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.
The thing there is, if we are to be expected to abide by the designers' and DMs' dismissive hand-waiving with darkvision, as if to say, "Don't analyze it any further--just take my word for it, and let's move on"; then why not expect the same with infravision? It seems inconsistent.
When religionists ask what made nature and the universe and posit "God" as the answer, then an atheist is entitled to ask, "Then what made 'God'?" If the religionist responds that nothing made God, then the Atheist is entitled to ask, "Why must nature be presumed to have been made by anything, then?"
Why must we concoct an entirely new concept to be deemed "beyond further question" (God, darkvision, etc.), instead of simply declaring that the concept that we already have (non-supernatural universe, infravision, etc.) is such?
Conversely, if the concept that we already have is to be deemed legitimately subject to analysis and criticism, then what reasonable basis do we have to consider its replacement concept beyond such?
It all just smacks of intellectual laziness.
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly." --Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
Hey, I favor infravision, because it's more flavorful and it's part of Realmslore. I was just commenting on the invisibility thing, and how it illustrates the disconnect between fantasy and real-world science.
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.
The writers of Superman actually went to great lengths to explain the science behind Superman's powers (this was back when he was faster then a locomotive, could make great leaps in a single bound, was stronger than 10 men. Before the flying and xray vision).
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.
TSR said that in 1979, if you have a 1st Edition DMG you will read their concerns then about how it did not work well and DM must try to balance. [quote] if you are you are generous, you can allow different substances to radiate differently even if at the same temperature. ... Note also that monsters very cold or very warm sort (such as a human) can be tracked infravisually by their foot prints. Such tracking must occur within 2 rounds of their passing, or the temperature difference will dissipate.
page 59, DMG Revised Edition December 1979.
It should be noted that 1st Edition a round lasted one minute.
"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
Hey, I favor infravision, because it's more flavorful and it's part of Realmslore. I was just commenting on the invisibility thing, and how it illustrates the disconnect between fantasy and real-world science.
Alright, Wooly.
Or what is faerie fire made of? Or globes of darkness? Are they collections of chemicals ported in from somewhere else? Or are they purely magical effects, not subject to understood patterns of nature?
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly." --Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
TSR said that in 1979, if you have a 1st Edition DMG you will read their concerns then about how it did not work well and DM must try to balance.
I don't have that.
But the problem there is that it works "well", in terms of realism abd flavor.
It just doesn't work "well" in terms of mechanical ease.
I get it that it takes balance in the final implementation. But don't all the rules and other aspects of the property? That doesn't justify dumping any one aspect. It just justifies an authoritarian decision to stop the debate at some point and move forward with the campaign/novel/etc.
quote:
quote: if you are you are generous, you can allow different substances to radiate differently even if at the same temperature.
page 59, DMG Revised Edition December 1979.
OK, there's nothing really "generous" about that. That's just realism. Like I mentioned, different substances release their heat at different rates, even if they happen to be of the same temperature at a given point in time.
The air cools off at night far more quickly than does a large body of water. And the earth cools at a different rate, as well. Even if you were to heat them at such a rate in the first place that they were somehow all at the same temperature at 6pm at night, they would still release their heat energy at different rates. So they wouldn't remain at the same temperature for very long at all.
Maybe that all sounds complicated.
But reality already allowed for a lot of interpretive wiggle room for designers and DMs way back then.
That's why it seemed so unreasonable or unfair to drop this particular element from the property.
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly." --Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
Hey, I favor infravision, because it's more flavorful and it's part of Realmslore. I was just commenting on the invisibility thing, and how it illustrates the disconnect between fantasy and real-world science.
Alright, Wooly.
Or what is faerie fire made of? Or globes of darkness? Are they collections of chemicals ported in from somewhere else? Or are they purely magical effects, not subject to understood patterns of nature?
I've always considered them to be purely magical effects.
Again, I favor infravision because of flavor and prior lore. I realize that the science there is iffy, but given how iffy many other elements of fantasy are (particularly invisibility, as I agreed with above), I don't think that real-world science is the best argument for or against something in fantasy.
I'm really not trying to get into the infravision/darkvision debate. I've stated my preferences, and the reason for them. I was only commenting on an element of visibility that most people don't consider.
I'm quite content to let others debate the merits of one version of darksight over the other. No matter what others prefer, I'm quite satisfied with infravision, and I'm content to leave others to their own preferences.
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.
The writers of Superman actually went to great lengths to explain the science behind Superman's powers (this was back when he was faster then a locomotive, could make great leaps in a single bound, was stronger than 10 men. Before the flying and xray vision).
I'm glad Grant Morrison's gone a way toward reinforcing most of this in his take on the early days of Superman in Action Comics.
[And I only just realised that this wasn't the scroll I thought it was for this kind of comic book-related discussion, so I'll shut up now. ]
quote:The Sage [And I only just realised that this wasn't the scroll I thought it was for this kind of comic book-related discussion, so I'll shut up now. ]
They all end up being about some kind of comic book-related discussion, eventually. Every scroll of sufficient length, it is absolutely inevitable. It's like a strangely mutated Candlekeep species of Godwin's Rule.
Nope. Only my perception of Michel Bay has marred my perception of Michael Bay.
I never liked Tranformers, or any of the others.
When I was child their was only Gigantor. To me, he will always be the ONLY giant robot. Everything else are just toys.
Here's the thing - when you remember something fondly (from when you were just 5!), never ever 'go back'. Your memories of something are always far better then the genuine article.
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
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.
This reminds me of the excellent film Unbreakable. Upon proving the extraordinary strength of David Dunn (Bruce Willis), Elija Price (Samuel L. Jackson) said that the powers shown by comic book characters are actually real, slightly exaggerated, but based on actual characteristics of some people like David (who, as the title says, is unbreakable).
[The trailer does not do the film justice. The film itself is way more than what the trailer is saying.]
Darkvision
Posted - 18 Jan 2013 : 05:05:48
]
