| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
 Posted - 01 May 2012 : 22:31:05
|
(From the <New Menzoberranzan Sourcebook in the works!> thread)
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I think he had valid concerns about infravision, but as I said, I don't think it should have been dropped.
OK. I got you.
quote:
We accept too much that isn't scientificly plausible to quibble over a type of vision.
The thing is, SKR didn't even voice any scientific objections to infravision (IV). He only listed pragmatic issues, and then complained that it seemed to take too much work.
And he never offered any scientific rationale to darkvision (DV), either.
|
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 22:48:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I can see the frustration, but I think a lot of the responses to why Infravision should have stayed actually sort of champion the idea that the game should be made more complicated than it needs to be.quote:
It's not that I want the game to be complicated. It's that I want continuity. Infravision was a cool part of the past. It's just a slap in the face to take it away like they did. And it undermines the stories descriptions of all this wondrous color in the heatscale, instead of DV's grayscale.
I think DV artificially over-simplifies things, without really having a viable explanation for how it works. In the rush to avoid working out very-possible explanations for IV, they embraced an inexplicable type of vision (DV), instead. That's just dumb, IMO.
[quote][... B]ut for new players it would have been a major stumbling block[...].
I hear people say that, but how is that true?
Infravision is not that hard to understand.
And at some point, people can just treat it like normal vision for the sake of moving the story along, anyway. That's what RAS did, most of the time. There was never any need to get hung up on the details of the concept of IV.
If players were arguing with their DMs, then the real problem was probably a lack of respect for authority, rather than IV, itself.
[quote]So I'm glad they removed it. Yeah, it lessened the flavor but IMNSHO this was one time where a smart, well designed rules change won out over the setting.
How is DV a "smart, well designed rules change"?
There's no explanation whatsoever how one sees in pitch-black darkness.
At least with visible light (VL) and infra-red (IR), one is seeing real life electromagnetic radiation (EMR). There's nothing exotic about that.
But the sourcebooks never explained what exactly is being seen when a character sees in DV. Now, how is completely failing to offer an explanation for a new rule a "smart, well designed rules change"? How is casually waving all that came before (IV), and then substituting a new type of vision (DV) without even a possibility of a plausible real world explanation as to how it works, smart and good design?
If it was smart and good for WOTC to refuse to explain DV, then they could've just stuck with the status quo and similarly refused to explain IV, as well, and that should've been smart and good, too. I don't see why it's smart and good to not explain DV, but it wouldn't have been just as smart and good to not explain the other (IV).
At least IV can be explained. AFAIK, DV cannot. They haven't even tried, to the best of my knowledge. They just beg you to go along with their abstract construct, and hope you never analyze it objectively for any sort of tangible "legs". |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
 |
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 22:54:46
|
Might want to clean your quote tags up there pardner.
While you do that I'll busy myself with wondering whether or not I even want to have this conversation. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 01 May 2012 22:57:48 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 23:12:06
|
| I started to reply, but my googling found many instances of this exact conversation in the Keep before ... and many of those involved both myself and BEAST. Nothing new I can say. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 23:17:10
|
(I apologize if it is annoying to some that I am making multiple posts here, but I am responding to multiple posts in the original thread. And it was remarked that I made far too long of a single post there, so I'm left with the option of making multiple short ones here.)
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I wasn’t happy to see the change then, but it’s not like I’ve held on to this bother and nurtured it into some form of refined hatred over the past twelve years[...].
It's not something that I've carried around with me constantly over the years.
But anytime someone dares to suggest that there was anything wrong with IV, or something superior about DV, it does bring it all back for me. It was a poorly executed rules change, and not really necessary, and never explained satisfactorily, leaving the issue feeling terribly unresolved to me.
quote:
That would be pretty stupid, since the point of the setting and the game is to have fun and enjoy it.
A big part of the fun of all this is when it: 1) seems to tangibly and practically work; 2) seems to be externally consistent with real world phenomena (physics, psychology, sociology, history, war); and 3) when it seems to share continuity with itself.
The DV change only kinda-sorta did 1), and completely failed to do 2) and 3). That's no fun.
quote:
[...] I understood why the change was made and I know for a fact it was not made in bad faith (see the link I provided earlier, if you haven’t already), nor made arbitrarily or on a whim.
The link you provided does not give one single justification for doing away with IV. It only gives a list of questions for how IV would work with specific spells, and then concludes that it's all too difficult, and then calls on us to give up. That's lazy.
A rules change on those kinds of grounds doesn't sound like good faith to me.
Where was there a nod to continuity when they made that change? Where was there a re-working of how Narbondel works in that change? Where was there a complete overhaul to all of Bob's books that feature IV so prominently, using DV instead, in the numerous re-released and revised editions over the last decade?
(Publishing a rules change that elinates IV, but then turning around and re-publishing all 13 books of "The Legend of Drizzt", most of which feature IV, is sloppy and messy.)
quote:
As I mentioned earlier, sometimes the rules trump the setting. To me it was one of those “oh well, life goes on” kind of things. No big deal.
For me, as a fan of Salvatore's, I relish the idea of his "Dark Elf Trilogy" being made into movies. If that ever happens, then I think they're gonna have to go with IV. Showing stuff in that technicolor rainbow manner has gotta be trippy!
But if they do, then they will be graphically illustrating something that the publisher has officially disavowed. What a yucky situation.
And Bob has indicated that he has future plans to revisit Menzoberranzan, himself, in his novels. This brings up the question as to whether he will be able to revisit IV, or be stuck with some boring, inexplicable DV impostor.
I want the movie-makers to be free to embrace Bob's original "vision". And I want him to be free to take it up, once again. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 23:25:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
And I do think it was arbitrary, since they were sweating scientific accuracy on a type of vision[...].
Were they? I keep hearing that.
But SKR certainly wasn't, in that article JG linked to. In that article, SKR just said it's too hard to think about IV with respect to a bunch of different spells.
That's not science. That's laziness.
quote:
[...] but not worrying about the aerodynamics of flying horses or how a large powerful bird can spring up out of the ashes of its own corpse or explaining why someone who breathed and had a reflection should somehow lose the reflection, no longer breathe, and still keep wandering about, in search of his or her now entirely blood-based diet.
Not only that, but they didn't worry about offering a viable, realistic-sounding explanation for how their substitute type of vision would work. At least IV had that. DV avoided headaches by not being founded upon anything at all, which meant it couldn't be cross-referenced and compared to anything real world. It was completely made up, without any realistic window dressing whatsoever to prop it up on. That's arbitrary. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
Edited by - BEAST on 02 May 2012 00:40:56 |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 23:41:03
|
It would help if you at least noted that you disagreed with the design decisions, instead of declaring them all wrong based on the nebulous principle that you, personally, think they were all bad and its up to me to change your mind (it isn't, by the way).
So I'll bow out of this thread.
Note I'm not trying to pick a fight here or leave anyone with hard feelings.
Rather, I'm just not seeing that minimal level of objective buy in that lets me know I can talk rationally with someone as opposed to engaging in another reason vs. emotion debate of the "I'm a Realms fan in constant pain because super evil WotC is always out to disrespect me, lie to me and ruin the setting I love" type.
Those discussions really, really suck.
I hope you get your wish such that they make a Drizzt trilogy includes Infravision. If WotC wants it ("disavowed" is so Mission Impossible and so not what WotC did), they'll include it. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36875 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 23:51:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Rather, I'm just not seeing that minimal level of objective buy in that lets me know I can talk rationally with someone as opposed to engaging in another reason vs. emotion debate of the "I'm a Realms fan in constant pain because super evil WotC is always out to disrespect me, lie to me and ruin the setting I love" type.
No one said or even implied that. Reducing this discussion to those terms is insulting to anyone who disagrees with you. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2012 : 00:02:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Whether or not the Infravision-is-now-Darkvision change was “wholly unnecessary” isn’t settled.
No one has cited any necessity for the change yet, here.
If there was no necessity, then 'tweren't necessary.
It was just easy.
I've gotta get a hold of that Dragon issue with the article by Roger Moore. Maybe he actually touched on the science involved. SKR certainly didn't.
And for the record, Mr. Sean K. Reynolds, if you should ever read this, I do not hold any animosity or harbor any ill will towards you personally, sir. You're blog message was proferred as an explanation for the rules change to DV, and so I am tailoring my responses towards that blog message. But my vitriol is truly directed towards the rules change and the concept of DV, and not you personally, sir.
quote:
Rather it’s an issue that’s been called up like some half-forgotten Edition War zombie and taken over a scroll that was originally about the new Menzo book.
Again, as I've said elsewhere, I don't play the game. So I'm not biased toward any particular edition thereof. I love lore that works from any edition.
The conflict between IV and DV was brought up (by someone other than me, BTW) because there was speculation as to what sort of explanations for past lore and rule changes might be forthcoming in the new sourcebook. Questions about this conflict are every bit as valid as any other questions one might have about the forthcoming sourcebook's contents. They're not Edition War questions--they're questions about the juicy bits of the lore.
quote:
What’s not initially clear in SKR’s take is this: he’s not worried about the science first; he’s worried about game mechanics first. Otherwise he wouldn’t have asked any of several questions that your average player would have come up with during play had Infravision been kept in 3rd Edition D&D. Remember, this work was done for the (then) next iteration of the D&D game. They were concerned with what was best for the game and took a deliberate, specific approach that concerned itself with making changes that promoted ease of play and kept the game moving.
The problem there is no explanation has been offered yet how DV is superior to IV with respect to those particular spells that SKR cited in his article. To merely point out that IV invites questions when it comes to those spells is not to show that DV does not, as well.
quote:
Rules that directly affect player choices or get in the way of player actions are much more likely to have the effect of slowing the game down. That’s the distinction here: what affects play and what doesn’t? What’s going to tie up the DM in a rules discussion with players?
Don't those questions pretty much pertain to all the rules of the game, though? Any rule in the game might be the subject of confusion or controversy in certain contexts. I don't play the game, but I'd ventured that some gaming groups have probably analyzed the hell out of every single rule, at some point, over the last 40 years.
quote:
You ask me, I think that’s where the decision to remove infravision rested. Rightly or wrongly, they concluded that Infravision was open to interpretation and prone to slow the game down.
They arbitrarily singled it out, and ignored the fact that DV is just as open to interpretation (and challenging questions) as IV. They picked favorites for expediency's sake, thumbing their noses at the established rules and lore.
quote:
That’s why I agree with the removal of infravision. In my opinion making changes that speed up play and limit rules discussions are generally good changes to make, even if they alter the flavor of a campaign setting.
So does that mean you've scrapped your Campaign Guide and Player's Handbook, what with all those myriad rules and guidelines that take time to learn and apply, and replaced them with blank paper and pen, so you can just make stuff up as you go along?
I mean, if making changes that speed things up and limit rules discussion are generally good, then changing all the rules by eliminating all of them ought to be the highest good.
Yes, that comes across as snarky. I apologize. But there is a logic to it, just the same.
quote:
(Narbondel, please say thank you to Gygax and Co.)
And ask, "WHY?!!!" to certain other, unnamed individuals in charge of later editions of the property.
quote:
That, and I don’t see the net negative over the loss of infravision. I’m mean, it’s not like they only subtracted from the setting without adding anything back.
They took away all the splendid color of IV, and replaced it with grayscale. Blah!
They took away the ability to see heat footprints and handprints, and replaced it with nothing.
They took away the ability to see a person's mood by their face and body temperature, and replaced it with nothing.
They took away the ability to see a heated object before it ever even entered into one's eyesight range, but was still giving off heat which was within one's eyesight range; and replaced it with nothing. That was an early-warning/detection ability that is now lost.
They took away a very realistic means of vision, which probably could work well; and replaced it with a completely fabricated one, that has no explanation whatsoever. "How do Underdark creatures see in the dark?" "It's magic." "Gee, how quaint."
Do you see the net negative with so much loss, now? |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2012 : 00:34:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
It would help if you at least noted that you disagreed with the design decisions[...].
OK. I note that I disagreed with their design decisions.
quote:
[... I]nstead of declaring them all wrong based on the nebulous principle that you, personally, think they were all bad and its up to me to change your mind (it isn't, by the way).
I did not say that they were wrong because of a nebulous principle that I personally thin they were all bad.
I showed how IV objectively works, as I understand it. I showed how it objectively works with respect to all of those spells that SKR listed.
And I showed how DV doesn't work any better, objectively, because there's no tangible basis to it.
So that leaves us with the mere fact that DV is easier, because it can't be checked against anything. It's just an arbitrary, abstract, made-up construct pulled out of thin air for the purpose of avoidance.
That irritates me on an emotional, subjective level.
But don't forget about all of the objective stuff that I focused primarily upon, either.
quote:
Rather, I'm just not seeing that minimal level of objective buy in that lets me know I can talk rationally with someone as opposed to engaging in another reason vs. emotion debate of the "I'm a Realms fan in constant pain because super evil WotC is always out to disrespect me, lie to me and ruin the setting I love" type.
I think that I've been the most steadfast person here about hammering home the objective side of IV, versus the lack thereof of DV. How are you not seeing a minimal level of objective buy in?
It sounds like what you really want me to do is to set aside all thoughts of objectivity, and rather to focus on simplicity of game design and play for the people involved.
But that's not objectivity.
It's emotion. It's placing sympathy with people over objective and rational review of the phenomena of IV and DV.
On a side note, I think that excessive sympathy for those who wanted it to be made easy is a big part of what led to the changes in 4E, and that opened a whole lot of other cans of worms.
quote:
I hope you get your wish such that they make a Drizzt trilogy includes Infravision.
Thanks, mate!
quote:
If WotC wants it ("disavowed" is so Mission Impossible and so not what WotC did), they'll include it.
They chose no longer to keep it in the rules, and they no longer support it being featured in any new works. That pretty much amounts to disavowal. The half-arsed citations of science used to disparage it, while simultaneously refraining from similarly using science against any other aspects of the property, indicate a targeted rejection of this particular aspect.
Infravision is Ethan Hunt, dangling out on the end of the line.
I'm no martyr. Big, bad WOTC didn't hurt me. Drizzt still sees in IV just fine, in my Realms.  |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
Edited by - BEAST on 02 May 2012 00:38:25 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2012 : 04:20:40
|
I was going to chime-in, but its not worth it.
I'll just leave this last part: I'd rather have a broken rule then a broken world.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36875 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2012 : 11:09:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I was going to chime-in, but its not worth it.
I'll just leave this last part: I'd rather have a broken rule then a broken world.
I'll agree with that, though I don't think the rule was broken.  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Infravision (IV) vs. Darkvision (DV)
