| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
 Posted - 13 Jan 2013 : 08:27:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
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.
Fair enough. Different strokes for different folks.
Many gamers love all the mechanics about magic and spellcasting, but as a RAS-o-phile, I'm more interested in blades and blunt force. Everybody likes what they like.
If a particular gaming crew were only interested in simple range, then couldn't a DM just give them that, in all circumstances? Why would darkvision be superior or simpler, then? I mean, if everybody just wants the number, and not the how?
quote:
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.
Which coincides with drow having spent most of their history far away from said sunlight. They apparently evolved to fit their non-sunlit world. The cost was being ill-prepared for the sunlit one. No wonder they cursed the sun, in Drizzt's youth.
quote:
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.
I must bow to your expertise on this, as I certainly don't have the RW background to make those calculations.
I do recall various references to the drow having "large" eyes. But exactly how much larger is never specified.
Given your calculations, I am envisioning general proportions of something on the order of a <tarsier>, or <an anime cartoon figure brought to real life>. Maybe a <Gollum>, or a <goblin>?
quote:
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).
Aye.
And this is as it should be, in D&D and the Realms: a mixture of familiar, verifiable reality and alien, foreign magic.
quote:
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.
Are there no known chemicals which rapidly react to those IR frequencies?
quote:
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.
What is the basis for your prediction of such a prolonged period of light blindness? I have extremely light-sensitive eyes, but my night vision returns quite quickly after turning off artificial light sources at night. I actually pooh-pooh people around me who have busted out filtered-lens flashlights to see at night, which are meant to preserve night vision, because I can just use white light briefly if I need to see something well, and otherwise go without light altogether. I don't need to preserve anything at all, as it returns to me, all on its own.
quote:
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 understanding is that darkvision has been defined in the manuals as working even in total darkness. Total darkness = no light. That means that it is not comparable to RW low-light vision. They're totally different animals.
Infravision at least is based on something real, even though your calculations show undesirable consequences of it.
Darkvision isn't based on anything at all. It's not bad science. It's non-science. It's pure fluff. In light of the wondrous quasi-reality of infravision, that's why I condemn darkvision so.
quote:
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 ...
"Childish and unsophisticated": I like that.
And I contrast that with SKR's description of darkvision as "elegant".
It's just artificially simplified purely for the sake of simplification.
quote:
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.
Are you so sure? My optometrist tells me different. She has a hell of a time examining my eyes, because my irises contract so tightly and to such a small size, she can barely see inside my pupils to the backs of my eyeballs. She tells me that it's quite common for blue-eyed folk like myself to be especially light-sensitive like this. Apparently, the lighter-colored pigment does a poor job of absorbing incoming light, and instead reflects more of it around and inside the front of the eyeball, effectively overwhelming someone with light-colored eyes at an overall light level much lower than someone with dark-colored eyes.
Other eye specialists agree: <1> and <2>.
Supposedly, red irises, such as with RW albinos, are indicative of a complete lack of melanin pigment in the iris, which translates into a maximum amount of light being able to enter into the eyeball and travel unabsorbed and uninterrupted to the retina. That could further help explain why most drow, having red irises, hate sunlight. |
"'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"> |
 |
|
|
JohnLynch
Learned Scribe
Australia
243 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2013 : 08:32:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
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).
I don't recall reading about Seldarine in Eberron ;)
Inter-planetary lore becomes quite difficult to reconcile all of the different lore from the different worlds. I've managed it (to my satisfaction) for Golarion, Eberron, Toril, Abeir and (my homebrew version of) Athas. But Drow are actually a sticking point. I'm inclined to think of Drow as a species that has manifested a number of times on each of the planets.
Elves work as a race that has traveled from the Plane of Faerie to other worlds on a number of occasions. That flavour just works really well. Drow, however, are a different story. I'm inclined to think of Drow as a placeholder term for elves who develop black skin. It's a bit racist. But in Eberron we have elves who were enslaved by giants and twisted into their current appearance. They don't live underground. They don't worship Lolth. They are quite distinct from traditional drow.
On Golarion we have drow as elves who escaped the Age of Darkness by fleeing into the Underdark. Now I'm not quite up on my Golarion lore for Drow. But at face value their origin appears to be distinct from Toril Drow.
Now as for Oerth and Toril. It could be those Drow are in fact the same race and that the Drow suffered the fall once and then migrated to the other world. But for Eberron (and possibly Golarion) that rings a bit hollow.
It's much like the language we all call Common. Common in Toril isn't actually the same language as the tongue called Common in Golarion and nor is it the same language as the tongue called Common in Athas. You see, Common in Toril is descended from Thorass which was a derivative of Jotun, the language of ancient Giants. In Golarion the Common Tongue is based on Azlanti (think Atlantis), but is also heavily influenced by Varisian (think gypsies). In my vision of Athas Common is the tongue spoken by humans in cities. It is descended from an ancient language called Tatlum (think Latin).
If you were to go to a place often visited by people from other worlds (such as say the World Serpent Inn) a Torillian, Golarion and an Athasian would all need Tongues in order to communicate with each other because although they're all speaking "Common", the languages are completely distinct from each other thanks to the varied histories of each world.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
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).
Cool :) As I said I don't actually know much about Golarion Drow. It could be that the Golarion Drow manifested just as the Age of Darkness began and so the other elves refused to allow them back to the Plane of Faerie (sometimes referred to as the "First World") and so the Drow had no choice but to flee to the Underdark to avoid all the troubles. Although you'd want to take a careful look at Toril and Golarion timelines before deciding such a thing.
Perhaps the elves fled to the Underdark before manifesting their "drow" nature and when they did spontaneously manifest it, the non-Drow elves were horrified and fled for their lives.
Or perhaps the drow were on the First World when they manifested and so were exiled to Golarion and happily lived on the surface. Then when the Age of Darkness came they fled to the Underdark.
OR perhaps Drow were in the Underdark all along. When the Age of Darkness fell they found Drow cities in the Underdark who had been there all along. The elves were killed/enslaved/adopted (if they showed a sufficiently malevolent nature).
Also sorry for mentioning infravision. I didn't expect this ;) Now back to LFR mods for me to find flavour for Westgate. |
DM of the Realms: A blog for my Forgotten Realms adventures. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2013 : 15:33:45
|
quote:
Ayrik
Strictly speaking, we know of very few species with natural infravision ...
quote:
BEAST
Which coincides with drow having spent most of their history far away from said sunlight. They apparently evolved to fit their non-sunlit world. The cost was being ill-prepared for the sunlit one. No wonder they cursed the sun, in Drizzt's youth.
True, drow have no exposure to the sun. But they do breathe the same air. Atmospheric particle scatter (just based on the size and density of air molecules) would make infrared light appear very "dark", as if seen through a photographic filter or wimpy welding goggles, it's the same physics which makes the sky look grey or vivid blue to normal light.quote:
BEAST
I do recall various references to the drow having "large" eyes. But exactly how much larger is never specified.
Watch Lady Gaga's Bad Romance video (ick, here, around 1:17), they used CGI (and camera perspective) to increase her eye size by almost 5% during some of the face shots. To me, the effect is immediately striking (that is, it would draw my attention in a crowd) and (when I paused to scrutinize her face) it's startlingly freaky and inhuman, like some kind of plastic anime-style porcelain doll. Human children have "large" eyes and mature humans have a surprisingly uniform eyeball diameter, one size literally fits all, because the optics are based on wavelengths of a fixed size. It's an electromagnetic sensor, and like a radio antenna it just has to have very specific physical dimensions to work properly. CGI Gollum's eyes are about right (larger than human eyes, suggesting he can see well in darkness), but the CGI hobbit eyes are smaller than the (non-CGI) human eyes in the LotR movies, which in a strictly scientific sense would mean they gather less light within a limited frequency range and wouldn't even see as well as human children.quote:
BEAST
Are there no known chemicals which rapidly react to those IR frequencies?
I was referring to UV-reactive Rhodopsin. There is no substitute, it is even an active chemical in many synthetics (photochromatic and photoreactive glass, etc) because no other amphoteric substance is known with these optical properties. Having said that, biology and chemistry in the Realms follows different (magical) rules, although drow can't be too different if they're genetically compatible with humans. Realms humans. Lacking other "scientific" data, it's not unreasonable to assume that any Realms species which is interfertile with drow (a list which can extend to numerous human, demihuman, humanoid, and monstrous creatures) would have infravision/darkvision biology which is fundamentally similar to drow.
The chemical requires 10-30 minutes to "reset" and become visually unpolarized. Our non-Realms science can build nanoscale semiconductors and clever digital logic which offer superior electromagnetic sensitivity and sensor density, but biochemistry is limited to a smaller array of versatile components built on substantially larger scales, and we cannot (yet) directly interface synthetic sensors to biological systems. Before you ask, a campfire (even a candle) puts out enough UV-light to catalyze Rhodopsin ... although perhaps fairie fire does not.
Yes, quantity of pigment in the iris does affect how much light enters the cornea. People with heavily-pigmented (dark brown) eyes receive less light on their retinas; they can better tolerate bright light but have poorer low-light vision. People with pale-pigmented eyes (I have "steel blue" eyes) have marginally better low-light vision and poor tolerance of bright light (I am painfully blinded by sunny beaches, only half-blinded when wearing dark shades) because more light is received on the retinas. I edited this out earlier (to "light which passes into the cornea") to reduce the wall of text because this (to me, profoundly significant) detail is an individual variance outside of the standard deviation range in a large (human) population sample.
Unless at least one of us is a mutant, our eyes will see "exceptionally well" (for a human) in low-light conditions ... but glancing at light sources for the fraction of a second the Rhodopsin compound needs to polarize will make us (at least partially) dark blind for up to 30 minutes before our eyes can fully readjust again for darkness. Knowing this, my learned behaviour is to reflexively avert my eyes or focus my gaze away from any light source I'm facing ... some people are astounded I can read or navigate comfortably in what to them is gloomy darkness, most times I would greatly prefer such darkness over a "helpful" light source which greatly diminishes my real ability to see everything else outside of the limited area it directly illuminates. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 13 Jan 2013 18:42:00 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jan 2013 : 16:58:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
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.
What I find very interesting is that completely independent of Eberron I had decided the Scorpionmen were also drow (their human part looks elven), but they were punished during a conflict between Lolth and Tiamet (who they worshiped in Maztica under an alias - the assumption being ALL the Maztican gods are aliases for the draconic pantheon).
I've wavered back and forth with who actually cursed them, but I was working with two premises; the Tlincallis are similar in many respects to driders, and in folklore/mythology Tiamet created the scorpionmen. So if you add-in the other assumption regarding the Maztican pantheon (that they have been the draconic panthoen worshiped in Maztican under aliases since primordial times), it all fits.
I haven't quite figured out how to link that to Eberron's lore, but the fact that they worship a 'scorpion deity' (Tiamet using a different form?) does fit with my other thoughts. If I make Lamashtu an aspect of Tiamet, I could possibly tie all of it together (because I have figured for my Golarion musings Lolth and Lamshtu have an age-old conflict going).
On the other hand, Lamashtu is Chaotic Evil... hmmmm... must ponder this more... |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 13 Jan 2013 17:19:53 |
|
|
|
JohnLynch
Learned Scribe
Australia
243 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2013 : 10:10:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I haven't quite figured out how to link that to Eberron's lore
As an Eberron fan, an important part of the flavour for the world for me was that the people of Eberron don't know if their gods exist or not. They must take it on faith that there are gods.
On Dark Sun there are no gods. I'm able to reconcile Dark Sun with Forgotten Realms and other settings by treating Athas as a planar black hole. As in, once you get there, you can never escape. The exception to this are elementals, but they're a special case. As such I treat Athas as a place where there truly are no gods.
For Eberron it's more difficult. Because Angels do appear in Eberron and leave Eberron. But even those angels don't know if the gods exist or not. They too, take it on faith. So trying to reconcile Eberron with more traditional worlds when it comes to deities can be difficult.
I treat Eberron as a place where the Torillian and Golarion deities do not touch. They just leave the entire place alone because there are plenty of worlds out there who don't worship them, so they might as well go pay attention to those worlds rather than Eberron. So if you start tying Lolth lore too heavily with Eberron drow, you get into a murky area. ALTHOUGH you could say that Eberron drow do not recognise the divinity of Lolth because of the fact she's a known entity to exist. Everyone (on Eberron) knows that the gods do not reveal themselves to mortals in such an obvious manner as the Faerunian gods, so therefore the entities that call themselves gods on Toril mustn't be gods but instead advanced and very powerful beings masquerading as gods.
That would of course be an Eberronians viewpoint of other world's deities. Or you could just gloss over the fact that the deities are meant to be an unknowable force on Eberron. Perhaps that aspect doesn't appeal to you. |
DM of the Realms: A blog for my Forgotten Realms adventures. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2013 : 11:03:34
|
| (There are connections between Athas and Toril - and Oerth, Krynn, Sigil, Earth, etc - specified in Dark Sun and in other campaign lore. But that's a different topic and doesn't invalidate your point.) |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2013 : 16:23:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
although it was difficult to explain to dumb or ornery people (snip)
I’m assuming here you’re not speaking from any experience, since you don’t play the game.
Regardless, try and be less of a jerk, OK?
****
My last word on the subject (until the next Infravision thread, where I’m sure we’ll be doing this all over again).
When Wizards of the Coast (WotC) bought D&D, they set for themselves the ambitious goal of saving Dungeons & Dragons; with extracting its remains from the ashes of a bankrupt company that had been run into the ground and breathing new life into both it and the larger community of gamers that D&D spawned.
WotC’s primary focus was not on the Forgotten Realms, though any effort to save D&D would of course benefit the Realms since the two are so intertwined.
As WotC neared completion of the 3E rules, much of their energy moved to the Forgotten Realms in order to turn it into a flagship setting. The Realms were to be reimagined within the framework of the new D&D rules in order to become the setting to showcase all that the new version of D&D had to offer.
This, of course, meant that the Realms had to change in order for it to fit the new game rules.
And as Ed Greenwood has indicated previously, a key aspect of the Realms is change. It’s always changing and always will be.
At the turn of the century the Realms, like D&D, was ready to move forward.
During the design phase (of 3E) I’m sure some Realms purists would have preferred a game design policy that insisted no change could be made to D&D that would affect any prior Realms canon. Barring that, there should be specific-to-the-Realms rules that preserved as much prior Realms flavor as possible or some kind of in game explanation for every change made.
But as we know:
1) D&D is bigger than the Realms.
2) The Realms were meant to showcase 3E D&D, not be the exception to it.
3) Fans did not want another Time of Troubles type of event, like the one that heralded the game rules changes from 1E to 2E.
That, and D&D is about so much more than the Realms. It’s people’s own countless homebrew worlds, the gaming community at large, and dabbling in, borrowing from and using other worlds like Greyhawk and Planescape, Dark Sun and Ravenloft.
Ultimately it’s about playing a game and having fun with friends. People’s games shouldn’t be restricted by the needs of one fantasy setting some of them might have never even heard about.
The decision to remove Infravision from D&D had an effect on the Realms, sure, but the decision itself wasn’t arbitrary or capricious. Instead it was one of several decisions, big and small, that had to be made about how to move D&D forward. It was an informed decision, one that very likely relied on outside playtesting (which WotC did quite a bit of, gathering much feedback in the process) and the experience of game designers who were extremely well versed in the older D&D rules.
Should there have been more concern for how the changes to D&D might have affected the Realms? Maybe. The people who created 3E were pretty smart from what I’ve gathered, so it’s quite possible concerns about what Infravision’s removal might to do the popularity of the Realms were brought up even before the design team for the 3E Realms was assembled.
Fortunately, we know in hindsight that Infravision’s removal wasn’t a problem for either D&D or the Realms fiction line.
For D&D—and unlike with Infravision—nobody ended up wasting time at the gaming table asking how Darkvision works. Nobody’s game was slowed down by players insisting Darvision should allow them to do something extra that wasn’t covered in the rules or DMs creating elaborate house rules to make Darkvision work the way they thought it should (based on whatever grasp of the science behind it they had). Forums were never awash in flamewars about “broken” Darkvision rules.*
And that, as it happens, was the point.
It was the point because all the people who created 3E D&D (and not only Seak K Reynolds, convenient target that he seems to be) wanted a game that was better than what came before and were willing to remove any sacred cow to make that happen, whether it be wonky rules like Infravision, unnecessarily complicated rules like THAC0 or overly restrictive rules like demihuman level limits.
Despite the changes to D&D and the Realms, the D&D Core Rulebooks, as well as the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, sold like hotcakes.
Likewise for D&D novels, Infravision’s removal wasn’t a problem because Realms novels featuring Drow have, by all accounts, sold pretty well in the last twelve years (and you can thank the success of 3rd Edition D&D for that).
Infravision’s removal certainly took some getting used to, but any notion that its removal was problematic (in terms of people getting stuck over how they’re “supposed” to view the Realms) is dead on arrival when you look at novel sales.
Clearly, people got used to it.
That said, I can see how someone who takes Realms canon really, really seriously and has been around long enough to remember Infravision would take exception to what was a minor game rule change, but a major change to Realmslore. They would naturally view Infravision’s removal as a loss of good, juicy flavor and an imperfection or blight on the face of Realms canon.
However most people don’t appear to have too much difficulty grasping that game rules have always informed Realms canon, just as most people don’t seem to experience major cognitive dissonance when they remember how Narbondel was depicted in a 1980s era novel vs. a novel written after the year 2000. (You’d think this would be a major bone of contention on the R.A. Salvatore forums, but I was hard pressed to find more than a few pages of google hits on the topic, several of those hits pointing to the same set of threads).
Drow-without-infravision are still very interesting (to gamers and first time novel readers who’ve never heard a lick about Infravision, mind) and Drow themes are—to this day—plastered all over WotC’s website, because they sell lots of books.
Hopefully with D&D Next we get a Realms that’s mostly divorced from the game rules, so we can have the best of both worlds.
Drow ought to be depicted in the novels as having “heat sensitive eyes” and DMs ought to be able to move from a base rule of Darkvision to something a little more complicated like Infravision, if they so choose.
I’m still not sure how WotC can pull that off, but I hope they do.
*In fact the only flamewars I saw were started by diehards unwilling to old rules—and the Realmslore spawned from them—die. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
Edited by - Jeremy Grenemyer on 14 Jan 2013 16:39:15 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2013 : 17:39:42
|
I, personally, don't see how infravision was such a problem that it needed to be changed. Perhaps it could have been somewhat better defined, as many other rules were, but I don't understand why it was totally scrapped.
I'm sure that the designers were trying to improve things, but I'm not understanding why the only possible improvement here was scrapping the old system entirely and replacing it with an incompatible new system. From that perspective, it does make the change seem arbitrary... |
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!  |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2013 : 17:56:20
|
I am going to do the 'quotey thing' here, even though I hate doing it because it can be construed as being confrontational (which is not my intent).
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
As an Eberron fan, an important part of the flavour for the world for me was that the people of Eberron don't know if their gods exist or not. They must take it on faith that there are gods.
One of the many things I like, and agree with, about Eberron.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
On Dark Sun there are no gods. I'm able to reconcile Dark Sun with Forgotten Realms and other settings by treating Athas as a planar black hole. As in, once you get there, you can never escape. The exception to this are elementals, but they're a special case. As such I treat Athas as a place where there truly are no gods.
Not quite on-topic (and our topic isn't even on-topic, so its a double-drift ), but I think thats what makes Athas a possibly ideal part of the Abeir concept - a 'closed' world with no gods, and the 'elemental forces' are considered supreme. If they ever do give us a map (or some lore) of Abeir in 5e, I think this would be a great way to marry Dark Sun to FR without violating the lore of either. Athas is a tiny place on whatever planet its on - lots of room for other cultures/continents.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
For Eberron it's more difficult. Because Angels do appear in Eberron and leave Eberron. But even those angels don't know if the gods exist or not. They too, take it on faith. So trying to reconcile Eberron with more traditional worlds when it comes to deities can be difficult.
I chalk this up the the 'planer rules' set forth by the Spheric Gaurdian (Overgod) of EB. Just like FR has The Weave and the Tablets of Fate (amongst other things) to govern it, so, too, do all worlds (D&D settings). The Overgod of EB simply gave that world more of a 'hands off' policy (seeing how badly its gone for others with more interaction). The Gods are still there, they just have to act using intermediaries instead (those angels, etc). My homebrew world is built along these lines (which doesn't mean some deities don't try to bend the rules to the breaking point).
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
I treat Eberron as a place where the Torillian and Golarion deities do not touch. They just leave the entire place alone because there are plenty of worlds out there who don't worship them, so they might as well go pay attention to those worlds rather than Eberron. So if you start tying Lolth lore too heavily with Eberron drow, you get into a murky area. ALTHOUGH you could say that Eberron drow do not recognise the divinity of Lolth because of the fact she's a known entity to exist. Everyone (on Eberron) knows that the gods do not reveal themselves to mortals in such an obvious manner as the Faerunian gods, so therefore the entities that call themselves gods on Toril mustn't be gods but instead advanced and very powerful beings masquerading as gods.
In my own stuff I spin ALL deities that way. In the 'great scheme of things' they are barely more then super-powered mortals. In the hierarchy of the heavens they barely have one foot in the door... and they are not happy about that.
quote:
Originally posted by JohnLynch
That would of course be an Eberronians viewpoint of other world's deities. Or you could just gloss over the fact that the deities are meant to be an unknowable force on Eberron. Perhaps that aspect doesn't appeal to you.
It appeals to me very much - as I've said, I have taken that approach with my own world's gods.
Here's the difference - I know the real deal, and whats going on in the godly realms, and its nothing at all how the mortals picture it. The mortals of my homebrew think and act very much as the Eberron folk do - a 'sign from the gods' is considered an awesome, holy event. If someone claimed to see and actually talk to a god they'd be considered nuts. My gods really aren't all that different then Toril's, or Oerth's, or even the various pantheons of Earth - they have just been given a stricter set of rules.
Heh - I think I just called Ao 'a slacker'. 
The mortals don't need gods, that's just deific propaganda; the truth is the gods need them, to empower them and further their goals. Thats how it should be - hopefully Ed will be able to dial-back the godly involvement with the Realms so the setting can go back to being about people.
@The Mods - I realize this has gone way off-topic, but considering where the on-topic conversation has gone, I thought this would at least be a bit of a reprieve from that. Why folk want to argue about changes made between 2 and 3 editions ago is beyond me. We got bigger fish to fry. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 14 Jan 2013 18:00:53 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4686 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jan 2013 : 18:04:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I, personally, don't see how infravision was such a problem that it needed to be changed. Perhaps it could have been somewhat better defined, as many other rules were, but I don't understand why it was totally scrapped.
I'm sure that the designers were trying to improve things, but I'm not understanding why the only possible improvement here was scrapping the old system entirely and replacing it with an incompatible new system. From that perspective, it does make the change seem arbitrary...
I will repeat, back in 1979 TSR had some problems with Infravision. This was 1st Edition. Tunnels and caves all tend to have the same temperature. Furniture would look the same as a wall. Even seeing a door across the room might be a problem, however if there was a draft the air might be warmer or colder. Doing science perhaps furniture of wood might lose heat quicker then stone.
2nd Edition keep the name, however default was can see in the dark far better without real discussion about how to explain heat or lack of heat (allowing the DM to use the 1st edition option of heat as an option).
3rd Edition basically said science and tunnels do not match well, so let us call it dark vision. Basically an innate, racial ability, that allows those of the dark can see better in dark conditions then those of the light.
Or as I offered before "science works different in D&D then works on Earth". Considering how many things that work in the Realms I would hope most would agree with that statement.
So what 3rd did |
"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 |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 03:43:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
I’m assuming here you’re not speaking from any experience, since you don’t play the game.
Right, I'm mostly paraphrasing from the webpages linked to, and other people's comments here. I'm not speaking from gaming experience, but from discussions with gamers and readers.
People hold up darkvision as something great because it allegedly works, but they can't explain how, because it's made up and not based on anything. I contrasted that with infravision, which is based on something, and can even be replicated to a degree with RW technology, so it really works. Therefore it doesn't make sense to imply darkvision is better because it allegedly works, as if infravision didn't. Infravision's unpleasantness isn't that it doesn't work, because it certainly does--rather, it's unpleasantness is because it's difficult to explain, or to interpret in relation to a bunch of other game rules. And that difficulty only goes up when the readers/listeners are intelligence-impaired or argumentative.
But that's their fault--not infravision's.
It's annoying that fault is found with the rule/concept, when it is those people who are the ones who are fault.
And it's annoying that the designers decided to sell out the wonderful concept, and instead cater to those who couldn't or didn't want to have it explained to them.
quote:
Regardless, try and be less of a jerk, OK?
Hey, SKR started out his article by admitting it was a "Rant", and accusing the infravision-mongers of "whining". When his basic argument is flawed, his examples are flawed, and he uses that kind of rhetoric, then I feel that I'm justified in demonstrating my annoyance therewith.
I will also point that I am not the one who called anyone a name, here, JG. You are.
The annoyance and exasperation in his online "voice" there coincides with the view that a lot of people here have had with the designers behind 4E and the Spellplague, too. He gives the impression, initially at least, that he just didn't want to be bothered with answering for the changes that the team made, and that those who called for such were a nuisance to him. How dare the peasants balk when the emperor hands down a decree?
His defense of darkvision and criticism of infravision hinged on infravision being difficult to interpret and apply in a lot of situations. That sounds lazy.
And he cited a lot of gamers who found it difficult, and said that the design change was geared toward making it easier for them. So the team was catering to people who were dumb or lazy.
And he never once acknowledged the loss of flavor that the change entailed. His entire argument was pure mechanics. It was a slap in the face to traditionalists and lorehounds.
That's pretty much how a whole lot of people saw the 4E designers: catering to the dumb/lazy/newbs, forcing changes down people's throats, stepping all over older lore, and getting annoyed that fans were annoyed at any or all of the above.
And you ask me to be less of a jerk? 
At least the annoyance in my online voice is justified. It was provoked. The annoyance in his, and presumedly in that of the other designers back then, was not.
quote:
My last word on the subject (until the next Infravision thread, where I’m sure we’ll be doing this all over again).
If we could've just gotten a satisfactory answer and explanation once, without the condescension towards the pro-infravision crowd, then we probably wouldn't keep rehashing this. But we haven't, so we do.
quote:
But as we know:
1) D&D is bigger than the Realms.
2) The Realms were meant to showcase 3E D&D, not be the exception to it.
3) Fans did not want another Time of Troubles type of event, like the one that heralded the game rules changes from 1E to 2E.
True, but aren't there some sort of Realmsian supplements that modify, or even contradict, the core rules in places? I fear that my ignorance of the game side is showing through, here, but it's an honest question.
For example, I vaguely recall people mentioning that the 3E core Drow of the Underdark didn't fully match up with the existing, established, and continuing lore on Realms drow. That manual didn't trump drow Realmslore.
quote:
The decision to remove Infravision from D&D had an effect on the Realms, sure, but the decision itself wasn’t arbitrary or capricious. Instead it was one of several decisions, big and small, that had to be made about how to move D&D forward.
Characterizing the end of infravision as "moving D&D forward" seems like propaganda to me. It took something away (a colorful, dynamic type of vision) with a RW foundation, and replaced it with something drab and completely fake (grayscale vision based on nothing at all). That smacks of moving backward to me. It was mechanically expedient, but vapid lore-wise.
When the designers failed to give an in-world explanation for the change, but instead based it purely on its RW mechanical expedience, it exposed them to suspicions of arbitrariness.
And when SKR dismissed the infravision-mongers as whiners, and continued to defend the change purely because of its convenience--without any concession to infravision's value in the lore, as well as the superior gaming flavor--then he made the change sound even more arbitrary.
And when he accused the infravision-mongers of whining, as if they were out of line for being opinionated about a game and world that they love, and as if the designers shouldn't be held to answer for their decisions, then that really made him and the other decision-makers and their decision sound arbitrary.
quote:
Should there have been more concern for how the changes to D&D might have affected the Realms? Maybe. The people who created 3E were pretty smart from what I’ve gathered, so it’s quite possible concerns about what Infravision’s removal might to do the popularity of the Realms were brought up even before the design team for the 3E Realms was assembled.
I don't think anyone else here was discussing popularity. Please, let's not go there.
If popularity were really a primary concern, then maybe we could "move forward" by simply reducing all D&D/FR to Greenwood and Salvatore material. Let's just focus on what's most popular, and dump the rest, right?
I'm talking about the principle of honoring what came before because it worked, even though there were some difficulties associated with it, rather than going the lazy route and substituting something that was easier on paper, but simply pulled out of thin air. Some things ought to trump what's easy, convenient, expedient, etc.
quote:
Fortunately, we know in hindsight that Infravision’s removal wasn’t a problem for either D&D or the Realms fiction line.
I beg to differ. It can't be shown to have hurt sales.
"Wasn't a problem", huh? You say I exaggerate? Well, you understate. Might I call it "hypobole"?
As I mentioned above, it brought about thematic, conceptual clashes with prior Realms fiction--prior Realms fiction which was continuing to be sold and re-released, and therefore which was remaining actively circulated in the market and in people's minds. Please don't act as if those things don't matter or count.
You ignore the fact that the change undermined those previous novels, and those previous manuals, which incorporated infravision. It failed to maintain continuity with them. It turned its back on them. And it didn't even explain, in-world, how and why. That's a tremendous disservice to the previous lore, and writers/fans thereof.
quote:
For D&D—and unlike with Infravision—nobody ended up wasting time at the gaming table asking how Darkvision works. Nobody’s game was slowed down by players insisting Darvision should allow them to do something extra that wasn’t covered in the rules or DMs creating elaborate house rules to make Darkvision work the way they thought it should (based on whatever grasp of the science behind it they had).
Really? Are you so sure of that? 3E came out, what, about 2000? Are you saying that the OP, Bladewind, was the only person to ever ask these sorts of questions? Are you really saying that no one else ever questioned darkvision from 2000 until 2013?
That seems awfully dismissive and disrespectful of other people, JG.
Either that, or you think Bladewind was really, really insightful, having come up with questions never heard before in 13 whole years.
quote:
And that, as it happens, was the point.
It was the point because all the people who created 3E D&D [...] wanted a game that was better than what came before and were willing to remove any sacred cow to make that happen, whether it be wonky rules like Infravision, unnecessarily complicated rules like THAC0 or overly restrictive rules like demihuman level limits.
The 4E designers could be described in a similar fashion by their apologists, too, though.
But that wouldn't insulate them from being wrong, or from vehement criticism as a result of it.
It is my understanding that the changes to character stat lines (vis a vis, THACO and what-not) still allowed for the calculation of hit points and damage or whatever. Those changes did not gut those basic concepts. And they didn't destroy established lore, either. They were mechanical improvements that didn't bust the lore.
quote:
(and not only Seak K Reynolds, convenient target that he seems to be)
I get it: SKR is human, and he's entitled to personally vent on his own blog. No one should be held up to unreasonable standards when expressing him/herself candidly. We should all be cut some slack, in media like that.
And it seems unduly obsessive to keep picking on him, when there were many other 3E designers.
But his commentary on the subject is the one that continues to be cited and offered up as the explanation for the change, years and years later. Therefore, it can't help but be the focal point for our counter-commentary.
quote:
Despite the changes to D&D and the Realms, the D&D Core Rulebooks, as well as the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, sold like hotcakes.
Likewise for D&D novels, Infravision’s removal wasn’t a problem because Realms novels featuring Drow have, by all accounts, sold pretty well in the last twelve years (and you can thank the success of 3rd Edition D&D for that).
Infravision’s removal certainly took some getting used to, but any notion that its removal was problematic (in terms of people getting stuck over how they’re “supposed” to view the Realms) is dead on arrival when you look at novel sales.
Clearly, people got used to it.
Once again, you seem to be hung up on sales and popularity.
You seem to be the sort that thinks that 4E and the Spellplague were a mistake because WOTC took a big ding in sales.
You don't seem to realize or acknowledge that there is value in the lore that was undone by the edition changes, which is completely separate from the money and popularity.
The 4E designers were apparently guided primarily by their views of popularity and money. They apparently thought that catering to newbs by dumbing the game down, and essentially eliminating a lot of the lore, would make the game immsenely more inviting, and therefore immensely more partaken of.
They forgot--or forsook--the value of that older lore. And that's a shame--and not only because it led to a big ding in sales and popularity.
quote:
That said, I can see how someone who takes Realms canon really, really seriously and has been around long enough to remember Infravision would take exception to what was a minor game rule change, but a major change to Realmslore. They would naturally view Infravision’s removal as a loss of good, juicy flavor and an imperfection or blight on the face of Realms canon.
Cool!
That does contrast markedly against your earlier claim that the change posed no problem, though.
quote:
However most people don’t appear to have too much difficulty grasping that game rules have always informed Realms canon, just as most people don’t seem to experience major cognitive dissonance when they remember how Narbondel was depicted in a 1980s era novel vs. a novel written after the year 2000.
I'm not sure how to guage what most people do, here.
But I have certainly had plenty of cognitive dissonance about such stuff.
I've even said, "That's just plain wrong!", on more than one occasion because of it, too.
quote:
(You’d think this would be a major bone of contention on the R.A. Salvatore forums, but I was hard pressed to find more than a few pages of google hits on the topic, several of those hits pointing to the same set of threads).
There was a lot of talk about it in years past, but a lot of the old threads have been lost due to hackers who damaged the forums a few years ago.
Most of the participants there are solely into the fiction, rather than the games rules. We generally thumb our noses at the changes imposed on Bob's novels by the rules, and snidely think to ourselves that what's really happening in his books is closer to the old way of doing things. We retcon or houserule our own interpretations of the stories, the way many people apparently do with the game.
The general concensus is that the rules are just plain wrong. Infravision still wins the day. But we have no real control over the game rules, so we just set those off to the side, and compartmentalize and marginalize ourselves off to the other side.
Again, remember that you said that the change caused no problem. Marginalization of the fanbase of the bestselling writer for the brand would seem to present a bit of a problem, to me.
quote:
Drow-without-infravision are still very interesting (to gamers and first time novel readers who’ve never heard a lick about Infravision, mind) and Drow themes are—to this day—plastered all over WotC’s website, because they sell lots of books.
True, even without the joy of infravision in the current rules and lore, drow still have lots of juicy bits to keep us entertained.
But it does seem ironic that few of us really think about drow living most of their lives in black and white or grayscale. Apparently, few of the cover artists and sourcebook artists do, either. We generally think of them in full Technicolor glory!
It's difficult for me to imagine the drow having these long-lasting, complex cultures, without vivid colors in their lives, and in their art. The simplicity of darkvision in a game just doesn't translate well in my mental view of how the race would really work, or could've managed to work for all this time.
quote:
Hopefully with D&D Next we get a Realms that’s mostly divorced from the game rules, so we can have the best of both worlds.
Drow ought to be depicted in the novels as having “heat sensitive eyes” and DMs ought to be able to move from a base rule of Darkvision to something a little more complicated like Infravision, if they so choose.
Well, at least we can end on a positive note!  |
"'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"> |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4686 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 04:44:13
|
BEAST, I am not sure why my few comments have not been replied to. Even the Earth science you appear to ignore (all things the same temperature would look the same or not be seen at all) that does not apply to D&D and the Realms.
In many ways I would think this thread should be locked, because of attacks on members or design teams. |
"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 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 05:05:13
|
| I should prefer not to close this thread, but I do think we all need to step back and take a breather. This discussion is growing more heated than it needs to be. |
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! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 10:12:36
|
quote:
Wooly Rubric
This discussion is growing more heated than it needs to be.
A deliberate pun, Wooly?
And to think that most people had no difficulty accepting Tolkein's elves seeing well in starlight, no difficulty accepting Gygax's infravision in OD&D, no difficulty accepting Wizbro's darkvision in D&D 3E.
To paraphrase myself from above, how can a person seriously claim that one kind of fantasy is better than another kind?
From the perspective of a gamer who has had many characters fumble through darkness over the years, the simplicity of darkvision is sometimes a real advantage. Compare with games like Shadowrun which had magic and cybernetics and equipment capable of providing at least four distinct types of vision, along with various tables full of combat modifiers and pages and pages of scattered explanations in the rules and every piece of fiction. D&D 3E simplified this to a few paragraphs and moved the rules onto other things ... and I have met gamers who appreciate that. Darkvision is just easier to apply when a noob joins the table or the plot is already bogged down under an ocean of unimportant rules exactly because it requires no underlying explanations. My anecdotal experience is that while I prefer infravision, it is not for everyone.
From the perspective of a reader, I think I'd rather read about the fantasy than (bad) science which attempts to justify it. If elves have infravision then every story with elves is compelled to demonstrate their infravision for "flavour", a chore which would become pretty old pretty quick. It would be like half of each Star Trek or Star Gate episode being dedicated to linguistic fumbles for "realism" ... kinda cool the first time but after that it becomes a waste of time better spent telling a story.
From what I've heard, 5E will have some kind of modular rules framework compatible with whichever form is preferred. I see little point in complaining about past mistakes which are already being addressed and "corrected", and if push comes to shove, my group will just import our own rule subset, again, it's not a big deal. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 15 Jan 2013 11:49:09 |
|
|
|
Arcanus
Senior Scribe
485 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 15:50:49
|
The obvious answer is to take Ed's a approach and "use what you like, it's your Realms".
Trying to use science explain away the workings of a magical world is an exercise in futility. The very physics of the Realms is different from our own and seeing as how nobody knows (except Ed) just how they work, then nobody here can possibly give a definative and accurate explanation as to how darkvision/infravision works. |
|
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 16:38:26
|
Heh. This thread has gotten more interesting then I'd imagined.
Our gaming table has used a certain assumption about darkvision I have been hesitant to accept lately: that creatures with darkvision ignore shadows within their vision range. Initially this has to be so if one takes darkvision as written. Sometimes there is no light to cast any shadows. But if I want to explain why darkvision can ignore shadows in shadowy illumination, I cant help but wonder if darkvision-shadows exist.
If one assumes a 30 ft suare pitch black room with tall furniture, an orc is able to see it all in greyscaled detail. But does that tall mirror hanging from the wall work? Does the area behind a couch become less grey/deeper black? Also, if I introduce a 5ft radius light source (like a bright candle), why can't a creature hide from an orc in the 10 ft circle of shadowy illumination? Shouldn't the light completely blind the orc's darkvision and prevent or limit any darkvision from being used (like a form of nightblindness does)?
I also think darkvision should be explained because I like poking at magical and seemingly unexplainable things like that. Just a personal preferance really. My own theory remains firm, darkvision works bacause of a radiation is emitted by the eyes that is then recaptured into an eye capable of processing the scattered wavelengths. |
My campaign sketches
Druidic Groves
Creature Feature: Giant Spiders |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 17:03:46
|
| Its magic!!! |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 17:58:22
|
quote:
Bladewind
Our gaming table has used a certain assumption about darkvision I have been hesitant to accept lately: that creatures with darkvision ignore shadows within their vision range. Initially this has to be so if one takes darkvision as written. Sometimes there is no light to cast any shadows. But if I want to explain why darkvision can ignore shadows in shadowy illumination, I cant help but wonder if darkvision-shadows exist.
That's attempting to apply scientific thinking to a magical phenomenon. But sure, why not, it can be said that darkvision penetrates shadows just like infravision can penetrate fog and smoke.
I would advise not taking the science too seriously. Otherwise you'll eventually ask what sorts of surfaces "reflect" darkvision, how vision works at all when you (and your retinas) are completely invisible, or whether your players can cast continual light/darkness on liquids and what happens when these splash around.
I'm apprehensive about making eyeballs into active sensors which actually radiate something. It's magic (and this approach offers a basis for illusion and detection magics) so sure ... but there are always ways to detect or jam or exploit somebody else's active sensors. To be honest, the visual and missile ranges given in the rules are so pathetic that I'd hate to see the "passive sensor" version which has even poorer capabilities. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 18:13:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bladewind
My own theory remains firm, darkvision works bacause of a radiation is emitted by the eyes that is then recaptured into an eye capable of processing the scattered wavelengths.
So does that mean Cyclops of the X-Men would have darkvision? |
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! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 18:29:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I would advise not taking the science too seriously. Otherwise you'll eventually ask what sorts of surfaces "reflect" darkvision, how vision works at all when you (and your retinas) are completely invisible, or whether your players can cast continual light/darkness on liquids and what happens when these splash around.
Bolding mine. That's one that's bugged me, too!
It is a very good example, though, of why real world science shouldn't be relied on too heavily in a fantasy setting. |
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! |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7974 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 21:16:38
|
| I say mutant superpowers = fantasy = soft sci-fi = magic. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 23:16:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I say mutant superpowers = fantasy = soft sci-fi = magic.
Depending on the superpower, I wouldn't call all mutant abilities fantasy or magic. Some powers are simply extrapolations of existing abilities found in nature. And there have been unique individuals with natural abilities beyond that of normal humans. Sure, lasers from the eyes are stretching it -- but there are many creatures that navigate by echolocation, so upscaling that is not necessarily outside the realm of possibility. |
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 - 16 Jan 2013 : 01:16:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I say mutant superpowers = fantasy = soft sci-fi = magic.
I wouldn't say that's always true. In fact, one of the earlier issues of the recent X-Treme X-Men book makes a pretty convincing case for why mutant abilities and magic shouldn't always be seen as the same thing.
Regardless, I would say that the regular bout of superpowers [if such a descriptor could be used without much fault] would work better in the interpretation equation above. Mutant abilities are more wholly genetic and grounded in science "fact." Whereas, we have multiple generic superpowers which have often been granted via either strange accidents or, even, magic. |
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 - 17 Jan 2013 : 21:49:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
BEAST, I am not sure why my few comments have not been replied to. Even the Earth science you appear to ignore (all things the same temperature would look the same or not be seen at all) that does not apply to D&D and the Realms.
I think your view is flawed, Kentinal. While an object might possibly be at the same temperature as its surroundings, that does not mean that they would both radiate their infrared rays out in the same manner. If an object has a flat face pointed directly toward your eyes, then a whole lot of its IR would shine right at you; but if it were curved, my understanding is that a lot of its IR would radiate outward away from it in all directions, and not directly into your eyes. The flatter-faced object would appear brighter to you, while the curvier object would appear less bright.
Using Realmsian infravision, perhaps they would be same color (corresponding to the same temperature), but of varying intensities.
If you look at SKR's pic of a man's face in IR, there is quite a bit of detail. Certain areas of his face are broader and facing the camera lens more head-on, while other areas are more curved, which means less of their IR rays are headed straight for the lens. While his face might be of a fairly uniform temperature, it still radiates its energy out in wildly different directions, with wildly different concentrations.
At least, that's my understanding.
quote:
In many ways I would think this thread should be locked, because of attacks on members or design teams.
I apologize if my stance is upsetting to any, or many.
But it just seems like WOTC screwed up when they dumped on the lore for mechanics' sake back in 3E because of expedience, and they got away with it financially; then, having failed to see what was wrong with that approach before, they proceeded to dump on the lore even more dramatically with 4E, and this time it bit them in the butt. The hit in $ signs got their attention, but IMO, it all really ought to have started with a greater degree of respect for the lore.
Don't "fix" it if ain't broke; but if you're gonna "fix" it, then explain why in-world. Never simply pull the rug out from underneath something without such an explanation! |
"'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 17 Jan 2013 22:13:09 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4686 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2013 : 22:49:23
|
Night vision the Military used is based on ultravission or now called Low*Light Vision. An enhancement collection of light, star light, etc.
Infravision is based on heat detection, there medical and science use this for some things. Most often looking at warm bloodied creatures. A person constantly exchanges cold and heat by breathing, blood circulation and so on. Heat detection is also use to detect fire hazards.
The problem with infravision is a tunnel of a cave will hold the same basic temperature as long as there is no heat source.
Wood and store would have the same heat, unless a heat source is added. A heat source added will warm some things quicker then others. The time for heat added of course effects the rate of change. A warm bloodied body clearly can warm air, wood or stone, however the transfer is not that quick. Infravision was broke in 1979 and tech has not made it much better now. |
"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 |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2013 : 04:56:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Night vision the Military used is based on ultravission or now called Low*Light Vision. An enhancement collection of light, star light, etc.
That's part of it.
But some military and civilian night vision devices also use infrared beam emitters as a sort of flashlight to "paint" targets, with infrared-sensors picking up on that. They can work either way.
It does work.
quote:
The problem with infravision is a tunnel of a cave will hold the same basic temperature as long as there is no heat source.
Wood and store would have the same heat, unless a heat source is added. A heat source added will warm some things quicker then others. The time for heat added of course effects the rate of change. A warm bloodied body clearly can warm air, wood or stone, however the transfer is not that quick.
I'm not really sure where you're getting the idea that they will hold the same basic temperature without a new application of heat. Different materials have different heat capacities, which is basically a measure of how much the substance changes in temperature for a given amount of change in heat energy. Substances don't all rise or cool in temp to the same extent, with the same change in energy. Some substances heat quickly, but also cool back down just as quickly. Others heat very slowly, but also cool back down quite slowly.
So even if you found a piece of wood inside of a stone tunnel and both were at the same temperature, that does not mean that they would both remain at the same temperature indefinitely. By virtue of one substance having a greater heat capacity, it would retain its heat for longer than the other substance, and therefore cool much more slowly.
Perhaps you mean to say that if a tunnel with some wood were left undisturbed for long enough, the two substances would reach a sort of equilibrium, in which heat transfer between the two substances and the air or whatever had reached some sort of stable constant?
I suppose that such remote, isolated environs might exist deep in the Underdark.
But it is my understanding that the drow do not frequent such remote places often. Menzoberranyr, for example, regularly patrol their assumed territory. And the city, itself, is rife with activity.
Infraviewing creatures would probably fear really, really remote locales which haven't been disurbed in a long time like light-viewing creatures fear pitch-black dark places. They'd probably tend to avoid them.
quote:
Infravision was broke in 1979 and tech has not made it much better now.
I don't understand how you can say that. To declare that it was ever "broken" makes no sense. On what basis do you say that?
Also, technological advances have allowed for dramatically improved resolutions in infrared imagery. Just look at the pic of a guy's face on SKR's site, and compare that to something from 25 years ago. |
"'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"> |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Darkvision
