| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
|
|
JohnLynch
Learned Scribe
Australia
243 Posts |
 Posted - 11 Jan 2013 : 05:22:09
|
Well part of me will always say it should be infravision where they simply have extra cones and are able to see a greater spectrum then humans. That's also why ancient dwarven ruins use carvings. Because of infravision they're unable to read something that's been written down but instead are able to see raised bumps or indentations. Hence why Dethek runes have remained so straight (societies which moved towards writing/painting things rather then carving as their main method of writing eventually move towards a more curved alphabet). The advent of light would have been a revolutionary revelation that allowed them to see two dimensional diagrams. This, also, is why dwarven cities do use lights despite the fact the whole race can see in the dark.
It just works on so many levels.
But for when I actually use darkvision as proper darkvision, I just say it's all black and white. How come it's all black and white? I dunno. What do I look like, a biologist? |
DM of the Realms: A blog for my Forgotten Realms adventures. |
Edited by - JohnLynch on 11 Jan 2013 05:25:53 |
 |
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2013 : 11:59:46
|
| Smart man, that Sean K Reynolds. |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Kyrel
Learned Scribe
151 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2013 : 16:52:52
|
To be honest, the crap written by Sean K Reynolds in that link provided above, is nothing but an attempt to argue against the far more interesting Infravision vs. Darkvision. I can't find a single one of the examples he comes up with that can not be solved ingame in seconds. Eliminate the max. vision range of the dark-/infravision and you solve the issue of range. Firespells might Dazzle creatures with infravision for a round, if within X range of the effect. Invisibility already breaks all sorts of laws of science, so I don't really see that one as a particular problem. Same thing with regards to heat sensing creatures blinding themselves with their own bodyheat. Ignore that problem like som many other things the game ignore already. Turning into living metal or stone? Not a problem. You maintain your temperature. Change into a gas? Your temperature drops to more or less that of the surroundings. Can't see through a Wall of force with Infravision? So what if it blocks heat. Mirror Image just creates an illusionary heatsignature as well, or that type of spell simply doesn't affect creatures with Infravision. So you can track someone by the heat they leave behind on the floor. Sure. You might be able to see the residual heat from someone, if they've stayed in one place for a while. But is that really much different from what you can do with tracking in the wild, where you can see broken straws of grass, footprints in the ground etc.? No. Not really, except that you can only see these tracks, if you have infravision, and understand how to use it. As for leaving behind heattracks, it's as simple as saying that they only stay for a round or two.
There is not a single issue that can not relatively easily be solved with a bit of common sense by a GM, or by a line of text or two here and there.
Black 'n White Darkvision is simple to use, but it is also far far more boring. And as for the elegance, I'll leave that up to others to decide what they think about. Personally I don't find it particularly elegant. Just dumbed down and more boring.
Sean K Reynolds. You've produced some good stuff over time, but your rant against Infravision is rubbish. |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2013 : 17:40:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kyrel
I can't find a single one of the examples he comes up with that can not be solved in game in seconds.
In a perfect world, all players would instantly and obediently agree with their DM's rulings, and all DM's rulings across the world would be the same.
Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world.
A set of game rules needs to be as consistent as possible for as many campaigns as possible, so that during play DMs and players reach the same conclusions and the game isn't interrupted by rules discussions.
In this respect, darkvision--flavorless as it may be--is better than infravision.
In my experience, I've seen in-game arguments over infravision. But I've not seen arguments over darkvision.
YMMV. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 11 Jan 2013 17:50:00 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2013 : 18:03:48
|
While I agree it simplifies a major game snafu, I think they knifed a lot of flavor right in the back.
Aside from Narbondel (which I assume they will just ignore until the end of time), you also have tons of other stuff, like all the info in the Illithiad (that Illithids FEAR undead because they can't see or sense them!) Infravision was cool BECAUSE it has so many quirks.
"Get out your scrub-brushes guys... I think I see a little flavor left over there!" 
If there's anything I've come to realize over the past year, its that 4e didn't start this ball rolling. The 'everything must have a rule' mindset began at the tail-end of 2e. 4e gets slammed for a lot of things that began long ago - it was just the most obvious target to blame. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 11 Jan 2013 18:06:23 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2013 : 18:24:02
|
I think the point SKR was trying to convey is that D&D is a game, not a simulation. Some realism makes the game believable. Some complexity makes the game challenging. But too many rules make it more of a bureaucratic chore than a playful amusement. As SKR pointed out, darkvision works ... so why fix what isn't broken?
Remember that SKR was thinking in 3E terms, when designers were already struggling to simplify and cull out some of the excessive stats and rules to make the game fun again. This goal was even more important in 4E, which was streamlined for a younger audience.
As pointed out, players who prefer infravision over darkvision can devise their own rules.
[Edit: here's Infravision & Your Fantasy Hero, written by Roger E Moore in the 2E era.] |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 11 Jan 2013 18:41:53 |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2013 : 18:27:33
|
| I guess it depends on the players involved, but we've never argued over infravision rules. Having players planning to sneak across a cavern basing their route upon the heat shadows of the surrounding rock tells me its working just fine as an option. I'd use whatever option is the most fun and plain old school infravision affords more roleplaying options in my eyes. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2013 : 18:45:34
|
I've never had an infravision argument either - I was well-trained by the group that reared me in RPGing, and I carried that forward. At the table, the DM is BANE. 
But like I said, I can understand why they went that route - it is easier to simply create an impossible ability, define it, and then say "its magic!" D&D is supposed to be fun, not a simulation, so I understand it. I do not agree with the decision, but I DO understand why it was made.
When all is said and done, my Narbondel still glows....  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2013 : 18:57:48
|
| I've said it before, easier to change a big glowing rock than to change the biology of an entire species (let alone that of every other species which can see in darkness). In terms of lore-consistency, at least. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2013 : 19:26:45
|
And I DID explain it in my Dark Elf (Drow) articles for the Elven Netbook.
Generic (core) Drow only have Darkvision. Toril's Dark Elves - being the original group that was cursed by the Seldarine - were granted certain 'boons' by Lolth, in order to help them survive. For whatever reason, the Drow that have left Toril and spread into the multiverse are usually not born with these extra abilities (some, but not all).
Amongst her gifts (The blessings of Lolth, call the Kith'cha Lloth by her clergy) is an extra nictitating membrane within their eyes. This membrane - when in use - is able to see into the infrared spectrum. Normal Darkvision is only B&W, but when they combine the two (by only opening the membrane a certain amount) they can simulate colors in their Darkvision (by detecting the amount of heat being reflected by the colors). Its not the same thing as true color vision (which they have in normal light), but it is a fair enough facsimile. Drow are great connoisseurs of art, and they like that they can still appreciate these things in total darkness (to some degree).
That bit covered all the weirdness between editions. Not exactly the cleanest fix I've ever done, but it works.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 11 Jan 2013 19:41:03 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jan 2013 : 20:08:43
|
| I'm not sure "original" can really apply here ... drow are drow regardless which world they were born to, all are equally accursed and forsaken in the eyes of the Seldarine (who are themselves manifest on every world with elves). Although I would imagine the "first" drow would've actually originated on Oerth, not on Toril. Or on the mythical lost elven homeworld of Spelljammer lore. Maybe the drow migrated through the Feywild, some landing on every world it touched. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 11 Jan 2013 20:10:13 |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2013 : 00:07:26
|
| And yet, the FR lore states that it was the wicked actions of the dark elves of Ilithiir during the Crown Wars that were the cause of the Descent and transformation into drow- thus, they would have originated on Toril- at least by that canon. And since Toril is known to have portals to Oerth, so many of them may have migrated TO Oerth FROM Toril. And darkvision was supposed to be one of those "gifts" from Lolth. |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2013 : 00:27:49
|
| Ah, my utter disinterest in elfy Realmslore and selective ignorance of post-1990 RAS novels has led me towards a grievous blunder. I was under the mistaken impression that the Greyhawk setting provided a subterranean drow culture "first", even if in much less detail than what became the Underdark of the Realms. I stand corrected. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2013 : 00:48:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Ah, my utter disinterest in elfy Realmslore and selective ignorance of post-1990 RAS novels has led me towards a grievous blunder. I was under the mistaken impression that the Greyhawk setting provided a subterranean drow culture "first", even if in much less detail than what became the Underdark of the Realms. I stand corrected.
Actually, that lore has nothing to do with RAS.
Greyhawk had drow in the published setting first, yes, but I don't think any details of their racial history were given until the FR Descent was described. |
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!  |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2013 : 00:55:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Ah, my utter disinterest in elfy Realmslore and selective ignorance of post-1990 RAS novels has led me towards a grievous blunder. I was under the mistaken impression that the Greyhawk setting provided a subterranean drow culture "first", even if in much less detail than what became the Underdark of the Realms. I stand corrected.
Actually, that lore has nothing to do with RAS.
Greyhawk had drow in the published setting first, yes, but I don't think any details of their racial history were given until the FR Descent was described.
The first D&D appearance of the drow occurred in G3 Hall of the Fire Giant King -- G1-2-3 Against the Giants (1978). |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2013 : 02:39:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I think the point SKR was trying to convey is that D&D is a game, not a simulation. Some realism makes the game believable. Some complexity makes the game challenging. But too many rules make it more of a bureaucratic chore than a playful amusement.
That just sounds lazy.
Using that "logic", then pretty much every D&D rule or principle or trait, or bit of lore in any given setting, should be eliminated, since there have been countless arguments about them, too.
Even light-seeing humans can be temporarily blinded by stuff, or have their vision compromised by certain things, which might lead to confusion and argument amongst the members of a party. Should we eliminate normal light vision, too? Pluck out everyone's eyes, altogether? A realm of Magoos?
quote:
*Gasp* "Unhand me, foul sir!"
"Pardon me, miss. I have to feel my way around now, you see, because the Xth Edition just mysteriously did away with light vision. Well, no, I guess you don't see, just like me!"
A realm of cop-a-feels!
It just seems like the powers that be unfairly singled out this particular aspect of the game and the lore and bullheadedly undid it. And they didn't even come up with a RSE to explain it away--they just blinked it out of existence with a new set of rulebooks and campaign settings, ignoring all the other rulebooks and lorebooks that featured it. It's like WOTC having the Spellplague and just ignoring entire countries, or even continents, as if they had never even existed. That's worse than lazy--it's heavy-handed and arbitrary.
There's your "bureacracy", right there.
quote:
As SKR pointed out, darkvision works ... so why fix what isn't broken?
In what way does darkvision work? How?
Simply waving infravision aside because it can get complicated in certain situations, and concocting a new, fake type of vision, and blithely declaring that it works, doesn't show that it works, or explain how.
Just look at the OP's two questions for proof of that. In what publication are the nitty-gritty details of darkvision ever explained? Game mechanics are not enough--where is it ever explained how it works? And where is the explanation that darkvision allows rods (black & white) to work in people's eyeballs, but circumvents the cones (color)?
Darkvision just opens up a whole new can o' worms and substitutes that instead of infravision's. But at least with infravision, we had reality to help us to work it out. We don't even have that with darkvision. We just have the publisher's unilateral fiat that--somehow, by the gods--it works.
I'm not convinced. I'm not playfully amused.
Infravision worked in "The Dark Elf Trilogy" and "Legacy of the Drow". It was a prominent feature of those mini-series.
Why break what wasn't broken?
Now, anytime we re-read those novels--canonical publications and all--all that infravision business sticks out like a gigantic ol' sore thumb.
Thus, they broke it.
And darkvision doesn't fix it. Just searching for "infravision" and replacing with "darkvision" doesn't simultaneously change the dynamics of the scenes in which infravision was so carefully integrated.
If they ever make Drizzt movies, I want rainbow-colored infravision effects. I want a freaky, alien, kaleidoscope palette. Black and white crap, ala the movie Pitch Black, is boring and has already been overdone.
quote:
"Dude, I seriously don't get why you Old Guys ever thought the drow were such cool bad guys. They wear shoe polish, they have old-man hair, and they're color blind. Ooh, scary!"
|
"'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 - 12 Jan 2013 : 05:48:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Using that "logic", then pretty much every D&D rule or principle or trait, or bit of lore in any given setting, should be eliminated, since there have been countless arguments about them, too.
You have an impressive talent for exaggeration.
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
It just seems like the powers that be unfairly singled out this particular aspect of the game and the lore and bullheadedly undid it. And they didn't even come up with a RSE to explain it away--they just blinked it out of existence with a new set of rulebooks and campaign settings, ignoring all the other rulebooks and lorebooks that featured it.
Actually, Beast, TSR cum WotC looked at all aspects of prior D&D rules in the process of creating 3rd Edition and did away with a lot of them.
They weren’t unaware of these rules’ effects on the Realms, either—which is to say they knew the Realms they’d be presenting would be in some ways different because of how the new (at the time) rules worked.
They weren’t being unfair or bullheaded, they were being deliberate and concise. Again: all the rules were looked at.
Finally, they made it abundantly clear that 3E was just one method by which to view the Realms. If you played well into that part of the timeline for which WotC printed sourcebooks using 3E rules, but you chose to use 2E or what have you, infravision still exists.
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Darkvision just opens up a whole new can o' worms and substitutes that instead of infravision's.
No it doesn't and it never has.
The removal of infravision in 3E doesn't make the awesomeness of the inclusion of infravision in prior novels any less awesome.
Likewise, unless barred by whatever creative controls WotC feels the need to exert/actually can exert on a movie, I think infravision of some sort would be really cool see portrayed on the big screen in a movie focused on Drizzt or that included Drow.
I can appreciate your dislike for the loss of flavor, and I don’t think I’m too far off in believing it aggravates the living hell out of you, but if you’d just bother to read some of the design history (the internet is amazing that way), you’d see the changes were made with good intentions.
WotC does not exist to tell us what to think. I don't let WotC's changes to game rules tell me how to view the Realms. Neither, dare I say, should you.
And who knows…maybe infravision—or something like it—will find it’s way into D&D Next. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2013 : 15:23:54
|
Regarding Oerth's drow (and I was a GH DM first, and still have fond memories of that world)...
When we were doing the Elven Netbook project we discussed 'all drow', and we have the conundrum of Toril's history and their creation. There was also a mention of the one (known) Drow city on Oerth in an FR product (in a list of known Drow cities). It was decided (by writers of a FANWORK, nothing official) that all Drow were created by the curse garnered by the Torillian Dark Elves (their ancestors), but not all Dark Elves were Ilythiir. The curse that affected the Ilythiir (and was only meant for them) affected ALL dark Elves everywhere (aside from other Faerûnian tribes, there is one known group in Zakhara, another in Maztica, and suspected group in Kara-Tur, and we have to assume that there were also 'dark Elves' on many other worlds as well). Rather then flee underground, some of them choose to flee the world itself. In those days the connections between the Forgotten Realms and other realities were better-known, especially by those races with fey origins.
However, the group that fled to Oerth was from Toril's Underdark, and of true Ilythiir heritage. In fact, they were from Menzoberranzan. An especially zealous priestess of Lolth led a group of her followers into the deepest recesses of the Underdark and founded their own city - Erelhei-Cinlu. They continued to trade with other Torillian cities for a time, and then somehow became 'cut-off' from the others (no-one is precisely sure when or why this happened). Thus the city of Erelhei-Cinlu is listed in Realms sources because those who know of it consider it a Torillian city.
What actually happened was that the priestess had unknowingly traveled through a section of the deep Underdark known as the Underlands (see Beyond Countless Doorways) - a transitive plane that links the Underdark of most worlds. Eventually they lost contact with the Torillian drow, and when they made the surface they realized they had arrived on a new world (which they took as a sign from their goddess). Until very recently, those Drow still referred to lolth as a 'demon-queen', because they were using a more archaic form of her faith. After Lolth moved her Realm from the Abyss (and ascended in power) the Oerth drow became aware of the changes in their goddess.
Lolth does not have a presence on every world dark Elves can be found, and that is why not all of them receive her 'gifts'. Its not so much a hereditary thing as it is a divine thing. Now that she has arisen to new heights of power she is correcting this problem and spreading her faith to as many worlds as possible. Although all of this homebrew lore shoe-horns nicely with Golarion's take on Drow, Lolth has yet to make her presence known there for some strange reason (some blame her long-running feud with Lamashtu, who does have a strong presence there).
This was all (except for the Golarion bits I just added) created before the Lady penitent Series, which is one of the reasons the Elven Netbook project was abandoned. I haven't read the series, but from what I gather it isn't that difficult to tie that lore with the homebrew above - "Lolth's blessing" takes the form of Faersrezz. On worlds where she is known, so is Faersrezz.
For those of you who might want to argue that it "doesn't make sense they all came from Toril", think about the time frame we are talking here - over 11,000 years! Thats longer then our own Real world recorded history. How many humans were on Earth 11K years ago compared to today? Drow birth rates are MUCH higher then other elves because their mortality rates are astronomically higher. Nothing in any setting (with the possible exception of Eberron*... not sure) mentions Drow at all more then eleven thousand years ago. In fact, IIRC, the way I worded that particular article made-out that dark Elves were already living on many other worlds, and all of those were cursed as well, most not even knowing why (which is why nearly all of them turned from the Seldarine at that point).
*Eberron Drow do not know of Lolth, so their heritage may have come from a different source. YMMV
Fixed a few grammatical errors |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 12 Jan 2013 15:52:53 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
|
|
Chosen of Asmodeus
Master of Realmslore
1221 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2013 : 15:59:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kyrel
To be honest, the crap written by Sean K Reynolds in that link provided above, is nothing but an attempt to argue against the far more interesting Infravision vs. Darkvision. I can't find a single one of the examples he comes up with that can not be solved ingame in seconds. Eliminate the max. vision range of the dark-/infravision and you solve the issue of range. Firespells might Dazzle creatures with infravision for a round, if within X range of the effect. Invisibility already breaks all sorts of laws of science, so I don't really see that one as a particular problem. Same thing with regards to heat sensing creatures blinding themselves with their own bodyheat. Ignore that problem like som many other things the game ignore already. Turning into living metal or stone? Not a problem. You maintain your temperature. Change into a gas? Your temperature drops to more or less that of the surroundings. Can't see through a Wall of force with Infravision? So what if it blocks heat. Mirror Image just creates an illusionary heatsignature as well, or that type of spell simply doesn't affect creatures with Infravision. So you can track someone by the heat they leave behind on the floor. Sure. You might be able to see the residual heat from someone, if they've stayed in one place for a while. But is that really much different from what you can do with tracking in the wild, where you can see broken straws of grass, footprints in the ground etc.? No. Not really, except that you can only see these tracks, if you have infravision, and understand how to use it. As for leaving behind heattracks, it's as simple as saying that they only stay for a round or two.
There is not a single issue that can not relatively easily be solved with a bit of common sense by a GM, or by a line of text or two here and there.
Black 'n White Darkvision is simple to use, but it is also far far more boring. And as for the elegance, I'll leave that up to others to decide what they think about. Personally I don't find it particularly elegant. Just dumbed down and more boring.
Sean K Reynolds. You've produced some good stuff over time, but your rant against Infravision is rubbish.
You missed arguably the biggest point against infravision(which, granted, was one that was one that was pointed out to Mr. Reynolds, not one he brought up himself); a warm blooded creature with infravision would be blinded by their own body heat radiating off of them. |
"Then I saw there was a way to Hell even from the gates of Heaven"
- John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress
Fatum Iustum Stultorum. Righteous is the destiny of fools.
The Roleplayer's Gazebo;
http://theroleplayersgazebo.yuku.com/directory#.Ub4hvvlJOAY |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jan 2013 : 16:16:43
|
quote:
BEAST
Simply waving infravision aside because it can get complicated in certain situations, and concocting a new, fake type of vision, and blithely declaring that it works, doesn't show that it works, or explain how.
...
In what publication are the nitty-gritty details of darkvision ever explained? Game mechanics are not enough--where is it ever explained how it works? And where is the explanation that darkvision allows rods (black & white) to work in people's eyeballs, but circumvents the cones (color)?
True, the decision to use darkvision is arbitrary, just as a decision to retain infravision would have been.
It is a game, about fictional characters who live in a fairy-tale world populated by magical monsters. People don't seem particularly enraged at the notion of humans being able to breed with elves (and orcs, and fiends), nor of dragons breathing electricity, nor the chemistry of a fireball, nor of things in plain sight becoming completely invisible ... yet rules for nightvision are problematic?
AD&D actually explained infravision quite poorly, AD&D2E applied numerous little patches to infravision rules, RAS and other authors have sometimes inserted a little applied infravision in their FR fiction, and some of the game artwork has depicted infravision scenes since the earliest days. Some players understood optics and biochemistry and infrared and thermographics, others did not, but most had little issue with the rudimentary summaries of infravision and just used in successfully in their gaming.
So, too, with darkvision. It may be a deliberate oversimplification, and it may not work in any kind of "realistic", believable, or scientific sense - but it works in the context of how far away a character can see things in the dark.
My group has always been comfortable with classic infravision. In fact, we've increased complexity over the years ... our "elvensight" is basically low-light vision, "dwarfsight" is basically infravision, etc. Obviously not an exaggerated issue if people are willing to colour outside the lines. At least we got a few pages of something else in those 3E books rather than yet another rewritten high-school-report about infravision. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2013 : 01:09:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
You have an impressive talent for exaggeration.
I was just returning the favor to the 3E designers who claimed they nixed infravision for cause--i.e., it just causes too many difficulties.
Don't pretty much all the rules give rise to questions of interpretation, and conflicts over which concept should bear more weight in which circumstances? And isn't that supposed to be part of the fun of the game?
So why dump on infravision for that?
Why keep any other rule, when it's still going to be subject to argumentation and interpretation, down the road?
If gamers and readers can be trusted and expected to work through any of the other retained rules, then why treat infravision more harshly and dismissively, as if gamers and readers couldn't be trusted and expected to similarly work it out? Why nix it altogether, like that?
The designers' treatment of infravision just seems grossly disproportionate to any problems it posed. They threw the baby out with the bathwater. They used the durned "nuclear option".
quote:
Actually, Beast, TSR cum WotC looked at all aspects of prior D&D rules in the process of creating 3rd Edition and did away with a lot of them.
Could you give some examples? What else did they just pull the rug out from underneath, and replace with a pale impostor thereof? What else loss so much flavor as this?
I don't play the game, as it has always seemed far too complicated for me for idle entertainment, and not compatible with wanting to be entertained alone (like novels and lorebooks).
quote:
They weren’t being unfair or bullheaded, they were being deliberate and concise.
They didn't phase darkvision in, alongside infravision for an edition; they just replaced one with another, bluntly and abruptly. And they didn't explain how it changed overnight, in world--they just declared it to be the new paradigm. They forced it on subscribers of that world. And they required that the books department writers go along with it, too. That's bullheaded.
quote:
Finally, they made it abundantly clear that 3E was just one method by which to view the Realms. If you played well into that part of the timeline for which WotC printed sourcebooks using 3E rules, but you chose to use 2E or what have you, infravision still exists.
AFAIK, nowhere in the current-era (3E through 4E) games manuals does infravision exist. They wiped it out.
And in some of the re-released versions of the Drizzt books, they went back and replaced infravision with darkvision. They went back to 1E and 2E publications and retroactively attempted to revise them with regards to this element. That doesn't sound so welcoming and friendly and edition-neutral, to me. It's revisionist history.
Now, there are passages in the Drizzt books where they simply couldn't do that, since heat is repeatedly referenced in those scenes, so infravision was retained (even in the 2000s).
Are revised, ca. 2000s, re-released Drizzt books 1E books, or 3E books? Which ruleset governs them? I don't really know how to answer those questions.
And frankly, I don't think I should have to. Rules changes should affect how you calculate the effects of sword hits or spell damage, but they shouldn't affect the fundamental way a lifeform's body works. A dragon shouldn't be reptilian in one edition, but amphibian in another. And a drow shouldn't see in Technicolor infravision in one edition, but drab B&W in another. These are just too drastic examples of changes.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Darkvision just opens up a whole new can o' worms and substitutes that instead of infravision's.
No it doesn't and it never has.
Darkvision says that a being can see in total darkness, in B&W. How? How can one's vision organs--eyeballs--see, when there is no electromagnetic radiation such as light or infrared propagating into those vision organs? How does it work? What is its medium? Those, and the OP's own two questions, are examples of the problems that darkvision introduced, and still faces today.
If we say that is UV or microwave radiation instead of visible light or IR, then we're just substituting the strengths and weaknesses of those other forms of real types of energy for IR. We're substituting one can o' worms for another.
But if we're not even basing darkvision on any of that, and not even stating what it's based on at all, then we're introducing the whopper of a problem of a game element concocted out of thin air, and propped up on even less. It has none of the realism that Ayrik referenced as helping to make the setting believable or subtantive. It's just a lazy placeholder type of vision, for designers' & DMs' convenience.
quote:
The removal of infravision in 3E doesn't make the awesomeness of the inclusion of infravision in prior novels any less awesome.
But since drow supposedly only have darkvision, and not infravision, then the removal of infravision undermines the legitimacy or canonicity of those older novels. Did Drizzt or did Drizzt not see in heat when all that old stuff happened? (The revisionism in the re-release editions of the Drizzt books really brings this question home.)
If he didn't, then 3E's removal of infravision gutted those stories of a hell of a lot of flavor.
But if he did, then where did his (and all other drow's) infravision go? Why did it instantly disappear around 1371 DR, without any explanation? Drizzt and the drow had it in the first part of "The Hunter's Blades Trilogy", and then they no longer did. We didn't even get an Elaine Cunningham-esque MacGuffin device to explain any of this. (No, that's not a dig at Elaine. It's a dig at MacGuffins, perhaps. But mostly, it's a dig at unreasonable, unexplained changes.)
quote:
Likewise, unless barred by whatever creative controls WotC feels the need to exert/actually can exert on a movie, I think infravision of some sort would be really cool see portrayed on the big screen in a movie focused on Drizzt or that included Drow.
I can appreciate your dislike for the loss of flavor, and I don’t think I’m too far off in believing it aggravates the living hell out of you,
Agreed! I'm beaming ear to ear, and nodding wildly!
quote:
but if you’d just bother to read some of the design history (the internet is amazing that way), you’d see the changes were made with good intentions.
SKR's article didn't sound like good intentions. It sounded like he was full of annoyance at gaming arguments, and just wanted to be spared the trouble. It sounded like he preferred a simple wave of the hands to all that mess, for his own personal convenience. And it sounded like he was speaking for his fellow designers, in that regard.
Regardless, even if we grant them good intentions for the change, the result was still a great big blunder when we ask ourselves what sort of vision the drow had back in the early Drizzt stories, and why (in world) they don't still see in infravision now.
quote:
And who knows…maybe infravision—or something like it—will find it’s way into D&D Next.
All animosity and heatedness (pun definitely intended! ), when Brian James had me review a draft for Menzoberranzan: City of Intrigue, there were some rough passages in there that obviously had been cut and pasted from other, older sources, and remained to be polished off and brought in line with newer lore and rules. A few times, I detected things that seemed to rely on the old notion of infravision, and I started getting my hopes up. I asked Brian, "Does this mean that 5E is going to bring back infravision?!"
Alas, that was not his intention at all. He had simply inadvertently allowed a little of the old flavor to slip in, in a few obscure, out of the way places, and detail-hound that I am, I uncovered them.
However, for the record, the final, published version of M:COI does say that drow have "heat-sensitive eyes", and that Narbondel is heated to mark the passage of time.  
Now, what does this mean? Did infravision, indeed, and inadvertently, get reintroduced back into the the drow of the Realms?! Does this trump all that silly darkvision nonsense, since this is a later publication?
Or should we disregard the heat aspect of those passages, until an underlying core game document confirms it?
If the 5E core books come out and regurgitate the darkvision stuff, then whither the heat business in M:COI? |
"'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 13 Jan 2013 01:36:34 |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2013 : 01:35:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
You missed arguably the biggest point against infravision(which, granted, was one that was one that was pointed out to Mr. Reynolds, not one he brought up himself); a warm blooded creature with infravision would be blinded by their own body heat radiating off of them.
That doesn't make sense. A body gives off infrared energy waves in all directions--they don't all head straight to the eyeballs. So the heat given off is dissipated all around, instead of being dumped in just one place (the eyeballs).
Even though the air around a drow is heated by the drow's body, the air's heat doesn't all get transmitted back to the drow's eyes, either. It gets radiated out in all directions, as well.
So very little of the drow's own body heat would make it back to his own eyes.
When RW people look through IR scopes, their body heat doesn't blind the scopes.
Incidentally, check these out: <EyeClops Infrared Goggles>! |
"'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 - 13 Jan 2013 : 02:05:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
True, the decision to use darkvision is arbitrary, just as a decision to retain infravision would have been.
I disagree, because while changing to darkvision relied on a unilateral decision, despite what came before, and unsupported or unrestricted by the laws of nature; retaining infravision would have constituted a consistent continuation of what came before, and therefore reliance upon decisions already made by others and carried out by many gamers before, and would have been supported by the laws of nature.
quote:
It is a game, about fictional characters who live in a fairy-tale world populated by magical monsters. People don't seem particularly enraged at the notion of humans being able to breed with elves (and orcs, and fiends), nor of dragons breathing electricity, nor the chemistry of a fireball, nor of things in plain sight becoming completely invisible ... yet rules for nightvision are problematic?
Yes, they are. As you, yourself, said earlier in this same thread, elements of realism add to the believability of the world. (I would add words like "substance", or "substantiality", or "gravitas", or "visceralness".) Infravision brought that.
Darkvision took it away.
It's especially glaring in this case, because dragonbreath and fireball chemistry never replaced anything more realistic, and therefore never constituted a deprivation or slight, whereas the change to darkvision certainly did.
quote:
So, too, with darkvision. It may be a deliberate oversimplification, and it may not work in any kind of "realistic", believable, or scientific sense - but it works in the context of how far away a character can see things in the dark.
But how does it work? With infravision, you could provide very realistic, very truthful, answers to that. Yes, you might easily go over the heads of some people, but that was never infravision's fault. It really worked, although it was difficult to explain to dumb or ornery people, or difficult to work out in complicated scenarios.
But with darkvision, AFAIK no one has ever explained how it works. They just declare that it does.
I am imagining the one school teacher from South Park, Mr. Mackey:
quote:
"You shouldn't ask any more questions about infravision, children, because infravision is bad. Mmmkay?
"Darkvision just works, because I say it does, children. Mmmkay?"
|
"'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 13 Jan 2013 02:07:33 |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2013 : 03:16:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
*Eberron Drow do not know of Lolth, so their heritage may have come from a different source. YMMV
In discussions past, Keith Baker has stated that the various drow of EBERRON may have heard of Lolth thanks to the planar travellers among them.
It's just that their own inherent racial religious viewpoints are too deeply ingrained in their own cultural mindset for them to even give more than a passing heed to what Lolth represents. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2013 : 03:53:32
|
Hmm, almost failed WiS check, 1st and 2nd handled infravission differently.
1st basically says those that have 60 foot, only see heat. Example a room would look the same despite what was in it. That is wood table would not be seen standing on a stone floor, because both are the same temperature. Those with vision greater then 60 foot (Drow and many other underdark residents) have red eyes that project a radiation that allows them to see. Because of reflected radiation returning to their eyes. Similar to a bat with sound type concept I would guess.
2nd Edition decided basic rule, you have infravission you can see in the dark up to range of vision. There was also an optional explanation of heat. Even then the DM is warned bringing too much science into a fantasy game would cause problems.
Now we come to Darkvision which more or less appears to use can see in the dark. I do not see any anything about red eyes enhancing darkvision in the SRD.
Each can chose what they want. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
Edited by - Kentinal on 13 Jan 2013 05:02:59 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2013 : 04:09:43
|
quote:
BEASTquote:
Ayrik
[Darkvision] may be a deliberate oversimplification, and it may not work in any kind of "realistic", believable, or scientific sense - but it works in the context of how far away a character can see things in the dark.
But how does it work? With infravision, you could provide very realistic, very truthful, answers to that. Yes, you might easily go over the heads of some people, but that was never infravision's fault. It really worked, although it was difficult to explain to dumb or ornery people, or difficult to work out in complicated scenarios.
What I meant to communicate is that although some people (including both of us) prefer the complex treatment, there are other people who couldn't care less; they aren't interested in the physics or in what colours they see, they are only interested in how far away they can see something in useful detail.
...
Strictly speaking, we know of very few species with natural infravision (and they are mostly seafood items). This segment of the electromagnetic spectrum is suboptimal on our world: it is highly attenuated by the resonant particle scatter of our atmosphere and basically useless ("blinded" by the noise floor) in any kind of sunlight. Worse yet, the physics would require substantially larger retinal surface area to receive the same intensity of photon events from a radiated wavefront, I calculate that eyeballs capable of seeing threshold near-infrared frequencies would need about 83% more retina surface area (which means about 35% greater diameter) than eyeballs capable seeing only threshold red frequencies, and they would then need to be approximately doubled in size again to compensate for atmospheric attenuation (energy loss) and produce comparable sensitivity ("resolution" and image quality). That's just the physics. I suspect the biology (which I only know wiki about) would impose additional inefficiencies (increase final eyeball size) because of the need to accommodate a fourth set of cones (to perceive very long IR frequency light) or the need to modify the existing cone structures to extend spectral range sensitivity.
It seems to me that humans native to the Realms have normal sized eyes instead of huge googly bug eyes. Nature (physics and biology) is clearly being overruled by the supernatural (gods and magic).
...
Another troubling detail: we understand how the iris opens and closes the light aperture, but how would it work with infravision? A campfire would be a blinding infrared source, should the iris close and therefore also reduce normal vision as well? Photoptic luminous sensitivity reflexively adjusts across about 12 magnitudes (to allow us to see intensely sunny California beaches and dimly twinkling stars), but the same is not possible (because of the chemistry) for long-wavelength cones, such as those needed for NIR sensitivity.
So waving a torch in a drow's face will blind his infravision. Fair enough, I think. But it should also blind his scotoptic (low-light) and photoptic (normal light) vision for about 10-30 minutes if the chemistry in his eyes is like ours ... which is kinda ridiculous. It would seem that magic is at work here, not science.
...
We do know about many species with low-light vision (mostly nocturnal predators). Humans even possess scotoptic vision, capable of seeing "black and white" (actually more blue than white) in near-darkness conditions. It's widely known that our scotoptic vision really sucks compared to felines and owls.
Why then, based on physics, biology, chemistry, science, should darkvision be condemned while infravision receives privilege? Again, I'll state that I much prefer infravision in my gaming, but I won't dismiss the darkvision as "bad science" because it's not. My reason for dismissing darkvision is that I feel it's not "classic" Gygax D&D but usurper Wizbro D&D, I feel that it's childish and unsophisticated and kind of "breaks" a minor tradition in the game ... no need for hyperbole or embellishment, just my simple but well-informed opinion.
Incidentally, external eye pigment (red or any other colour) is of little relevance, it is a cosmetic feature of the iris and has no effect on light (visual or infrared) which passes into the cornea. The reflective "eyeshine" effect seen on cats (and orcs) is actually a membrane under the retina which effectively allows them to see more light in scotoptic (low-light) conditions ... it also reduces the density of receptors on the retina surface and therefore causes a slightly blurred or grainy image ... it also isn't red and isn't required. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 13 Jan 2013 04:40:54 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2013 : 05:01:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Incidentally, external eye pigment (red or any other colour) is of little relevance, it is a cosmetic feature of the iris and has no effect on light (visual or infrared) which passes into the cornea. The reflective "eyeshine" effect seen on cats (and orcs) is actually a membrane under the retina which effectively allows them to see more light in scotoptic (low-light) conditions ... it also reduces the density of receptors on the retina surface and therefore causes a slightly blurred or grainy image ... it also isn't red and isn't required.
Hey TSR said that was reason Drow and others have Red Eyes, back in 1979. The science of D&D is not the science of Earth , if only because of so much magic working better. *shrugs* |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Kyrel
Learned Scribe
151 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2013 : 05:12:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chosen of Asmodeus
quote:
Originally posted by Kyrel
Same thing with regards to heat sensing creatures blinding themselves with their own bodyheat. Ignore that problem like som many other things the game ignore already.
You missed arguably the biggest point against infravision(which, granted, was one that was one that was pointed out to Mr. Reynolds, not one he brought up himself); a warm blooded creature with infravision would be blinded by their own body heat radiating off of them.
Actually I didn't Chosen. See the part of my quote left behind above. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Darkvision
