand.

A character saying "abbra cadabra, hammy sandwichabra" and magicking a sandwich is a violation of narrative imperative, and of ease of rules. Ergo, we shouldn't bend the rules to permit it.

QUOTE
Again something entirely different than adherence to the laws of physics, magic itself functions indifferent to laws of physics...by definition.


Physics is the study of nature (which magic is, otherwise it wouldn't be attached to essence). It's the study of motion, energy and mass (all of which magic is in SR). So no, by definition, magical energy is not indifferent to the laws of energy. It may be indifferent to our understanding of the laws of energy. But if you have magical energy, it must comply with some laws regarding magical energy (i.e., physics), or else the only law is 'there is no law of magical energy', and at that point I have magic which is unpredictable and uncontrollable.

SR magic does conform to a set of laws. SR magic is energy. Physics is the study of energy. Ergo, SR magic complies with the laws of physics. By definition.

However, yes, my point is that we need clear rules by which we can GM magic. The laws of physics give us the most handy starting point. If you wanted to make a different set of laws governing magic, you are welcome to. But I have not seen any set so far which doesn't break down at the edges, so I say stay with what works and makes sense to me and my players.

QUOTE
Wait, did you just start arguing against the rest of your post so far???


If I did, I don't see any problem with that, but no, I don't believe I did here.

We are playing SR. SR, by the rules, lets you call on cosmic powers to create supernatural events, within 3-second intervals. It is an integral part of the game, so removing that aspect would be bad.

Unfortunately, the fact that they do this steals a lot of mystery from magic. It's too dependable. So from the get-go, magic is at a certain, not-so-mysterious level.

Saying 'magic can't raise people from the dead, travel through time, or create matter from nothing' does not steal any more mystery than it was already lacking.

If you were running a game where the players did not know anything about magic of the world, and said to all the players, "magic cannot create mass or energy from nothing", that would be reducing mystery in the game. But that's firstly an in-game consideration (how much information about the world you reveal to your players), and secondly, not the case with SR.

QUOTE
Being able to accurately predict how it will function in all situations, however, does.


Then you really shouldn't be playing Shadowrun, because I can predict that, in all attempts your mage makes to cast Stunball, he will never ever get Shadow and, in fact, 90% of the time, he will get stunball. So we are already past that stage.

QUOTE
You are missing that the breaking of our RL physical laws does happen, in whatever ways it does, because if it didn't then then there wouldn't actually be magic. It would just be more mundane stuff.


Your definition of magic seems to be 'we can't possibly predict it!!' But this seems contrary to both the SR rules, and to common sense. You seem to be requiring that all magic be random. If it's not random, it's predictable, and restrained by laws. I think I have a problem with your chosen definition.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dwight
post Sep 27 2010, 07:44 PM
Post #14


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 595
Joined: 20-January 09
Member No.: 16,795



QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 27 2010, 09:46 AM) *
The rules must be known to the GM. Whether the source is the book, himself, or a forum post is irrelevant. The GM must have a framework from which he can narrate magic.

It is entirely possible that the in-game nature of magic is not entirely known prior to play, instead during play it is created as a joint construct (or even solely by the GM adhoc, though that makes players doing things difficult).

You can still have clear rules, those are good, though at least in part they aren't rules directly about the magic known and discoverable from within the game world.
QUOTE
I have no idea what you're saying here, or how it applies to the point at hand.

People playing the game defining magic is different than characters defining the magic. You described a character defining the magic.
[quote]A character saying "abbra cadabra, hammy sandwichabra" and magicking a sandwich is a


<gggrrrrrrr, I HATE YOU INTERNET FOR EATING MY POST!!!!> It seems my copy of what I typed is lost and unrecoverable...I'll try recreate it, later, maybe. But in the meantime Nezumi here's the short version.

1) It isn't MY definition, it's the English language.
2) You are using the same "common sense" that says people don't suddenly and violently sprout horns and dermal bone deposits at puberty.
3) You are falling into the very trap I mention here: " Sadly, by having numerical formulas in the rules this encourages the assumption it's pretty cut and dried, discoverable, and objectively measurable within the game's fiction. That it's easy to just apply a little stat analysis and the secrets of magic pop open. That it will bend to the will of scientific methodology, just another branch/extension of physics waiting to be catalogued, hell by this point in the SR timeline it should be well catalogued. I've had that exact discussion on this board about 4 or 5 years back. But that view is flawed in that it undermines the mysticism of magic, thus the whole underlying concept of making it a counterpoint at the junction of it, man, and machine."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Apathy
post Sep 27 2010, 10:00 PM
Post #15


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 31-January 04
From: Reston VA, USA
Member No.: 6,046



Off-the-cuff theories:
1) The physical plane, the astral plane, and all the metaplanes are coincident in every point in space. The wealth and manifestation powers, as well as any 'create matter'-type spells, are a limited form of gateway which pulls matter from a metaplane to the physical plane. No matter is actually created, it's just moved from one plane to another. Since metaplane matter is not natural to the physical plane, it is pulled back to its natural environment as soon as the magical energy (spell, spirit power, whatever) holding it in place is removed.

2) We could suggest that magical energy also comes from the metaplanes. We've been told that it's a byproduct of life/sentience/nature, but maybe mana is the metaplanar expression of the things which exist in the physical plane. Magic would then be a mechanism by which magicians drew energy/mana from their appropriate metaplane, through the astral into the physical world. Since mana is a finite resource being created by the local life, the more we suck up for powerful spells, the less will be left to use (until it replenishes itself naturally - leading to mana voids. In that paradigm, destroying life on our plane would eliminate the production of mana in the congruent part of the metaplane - hence background count. Aspected mana would be situations where the barrier between one particular metaplane and the physical were reduced, making it easier to pull mana from that metaplane, but crowding out the energy from the other planes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Sep 28 2010, 01:20 AM
Post #16


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,006
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



QUOTE (Dwight @ Sep 27 2010, 01:31 AM) *
I don't think the Turing Tarpit is what you think it is....or you are entirely missing the point of "It's MAGIC!"...or, more likely, both.

I think the Turing Tarpit is a descriptor for a family of languages where "everything is possible and nothing interesting is easy".

I think the point of "It's MAGIC!" is pretty much precisely what the linked strip claims it to be about: it gives you an excuse to yank the rug out from under players at all times, destroying their ability to engage in logical inference and limiting what they can ever know about the world to what you specifically tell them. That's just not interesting.

So, which one did I get wrong (or was it both)?

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dwight
post Sep 28 2010, 02:14 AM
Post #17


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 595
Joined: 20-January 09
Member No.: 16,795



QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Sep 27 2010, 07:20 PM) *
So, which one did I get wrong (or was it both)?

The second one. The first I got the impression you were off base because that's a really far reach to try connect the two (well that and you were headed somewhere different), given that "[nothing] interesting" would be for entirely different reasons (and it's not a hard "nothing interesting" in the first, it just isn't easy [when you use a poorly matched tool for that particular situation, but the same tool can be fine for other problems], and you claim it to be a hard "nothing interesting" in the second.

Although it can be misapplied by poor judgement, "It's MAGIC!" is just a particular instance of the Rule of Cool.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tanegar
post Sep 28 2010, 03:39 AM
Post #18


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,654
Joined: 29-October 06
Member No.: 9,731



What is it, exactly, about the Create Food spell that destroys players' ability to make logical inferences about the behavior of magic? So long as it obeys its own rules, why does it need to obey the laws of physics?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Apathy
post Sep 28 2010, 03:55 PM
Post #19


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,408
Joined: 31-January 04
From: Reston VA, USA
Member No.: 6,046



An alternative explanation for 'Create Food' is that no matter is actually created - it's all just a multisense illusion of a ham sandwich, coupled with a small augment in energy at the cellular level for the consumer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nezumi
post Sep 28 2010, 04:25 PM
Post #20


Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet;
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 6,546
Joined: 24-October 03
From: DeeCee, U.S.
Member No.: 5,760



QUOTE (Tanegar @ Sep 27 2010, 10:39 PM) *
What is it, exactly, about the Create Food spell that destroys players' ability to make logical inferences about the behavior of magic? So long as it obeys its own rules, why does it need to obey the laws of physics?


Because no other cohesive rules have really been suggested.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vladthebad
post Sep 28 2010, 04:45 PM
Post #21


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 27-August 10
Member No.: 18,977



My theories of magic are thus.

1. Mana is a spiritual energy (pretty straight forward)
2. Mana does not follow conservation of energy strictly per say. It can seem to create matter and energy from nothing.
3. Mana does follow conservation of "allegory". It always costs something, although that something does not have to be strict on a thermodynamics scale, it does need to equate on an allegorical/emotional scale.
4. Emotion is a measure of "allegorical dynamics". Background count is created by strong emotions, either negative (life-diminishing) or positive (life-sustaining). There are bars where mages go to experience background count as entertainment (coffin bars).
5. While mana does not follow the laws of thermo dynamics, the effects it produces do once the magic is cast. Thus elemental manipulations be have like projectiles, and physical spells tend to have more difficult drain.
6. Magicians learn to manipulate mana through emotional cues. shamans tend to have a looser style, but even hermetics deal in symbols that evoke emotional power. They just both work on different sides of a cthonian/apollonian divide.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tanegar
post Sep 28 2010, 07:41 PM
Post #22


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,654
Joined: 29-October 06
Member No.: 9,731



QUOTE (nezumi @ Sep 28 2010, 12:25 PM) *
Because no other cohesive rules have really been suggested.

Lolwut? You mean, other than the rules in the book? "Magic can create matter" is one of the established rules. "Create Food" obeys the established rules, therefore players who understand the rules can make logical inferences about them. I still don't see the problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 01:05 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.