Don't Hate the Game...

[Ubiquitous]

... hate the flayer.

http://www.welovefine.com/2134-hate-the-flayer.html

--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."

[Alcore]

I have never used a Mind Flayer in my game. I've always just had this unpleasant association between them and Psionics, which I don't allow in my game at all.

(I realize that there have been several decent Psionic systems in 3.x/D20, but I was so repulsed by the one in 1st edition that I never went back.)

[Tetsubo]

Don't let the taint of 1st edition spoil your fun. Psionics Unleashed
for the Pathfinder system is awesome.

--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57

[Justisaur]

On May 1, 1:46 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> ... hate the flayer.
>
> http://www.welovefine.com/2134-hate-the-flayer.html
>

I'd wear it.

- Justisaur

[Justisaur]

On May 1, 6:27 am, Alcore <alc...@uurth.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 1, 2012 3:46:23 AM UTC-5, Ubiquitous wrote:

> I have never used a Mind Flayer in my game.

Aw... They are one of the most fun* and iconic monsters to use...
sparingly though.

* (read annoying and deadly if you are a player)

> I've always just had this unpleasant association between them and Psionics, which I don't allow in my game at all.

Unpleasant, that's an understatement. They are probably the nastiest
living creature there is.

> (I realize that there have been several decent Psionic systems in 3.x/D20, but I was so repulsed by the one in 1st edition that I never went back.)

Psionics is o.k. in 3.x, but it suffers even more from the one
encounter day syndrome than wizards. You can dump all your points at
once and be done for the day.

I came up with a skill system idea that works more like warlocks that
I think might work better, but I never fleshed it out.

I like having psionics in game, it adds a weird lovecraftian feel, I'm
not sure it belongs in the hands of players though. 1e psionics can
work in the hands of a DM who knows what they are doing with it, but
the chances of any PC even having it are extremely low, so there's
usually not a lot of opportunity to play with it.

It works really well in 2e Darksun too, but that's a setting made for
it.

- Justisaur

[Jim Davies]

On the grave of Alcore <alc...@uurth.com> is inscribed:

>(I realize that there have been several decent Psionic systems in 3.x/D20, but I was so repulsed by the one in 1st edition that I never went back.)

One of my players so loathed 1e psionics that he avoided any game
whatsoever that included psionics. Not just D&D. Traveller,
Spacemaster, even Judge Dredd.

I was thinking of buying the car registration P510NIC but I figured
he'd never speak to me again.

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org

There is no God. But there is pudding!

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/1/12 4:02 PM, Jim Davies wrote:
> On the grave of Alcore<alc...@uurth.com> is inscribed:
>
>> (I realize that there have been several decent Psionic systems in 3.x/D20, but I was so repulsed by the one in 1st edition that I never went back.)
>
> One of my players so loathed 1e psionics that he avoided any game
> whatsoever that included psionics. Not just D&D. Traveller,
> Spacemaster, even Judge Dredd.
>

Heh. I considered the 1e system the only acceptable D&D psi system.
Though usually I used Space Opera's.

Spacemaster? He was just avoiding the WORD, then, because Spacemaster's
"psionics" was nothing but Rolemaster's "magic" with a name change --
there were even a few places in the edition I had where they'd missed
changing things and it still referred to "spells" instead of "psions".


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Tetsubo]

On 5/1/2012 4:18 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 5/1/12 4:02 PM, Jim Davies wrote:
>> On the grave of Alcore<alc...@uurth.com> is inscribed:
>>
>>> (I realize that there have been several decent Psionic systems in
>>> 3.x/D20, but I was so repulsed by the one in 1st edition that I never
>>> went back.)
>>
>> One of my players so loathed 1e psionics that he avoided any game
>> whatsoever that included psionics. Not just D&D. Traveller,
>> Spacemaster, even Judge Dredd.
>>
>
> Heh. I considered the 1e system the only acceptable D&D psi system.

Of all the things I have encountered on the intertubes, that might the
oddest sentence I have ever read. It still baffles me that you liked the
1E system. I mean, love it to death and fark the corpse if you wish. But
I just hated the thing...

> Though usually I used Space Opera's.
>
> Spacemaster? He was just avoiding the WORD, then, because Spacemaster's
> "psionics" was nothing but Rolemaster's "magic" with a name change --
> there were even a few places in the edition I had where they'd missed
> changing things and it still referred to "spells" instead of "psions".

Much as you may despise the idea, psionics *is* just another form of
magic. I know, I know. In your campaign psions are special snowflakes.
But if you strip away the trappings, it is often just a spell point
system or some variation there of. Which I am fine with. The Psionics
Unleashed for Pathfinder is the best spell point system I ever read.

[David Lamb]

I suppose at some level of abstraction you could just say "everything a
game system does to give more-than-human abilities is just magic under a
different name." I'm *really* wanting to hear Sea Wasp's response to
this, because in the distant past IIRC he was fond of having different
mechanics for different non-natural abilities (magic, psionics, and
perhaps more).

I react negatively when people say "psionics is just magic in a sci-fi
setting" because by convention people do different things with it.
Unfortunately I haven't articulated a good reason for my reaction. D&D
psionics does seem to want to port over lots of existing arcane spells
("psychic thus-and-so" for various magical thus-and-sos) but one could
just call that a mistake.

If we take Anne McCaffrey's psionics as an example, the things that
Talents could do were typically
- telepathy (common between Talents; not sure how well they could
read/send to mundanes).
- teleportation (rare)
- precognition (rare and unreliable)
- linking with electrical generators to amplify powers
- IIRC clairvoyance/clairaudience but I'm not entire sure of that. It's
certainly common in the genre.

There are D&D spells for all that -- but since the Vancian system
preceded any form of D&D psionics, maybe that was a mistake (just like
"psychic some-spell-or-other" might have been a mistake).

In MZB's Darkover novels, the seven families had particular gifts, but I
only recall the Alton gift for forced telepathic rapport ("The Spell
Sword") where an expert but recently-paralyzed Alton swordsman could
take over a mundane when swordfighting was needed).

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/1/12 4:56 PM, David Lamb wrote:
> On 01/05/2012 4:37 PM, Tetsubo wrote:
>> On 5/1/2012 4:18 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>> Spacemaster? He was just avoiding the WORD, then, because Spacemaster's
>>> "psionics" was nothing but Rolemaster's "magic" with a name change --
>>> there were even a few places in the edition I had where they'd missed
>>> changing things and it still referred to "spells" instead of "psions".
>>
>> Much as you may despise the idea, psionics *is* just another form of
>> magic. I know, I know. In your campaign psions are special snowflakes.
>> But if you strip away the trappings, it is often just a spell point
>> system or some variation there of. Which I am fine with. The Psionics
>> Unleashed for Pathfinder is the best spell point system I ever read.
>
> I suppose at some level of abstraction you could just say "everything a
> game system does to give more-than-human abilities is just magic under a
> different name."

That's basically my reaction. Yes, it's "magic" if by "magic" you mean
"anything we can't do in this world".

I like to use "magic" to refer to a particular type of power which is
manipulated in particular ways. That particular power, and particular
methods, are very different from those I apply to the term "psionics",
and different from those I apply to the term "science".

I'm *really* wanting to hear Sea Wasp's response to
> this, because in the distant past IIRC he was fond of having different
> mechanics for different non-natural abilities (magic, psionics, and
> perhaps more).

I still am fond of that, although with a mechanics-light system as I
use these days it's more a matter of making clear that the source and
capabilities and "feel" of the powers are very different. Harry Potter
isn't using psionics, and Kimball Kinnison isn't using magic, even if
both can read your mind.

>
> I react negatively when people say "psionics is just magic in a sci-fi
> setting" because by convention people do different things with it.
> Unfortunately I haven't articulated a good reason for my reaction. D&D
> psionics does seem to want to port over lots of existing arcane spells
> ("psychic thus-and-so" for various magical thus-and-sos) but one could
> just call that a mistake.

And I do.

>
> If we take Anne McCaffrey's psionics as an example, the things that
> Talents could do were typically
> - telepathy (common between Talents; not sure how well they could
> read/send to mundanes).
> - teleportation (rare)
> - precognition (rare and unreliable)
> - linking with electrical generators to amplify powers
> - IIRC clairvoyance/clairaudience but I'm not entire sure of that. It's
> certainly common in the genre.
>

Close enough. I tend to work more with the Space Opera system which has
slightly different divides, but they derive from similar backgrounds.
Schmitz defined a lot of my view of psionics, but a lot of other books
had similar "takes" on it.

One of the perennial problems in the discussion is that I focus on the
way the world works, and the rules are a very distant secondary concern
for me. Rules are there to help model the world, and thus any set of
rules that conflicts with the world is worse than useless to me -- it's
actively damaging to my ability to run the game.

For psionics, my world-design defines them as inborn abilities with
very specifically defined inborn limits. You can't study to be a
psionic; you either *are*, or you *are not*, psionic (barring a very few
terribly rare and complex processes). If you're psionic, your particular
abilities are also inborn, although you can learn how to use them in
more controlled and complex and innovative ways depending on your inborn
affinity for the power. So if you're born with the ability of telepathy
and clairvoyance, you can get really good at reading minds, protecting
minds, and seeing/sensing things a great distance away, but you'll never
be able to move rocks with your mind, because you weren't born with
telekinesis. On the other hand, your powers tend to react with the speed
of thought, you don't need no stinkin' gestures, words, or material
components, and anti-magic has no effect whatsoever on your abilities.

For magic, anyone can learn at least SOME magic. Like studying anything
else, however, there's a few people who can just go WAY beyond the
average person's ability to use the power. Magic's an external power
that you can control in various ways (or, in some cases, that you can
use to call up beings who can control the power in various ways).
"various" translates to "virtually unbounded". With sufficient training
and sufficient skill/talent, there's just about NOTHING beyond a
powerful wizard. They can do everything a powerful psionic can do, and
more besides -- raise the dead or speak with their spirits, transmute
one material to another, level a mountain or build a castle, see the
doings of others a thousand miles away, transport themselves, and build
items of vast power (psionics can't generally build "psionic items" --
that's a very, very difficult process and nothing like as trivially easy
as making most magic items). On the other hand, magic usually takes some
amount of time to cast, involves more or less ritual, can be affected by
the focused belief or other inherent powers of the target, and can be
shut off by anti-magic fields (though anti-psionic effects don't touch
them).

For technology, pretty much anyone can learn it. But you can't work
your way up from caveman to high-tech by yourself. High technology is a
cooperative effort (at least until you reach post-scarcity, near
Singularity levels). The products of technology can be used by anyone,
and don't depend on some special talent of the user or even the maker.
On the other hand, it's always vulnerable to particular sorts of attack
no matter how rugged you make it, and is constrained by those damnable
Laws of Physics -- which psionics can sort of cheat, and magic simply
mocks until the Laws of Thermodynamics go off and sob in the corner.
(technically magic doesn't BREAK the laws, in a global multiversal
sense, any more than psionics does, but doing the bookkeeping is... a
nontrivial exercise and from any ordinary point of view DOES look like
the laws of reality are being ignored).

[tussock]

Justisaur wrote:

> Psionics is o.k. in 3.x, but it suffers even more from the one
> encounter day syndrome than wizards. You can dump all your points at
> once and be done for the day.

I realised recently just how awesome the 3e psi system is. It's a shame
they called the class a "Sorcerer" and made them use the Wizard's spell
list, otherwise I would have seen it earlier.

You know: limited powers known, cast them freely, no crazy stuff at low
level, ... if only they'd used the 2nd edition Psi powers.

--
tussock

[Justisaur]

On May 1, 11:44 pm, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
> > Psionics is o.k. in 3.x, but it suffers even more from the one
> > encounter day syndrome than wizards.  You can dump all your points at
> > once and be done for the day.
>
>     I realised recently just how awesome the 3e psi system is. It's a shame
> they called the class a "Sorcerer" and made them use the Wizard's spell
> list, otherwise I would have seen it earlier.
>

Give them full access to all lists, or a different list, and that's
about it, no fussing with points either. Perhaps make Mind Blast a lv
4 psionic spell or something like that.... I actually like that idea.

>     You know: limited powers known, cast them freely, no crazy stuff at low
> level, ... if only they'd used the 2nd edition Psi powers.

2e works pretty well, but it gives even more limited access than
sorcerer and far earlier access to certain things such as teleport and
disintegrate which can be problematic. Easy to fix though.

[Ubiquitous]

I'm buying one.

[tussock]

David Lamb wrote:

> I react negatively when people say "psionics is just magic in a sci-fi
> setting" because by convention people do different things with it.

My own favorite example is the 2e era dimension door. With Magic, you're
just there, as if you always were. Because magic makes things true, if
targets accept it as so (and it's very hard not to accept the truth).

With Psi, you grab a flat piece of space an twist it such that it joins
with a different piece nearby. This leaves a convenient portal, which you
and anyone else can pass through, albeit feeling rather disorientated
afterward. Because the world can be bent like it's not even there (though it
is very hard work to think it so).


Or invisibility, where with magic you are unseeable (unless they have
magic to see the unseeable), but with Psi that guy over there can't see you
because you're in his head busily denying your own presence. Or hold person,
with Magic they do not move, with Psi you force them to stay still.

--
tussock

[Michael]

Wasn´t Invisibility always an Illusion spell which means that observers
are tricked into thinking they don´t see you? And that the reason that
the normal invisibility did not work on mindless undead and highly
intelligent beings who are immune (with INT 20+ in 2E). So your psi
description fits nicely to the magic way.

[David Lamb]

On 03/05/2012 3:41 AM, Michael wrote:
> Am 5/3/2012 6:03 AM, schrieb tussock:
>> David Lamb wrote:
>>> I react negatively when people say "psionics is just magic in a sci-fi
>>> setting" because by convention people do different things with it.

>> Or invisibility, where with magic you are unseeable (unless they have
>> magic to see the unseeable), but with Psi that guy over there can't
>> see you
>> because you're in his head busily denying your own presence. Or hold
>> person,
>> with Magic they do not move, with Psi you force them to stay still.
>
> Wasn´t Invisibility always an Illusion spell which means that observers
> are tricked into thinking they don´t see you? And that the reason that
> the normal invisibility did not work on mindless undead and highly
> intelligent beings who are immune (with INT 20+ in 2E). So your psi
> description fits nicely to the magic way.

I think that reinforces my point (not quoted) that if you were designing
a system from scratch with both Magic and Psionics, and wanted them to
be different, some effects would be "psi only" and some "magic only" and
some "same general effect with different details that might matter",
like tussock suggested. Magical invisibility might have been some sort
of reality-altering spell (and possibly therefore higher level, but who
knows?)

[Nicole Massey]

"tussock" <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:glc979x...@scrub2.WOOLEY...

This is exactly why I included a psionic discipline of Displacement in the
list, as it's exactly the same mechanic, just triggering a slightly
different result.

[tussock]

Michael wrote:
> schrieb tussock:

>> Or [2e] invisibility, where with magic you are unseeable (unless

>> they have magic to see the unseeable), but with Psi that guy over there
>> can't see you because you're in his head busily denying your own
>> presence.
>

> Wasn´t Invisibility always an Illusion spell which means that observers
> are tricked into thinking they don´t see you? And that the reason that the
> normal invisibility did not work on mindless undead and highly intelligent
> beings who are immune (with INT 20+ in 2E). So your psi description fits
> nicely to the magic way.

That immunity allows an automatically successful save. All that does for
magical Invisibility is let you know their approximate location for an
attack at -4: they still can't see you. There's no range limits or target
limits, you can't even see yourself when you're invisible. I can't find
anything in 2nd edition about mindless undead ignoring invisibility, but I
vaguely recall /something/ about that and their weird eyesight, and blind
creatures all ignore it because they can't see you anyway.

Psi is really different. Telepathy so you have to get in their head,
each target contacted (and each thing hidden per contact) is a separate
power. But you can make anything invisible to them, as long as they're in
range of your mind. Immunity to illusions or true sight does nothing, as
you're not "invisible", you've just clouded their internal perceptions.


Sometimes spells work a lot like Psi, but not for Invisibility.

--
tussock

[Ubiquitous]

In article <glc979x...@scrub2.WOOLEY>, sc...@clear.net.nz wrote:

> Or invisibility, where with magic you are unseeable (unless they have
> magic to see the unseeable), but with Psi that guy over there can't
> see you because you're in his head busily denying your own presence.

I always thought an Enchantment version of the Invisibility spell
could be interesting...

[tussock]

Ubiquitous wrote:

> tussock wrote:
>
>> Or invisibility, where with magic you are unseeable (unless they have
>> magic to see the unseeable), but with Psi that guy over there can't
>> see you because you're in his head busily denying your own presence.
>
> I always thought an Enchantment version of the Invisibility spell
> could be interesting...

It should probably be Abjuration as written, especially considering the
end condition. Call it /Protection from Sight/. 8]

--
tussock

[brian.b.m...@lmco.com]

In terms of game mechanics, psionics and magic are equivalent. You want certain characters to be able to produce certain effects in a mysterious way (without use of an obvious physical mechanism) without specifying the details of how this works. In a fantasy game, you call it "magic" because that word fits better in a pseudo-medieval setting. In a science fiction game you call it "psionics" because that is a scientific-sounding buzzword that fits that genre better.

In literature, magic is often described in fairly mystical terms whereas psionics is described in terms of physics as we currently know it; for example, Catherine Asaro describes telepathy as a result of quantum mechanics. But again, there's really no difference between the two. The story requires that a certain character have a certain mysterious power, so you handwave that power in whatever language suits the genre you're writing in. Kimball Kinnison's lens can be described as a magic artifact as easily as a product of an advanced science of the mind. Harry Potter's magic could turn out to be an inborn psionic power, or even a high-tech, mentally controlled, electronic implant. People born with certain special talents might channel ambient magical energies, or they might wield psionic powers.

I would not use psionics in a role-playing game, nor would I use magic in a science fiction RPG. I would be willing to use psionics *rules* as a D&D magic system in preference to Vancian magic, which I personally dislike, or perhaps use certain spells in a science fiction RPG as psionic powers, but I would use terminology that seemed appropriate for the genre.

--- Brian

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

(Something's badly wrong with your line lengths or settings; when
replying, your paragraphs turned into single immense lines)

On 5/15/12 4:09 PM, brian.b.m...@lmco.com wrote:
> In terms of game mechanics, psionics and magic are equivalent.

Except where they're not. By your standards technology would be magic,
especially if the characters and/or players didn't know how it worked
(which, honestly, would be the case for most people, today, with the
technology they use. Most of us have little-to-no idea how a computer
works, how an LCD screen works, etc.) So is a Jump Drive starship the
same as a Psionically Gated traveller equal to a Magical Teleport?

>

>
> I would not use psionics in a role-playing game,
> nor would I use magic in a science fiction RPG.

Which is naturally your right and privilege.

Me, I use them in either whenever the mood strikes me. Magicopsitech,
in fact, would be basically what Atlantaea (mentioned briefly in
_Digital Knight_) used at their height.

[Ken Arromdee]

In article <22428745.262.1337112544407.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yneo6>,

<brian.b.m...@lmco.com> wrote:
>In terms of game mechanics, psionics and magic are equivalent.

>...

>In literature, magic is often described in fairly mystical terms whereas
>psionics is described in terms of physics as we currently know it; for
>example, Catherine Asaro describes telepathy as a result of quantum
>mechanics. But again, there's really no difference between the two.

I'd say that there is a difference between psionics and magic:

Psionics and magic do different things.

Oh, there's overlap, and you could probably find *some* situation in legend
or literature which matches any psionic power with any magical power, but
the emphasis is far different. You use psionics to read minds, to move
objects, and to see into the past. You use magic to turn people into frogs
and throw bolts of lightning.

Or to look at it another way, there's a core list of things which are
called "psychic powers". Stories of psychic powers are predominately based
around the items on that list, even though they may occasionally include
other things. Magic doesn't use the same list.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee

Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."

[Tetsubo]

On 5/15/2012 4:30 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> (Something's badly wrong with your line lengths or settings; when
> replying, your paragraphs turned into single immense lines)
>
> On 5/15/12 4:09 PM, brian.b.m...@lmco.com wrote:
>> In terms of game mechanics, psionics and magic are equivalent.
>
> Except where they're not. By your standards technology would be magic,
> especially if the characters and/or players didn't know how it worked
> (which, honestly, would be the case for most people, today, with the
> technology they use. Most of us have little-to-no idea how a computer
> works, how an LCD screen works, etc.) So is a Jump Drive starship the
> same as a Psionically Gated traveller equal to a Magical Teleport?

Yes. If the do the same thing, what does it matter how they achieve it?
Say I want to cut a rope. My options are: knife, psionic blade or
magically summoned crab with powerful claws. If the rope gets cut, what
does it matter?

>
>
>
>>
>
>>
>> I would not use psionics in a role-playing game,
>> nor would I use magic in a science fiction RPG.
>
> Which is naturally your right and privilege.
>
> Me, I use them in either whenever the mood strikes me. Magicopsitech, in
> fact, would be basically what Atlantaea (mentioned briefly in _Digital
> Knight_) used at their height.
>
>
>
>


--

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/15/12 5:33 PM, Tetsubo wrote:
> On 5/15/2012 4:30 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> (Something's badly wrong with your line lengths or settings; when
>> replying, your paragraphs turned into single immense lines)
>>
>> On 5/15/12 4:09 PM, brian.b.m...@lmco.com wrote:
>>> In terms of game mechanics, psionics and magic are equivalent.
>>
>> Except where they're not. By your standards technology would be magic,
>> especially if the characters and/or players didn't know how it worked
>> (which, honestly, would be the case for most people, today, with the
>> technology they use. Most of us have little-to-no idea how a computer
>> works, how an LCD screen works, etc.) So is a Jump Drive starship the
>> same as a Psionically Gated traveller equal to a Magical Teleport?
>
> Yes. If the do the same thing, what does it matter how they achieve it?
> Say I want to cut a rope. My options are: knife, psionic blade or
> magically summoned crab with powerful claws. If the rope gets cut, what
> does it matter?

It matters in that specific, extremely narrow instance not at all. In
the more realistic case it matters a great deal; for instance, your
magically summoned crab can be directed to go around behind you and cut
the rope holding your hands together, while using your physical knife
requires you get it into your hands first and do all the work.

The POINT of having your powers defined is that even if in an
individual instance they all have the same effect, in the world sense
they have different logic behind them, different consequences, different
advantages and weaknesses. They will offer different approaches to
solving other problems and imply different things about the game world.

[brian.b.m...@lmco.com]

On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:30:08 PM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

> On 5/15/12 4:09 PM, brian.b.m...@lmco.com wrote:
> > In terms of game mechanics, psionics and magic are equivalent.
>
> Except where they're not. By your standards technology would be magic,
> especially if the characters and/or players didn't know how it worked
> (which, honestly, would be the case for most people, today, with the
> technology they use. Most of us have little-to-no idea how a computer
> works, how an LCD screen works, etc.) So is a Jump Drive starship the
> same as a Psionically Gated traveller equal to a Magical Teleport?

A computer or an LCD screen in the modern world is more akin to a sword
or horsecart in a fantasy world -- it's a familiar everyday object. Magic
and psionics are generally described as mysterious powers that only
certain special individuals can use. But you could invent a world where
such items are magic. I seem to recall a fantasy story where someone was
taking a Cray computer to an alternate universe where magic worked so he
could use it to cast powerful spells.

An Asimov style jump drive starship is equivalent to a Starforce style
teleship or to a vehicle teleported by magic to the extent that they
do the same thing. In a story or an RPG, the effect is what really
matters, not the exact mechanism. A spell, psi power, device, or
whatever is designed to perform some operation useful to the story or
game and then an explanation is invented after the fact to make it seem
interesting and plausible.

> > I would not use psionics in a role-playing game,
> > nor would I use magic in a science fiction RPG.
>
> Which is naturally your right and privilege.
>
> Me, I use them in either whenever the mood strikes me. Magicopsitech,
> in fact, would be basically what Atlantaea (mentioned briefly in
> _Digital Knight_) used at their height.

If it suits the overall look and feel of the story, that's great. To me,
the idea of psionics doesn't fit in well with the medieval feel of a D&D
game. The term itself is designed to sound scientific. I would implement
the psionic abilities as magic spells in a fantasy RPG. That's how people
living in such a society would most likely view these abilities. Moreover,
it's simpler for players not to have to deal with two different systems
where one will do. In most campaigns I've played in, psionics has been
ignored as an unnecessary secondary magic system.

It is not necessarily true that magic and psionics have different effects.
Both are fictitious powers invented for the sake of a game or a story, so
they can be defined any way you like. You could invent a "read mind" spell
or a psionic power that zaps people with lightning.

I claim that magic and psionics are equivalent because they serve the same
purpose in a story or RPG. They allow characters to manipulate their
environment in ways that would be difficult or impossible to achieve by
other means. They can also serve to give characters the ability to defeat
a foe that they otherwise would have no chance against.

--- Brian

[tussock]

brian.b.m...@lmco.com wrote:

> In literature, magic is often described in fairly mystical terms whereas
> psionics is described in terms of physics as we currently know it; for
> example, Catherine Asaro describes telepathy as a result of quantum
> mechanics.

Just to nitpick, (who, me?) but anyone who uses the term quantum
mechanics for telepathy is being entirely mystical and ignoring the physics
as we've known it for better than a century.

Semiconductors, nuclear power/weapons, stellar fusion, superconductors,
superfluids, Bose-Einstein condensate, those are quantum mechanics. Reading
minds is the study of body language, which is fuzzy at best (though
hilarious when watching politicians talk).

--
tussock

[Ubiquitous]

You're thinking of Physical Invisdibility.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

To me, the idea that D&D is medieval in anything but the most
superficial surface ways is just ridiculous. The capabilities granted by
even low-level magic would transform the world, at least in its overall
function if not in some surface things.

IN A WORLD... where multiple different species with various bizarre
powers walk around together, where there are people who can gesture and
turn stone to glass or summon fire from nowhere or move objects around
or read minds, a psionic with TK or telepathy? He's not going to stand
out all that much, even if he has some odd twists to the way his power
works compared to everyone else.

Either group would stand out like a sore thumb here.

>
> I claim that magic and psionics are equivalent because they serve the same
> purpose in a story or RPG. They allow characters to manipulate their
> environment in ways that would be difficult or impossible to achieve by
> other means.

So, you agree that technology in any setting that is not normally that
high technology would be exactly the same as magic and psionics?

[Michael]

Am 5/16/2012 1:50 PM, schrieb Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor):
...

> To me, the idea that D&D is medieval in anything but the most
> superficial surface ways is just ridiculous. The capabilities granted by
> even low-level magic would transform the world, at least in its overall
> function if not in some surface things.

Except that most people in the D&D world can愒 do magic and/or can愒
afford any magic. In the old Birthright D&D setting for example it愀
nicely explained that the vast majority of the population are not
adventurers, or having any PC classlevels, but are peasants, merchants
or craftsmen without any magic and no way to afford the gold to have a
wizard even cast a single teleport spell for them.

>> I claim that magic and psionics are equivalent because they serve the
>> same
>> purpose in a story or RPG. They allow characters to manipulate their
>> environment in ways that would be difficult or impossible to achieve by
>> other means.
>
> So, you agree that technology in any setting that is not normally that
> high technology would be exactly the same as magic and psionics?

Everyone does:

> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
> Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
> English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - )

[David Lamb]

On 16/05/2012 1:37 AM, brian.b.m...@lmco.com wrote:
> I claim that magic and psionics are equivalent because they serve the same
> purpose in a story or RPG. They allow characters to manipulate their
> environment in ways that would be difficult or impossible to achieve by
> other means.

That's a reasonable idea -- at a very high level of abstraction. To
exaggerate, though, it's kind of like saying all tabletop RPGs are
equivalent because they involve talking around a table about acting in
an imaginary world.

To expand on what I was trying to say earlier: in some specific game
like D&D, where there are few limits on what sort of magical effects can
be achieved (especially with "spell research"), the stuff Wizards and
Clerics can do look a lot like each other and can simulate whatever
other "accomplish superhuman stuff" mechanisms somebody might want.

However, it is *possible* to define magic, psionics, true naming, etc.
with mechanics different enough that there are significant differences
in what you can accomplish with them and how they play out. Some examples:

One kind of magic might involve summoning demons with special abilities
(such as in the novel Sorceror's Son); anything that blocks summoning
kills all your magic. If demons can break free, you also either lose
your magic or, worse, get attacked, so summoning could be dangerous and
only usable when you're in your safe haven where demons can't break free
(or are at least very, very unlikely to).

Maybe casting magical spells is slow but you can "hang" a few that can
be cast quickly. This is sort of like Vancian magic but I'm thinking of
Shadowrun -- where somebody can hang out in the astral plane and blast
away all your hung spells. Unlike Vancian magic you can cast unhung
spells all day (if casting time is minutes rather than seconds) and
might, depending on rules details, be able to re-hang spells with an
hour of free time (don't recall the Shadowrun specifics).

Maybe magic always requires words and gestures, but psionics just
requires concentration. A captured, bound psionic is just as capable as
an unbound one, but a mage is helpless. But perhaps magic *doesn't*
require concentration, so some kind of int-suppressing nerf kills
psionics but doesn't affect magic.

Maybe divine magic requires close adherence to what your deity wants.
Another thing I think many groups ignore because they find it unfun.

I suspect Sea Wasp has more examples, because he has said he prefers
different mechanics for different kinds of "magic".

[D.J.]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 18:14:36 +1200, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz>
wrote:

Sigh. I'm old enough to remember when almost everything all of us use
everyday was only found in works of fiction. And many people,
including some scientists, said would never be possible. Like space
travel, video wrist phones, satellite comunications, etc. The
newspaper comic 'Flash Gordon' was not considered anything but
fantasy. Many said that Dick Tracy, newspaper comic that added Moon
people and space flight, etc, had gone to the dogs when those were
added into the storyline.

During the 1950s launches, before Sputnik orbited the Earth and for
some several years afterward, people said space travel was impossible
as there was nothing to push against once the rocket left the
atmosphere.

I saying that people believed such things verged on magic, or
dellusional claims. I can remember peole wanting to lock up those who
said space travel was possible.

Of course, they got a rude shock when it was shown space travel did
indeed work. Or when Telstar and Echo 1 balloons were sent up into
orbit for transatlantic telephone calls.

It has been some years, but I have met people who claimed a number of
things we know today would have to be done, with mirrors and stage
magic like slight of hand, as it was impossible. Some even had
educations beyond high school.

So to me, it doesn't matter how it is done, somebody out there will
believe it is magic, even if you could show it was otherwise.
.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Drive-In movie theaters
http://story.drivein-jim.net/ A story Feb, 2011

[D.J.]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 04:53:27 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:

>In article <p2u989x...@scrub2.WOOLEY>, sc...@clear.net.nz wrote:
>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> tussock wrote:
>
>>>> Or invisibility, where with magic you are unseeable (unless they have
>>>> magic to see the unseeable), but with Psi that guy over there can't
>>>> see you because you're in his head busily denying your own presence.
>>>
>>> I always thought an Enchantment version of the Invisibility spell
>>> could be interesting...
>>
>> It should probably be Abjuration as written, especially considering the
>> end condition. Call it /Protection from Sight/. 8]
>
>You're thinking of Physical Invisdibility.

Personal invisibilty cloaks are coming. Watch Discovery Science
channel.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 5/16/12 11:41 AM, Michael wrote:
> Am 5/16/2012 1:50 PM, schrieb Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor):
> ...
>> To me, the idea that D&D is medieval in anything but the most
>> superficial surface ways is just ridiculous. The capabilities granted by
>> even low-level magic would transform the world, at least in its overall
>> function if not in some surface things.
>
>
> Except that most people in the D&D world can愒 do magic and/or can愒
> afford any magic.

So? Most people in our world can't do nuclear physics or high-level
engineering, but nuclear power has changed our lives quite a bit.

How many people can do something doesn't matter; what matters is what
their abilities imply about how things can be done. Yes, there aren't
many wizards, but the powerful ones can do immense works every day with
their spells if they want to. The rulers can hire them. Their powers
will dictate warfare tactics. The clerics and druids can influence the
course of harvests, change healing results at crucial times, extend
siege survivability with food and water created from nothing, and on and
on and on. And those are the trivially obvious consequences. Give me ONE
high level mage -- 16+ -- and I can change the face of a world over the
course of my lifetime.

> In the old Birthright D&D setting for example it愀
> nicely explained that the vast majority of the population are not
> adventurers, or having any PC classlevels, but are peasants, merchants
> or craftsmen without any magic and no way to afford the gold to have a
> wizard even cast a single teleport spell for them.

Which only makes sense if you don't think about it for a split second.
Things change. People take advantage of powers. Powers like those
available to D&D clerics, druids, and wizards can be exploited in SO
many ways. You could have only a few on each *continent* and things
would slowly but inevitably change.

[brian.b.m...@lmco.com]

On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:50:36 AM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

> To me, the idea that D&D is medieval in anything but the most
> superficial surface ways is just ridiculous. The capabilities granted by
> even low-level magic would transform the world, at least in its overall
> function if not in some surface things.

The existence of magic would, of course, radically transform the world,
essentially serving the same purpose as technology. Instead of street
lights, you could have continual light spells cast on poles; magic carpets
would take the place of cars ("On a Pale Horse" by Piers Anthony has an
amusing advertising war between car manufacturers and magic carpet
manufacturers) and so on. But D&D, like most fantasy RPGs, is designed to
have a default world that seems much like medieval Europe, at least in
technological development. Magic seems to fit in with that sort of a
world better than psionics.

> IN A WORLD... where multiple different species with various bizarre
> powers walk around together, where there are people who can gesture and
> turn stone to glass or summon fire from nowhere or move objects around
> or read minds, a psionic with TK or telepathy? He's not going to stand
> out all that much, even if he has some odd twists to the way his power
> works compared to everyone else.

Sure, but characters living in a D&D type of world would tend to look on
supernatural phenomena as being magical. Someone in a science fiction
world would tend to search for a scientific explanation.

> >
> > I claim that magic and psionics are equivalent because they serve the same
> > purpose in a story or RPG. They allow characters to manipulate their
> > environment in ways that would be difficult or impossible to achieve by
> > other means.
>
> So, you agree that technology in any setting that is not normally that
> high technology would be exactly the same as magic and psionics?

From the viewpoint of someone living in that world, yes, as per Clarke's Law.

Looking at magic and psionics from the high level perspective of game design,
the two are equivalent because they serve the same purpose in the game.
Having both in the same game system, with different rules for each, seems
like needless complexity. Note that one of the big complaints against 4e is
excessive complexity, which slows down combat. In a fantasy RPG I would just
use magic; in a science fiction RPG I would just use psionics. This seems
like the best match to the look and feel of each type of RPG and to the
viewpoints of characters living in the worlds of those RPGs.

--- Brian

[tussock]

D. J. wrote:

> Personal invisibilty cloaks are coming. Watch Discovery Science
> channel.

We've had them for centuries. Camouflage _works_. Hell, riding a bicycle
makes you pretty damn hard to see if the stats are anything to go by.

--
tussock

[tussock]

D. J. wrote:

> Sigh. I'm old enough to remember when almost everything all of us use
> everyday was only found in works of fiction.

Sure, but when am I going to get my flying car? Ignoring the Cessna
parked out back, or the helicopter on the pad. Also fiction, just not
speculative any more.

<snip>

> So to me, it doesn't matter how it is done, somebody out there will
> believe it is magic, even if you could show it was otherwise.

Well, yes, but I'll still be here telling them how stupid they are.
Which won't help /them/, but it is kinda fun. 8]

--
tussock

[D.J.]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 00:29:39 +1200, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz>
wrote:

Have you heard of Cargo Cults in the southwest Pacific ?

They think the DC-3s that landed on their islands during World War 2
were magic.

[D.J.]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 00:31:45 +1200, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz>
wrote:

A cloak that gathers light and the scenrary into cameras behind you,
and shows it on the front of you. That is what they are working on.

Better than camo.

[skirnir]

On May 16, 4:50 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> On 5/16/12 1:37 AM, brian.b.mcguinn...@lmco.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:30:08 PM UTC-4, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>

Low-level magic doesn't transform the world because high status
people don't believe in it. They believe that it works but think that
it's
unreliable, even more unreliable than it already is. Wizards tend to
stay in ivory towers. Sorcerers and warlocks live on the edge of town
and dress in black.

A sleep spell is a hand grenade, except that it doesn't work on high
status people. Charm person rewrites memories, except when it fails.
Magic missile never misses, except against a shield spell. These
spells are useful weapons but aren't reliable.

Comprehend languages and cure light wounds are reliable but they
could be well kept secrets. Enlarge, that mocks the laws of physics
and mathematics, is probably another secret.

> IN A WORLD... where multiple different species with various bizarre
> powers walk around together, where there are people who can gesture and
> turn stone to glass or summon fire from nowhere or move objects around
> or read minds, a psionic with TK or telepathy? He's not going to stand
> out all that much, even if he has some odd twists to the way his power
> works compared to everyone else.
>
> Either group would stand out like a sore thumb here.

Telepathy is just radio and clairsentience probably uses radio waves.
TK is remote operation without prior preparation, it'll stand out.

[tussock]

D. J. wrote:
> tussock wrote:

>> D. J. wrote:

>>> So to me, it doesn't matter how it is done, somebody out there will
>>> believe it is magic, even if you could show it was otherwise.
>>
>> Well, yes, but I'll still be here telling them how stupid they are.
>>Which won't help /them/, but it is kinda fun. 8]
>
> Have you heard of Cargo Cults in the southwest Pacific ?

Built the runway, build the tower, made some headphones, talked to the
sky, and yet no airplane came. They assumed there was something wrong with
their setup, so kept trying to match the design better. They got it looking
*really good* before they gave up.

> They think the DC-3s that landed on their islands during World War 2
> were magic.

People don't have any inbuilt concept of magic, that's the problem.
Things that happen when you do stuff will happen again when you do that
stuff again, that's what low-tech people believe, the basic Newtonian idea
behind the modern scientific method.

The common problem is false-positives. Assuming that what you did made
unconnected things happen (or not happen).

Little kids on youtube trying to make books work like their ipad at
home, more and more careful with the gestures, they don't think it's magic,
they think it's how pictures work. In-built zoom.


Hell, you throw a rock sideways, it stays there. You throw it upward, it
comes back. WTF?

--
tussock

[tussock]

D. J. wrote:

> tussock wrote:
>> D. J. wrote:
>>
>>> Personal invisibilty cloaks are coming. Watch Discovery Science
>>> channel.
>>
>> We've had them for centuries. Camouflage _works_. Hell, riding a
>> bicycle makes you pretty damn hard to see if the stats are anything to
>> go by.
>
> A cloak that gathers light and the scenrary into cameras behind you,
> and shows it on the front of you. That is what they are working on.
>
> Better than camo.

The background differs depending on the position of the observer, so
that's simply not going to work unless you're basically pressed up against
it or its very similar in all directions, in which case camo works anyway.

Now, if you move from a bright green room to a bright blue one, it'll be
useful. Which is to say, it won't be useful.

--
tussock

[D.J.]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 21:05:01 +1200, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz>
wrote:

>D. J. wrote:
>> tussock wrote:
>>> D. J. wrote:
>
>>>> So to me, it doesn't matter how it is done, somebody out there will
>>>> believe it is magic, even if you could show it was otherwise.
>>>
>>> Well, yes, but I'll still be here telling them how stupid they are.
>>>Which won't help /them/, but it is kinda fun. 8]
>>
>> Have you heard of Cargo Cults in the southwest Pacific ?
>
> Built the runway, build the tower, made some headphones, talked to the
>sky, and yet no airplane came. They assumed there was something wrong with
>their setup, so kept trying to match the design better. They got it looking
>*really good* before they gave up.

According to the Anthropology class on the Southwest Pacific I took in
1989, they are still doing all that in the 1980s. The professor was
making trips to the hiighlands of New Guinea at the time.

>> They think the DC-3s that landed on their islands during World War 2
>> were magic.
>
> People don't have any inbuilt concept of magic, that's the problem.

Or lots of peoples, before technology, thought is was their gods or
spirits doing things.

My sisters have their kids reading both books and ereaders.

[D.J.]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 21:34:38 +1200, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz>
wrote:

They showed the guy and the scientist inventor on a city sidewalk.
Most of the background was static, but he wasn't pressed up against a
wall. There were pedestrians and cars moving behind the person wearing
it. He was totally covered top of head to sides of his shoes.

[tussock]

D. J. wrote:
> tussock wrote:
>> D. J. wrote:
>>> tussock wrote:
>>>> D. J. wrote:
>>
>>>>> So to me, it doesn't matter how it is done, somebody out there will
>>>>> believe it is magic, even if you could show it was otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Well, yes, but I'll still be here telling them how stupid they are.
>>>>Which won't help /them/, but it is kinda fun. 8]
>>>
>>> Have you heard of Cargo Cults in the southwest Pacific ?
>>
>> Built the runway, build the tower, made some headphones, talked to the
>> sky, and yet no airplane came. They assumed there was something wrong
>> with their setup, so kept trying to match the design better. They got it
>> looking *really good* before they gave up.
>
> According to the Anthropology class on the Southwest Pacific I took in
> 1989, they are still doing all that in the 1980s. The professor was
> making trips to the hiighlands of New Guinea at the time.

See, they got it working again. Now it brings credulous tourists all
wanting to know what the old tower is for.


When Captain Cook became the first European to land in NZ, he traded
nails for any supplies he needed. Crossing what was later called Cook strait
to the North Island, he was surprised to find locals paddling out with
supplies to trade for nails. They didn't know what nails were, just that
they were a convenient new thing worth trading for and what the going rate
was.
People adapt stunningly quickly to new information, no matter their
society or level of education.

>>> They think the DC-3s that landed on their islands during World War 2
>>> were magic.
>>
>> People don't have any inbuilt concept of magic, that's the problem.
>
> Or lots of peoples, before technology, thought is was their gods or
> spirits doing things.

Sure. Animism first. "Because it wanted to" as an answer for why the
tree killed someone as it fell in the storm. These days half the world would
say "gods plan" instead. The idea that many things happen largely at random
is a tough one for humanity to grasp.

Cause and effect we get, probability we don't.

--
tussock

[tussock]

D. J. wrote:

> They showed the guy and the scientist inventor on a city sidewalk.
> Most of the background was static, but he wasn't pressed up against a
> wall. There were pedestrians and cars moving behind the person wearing
> it. He was totally covered top of head to sides of his shoes.

As far as I can find, that only works if the observer (or camera) stands
in the right place and you don't have to turn at all. I'm thinking of the
theoretical(?) ones with huge numbers of narrow angle projectors on multi-
faceted surfaces, at least then you'd look right to within a few degrees.

--
tussock

[Keith Davies]

There appear to be two ways to hide in sight:

1. look like what they expect to see (camouflage, invisibility cloaks)
2. don't look like what they're looking for

I find #2 more interesting. I saw a video where they bet that you
couldn't count the number of times the ball was passed between the
players in white, in a game of keepaway between two different colors.

Then they bet you didn't notice the guy in the gorilla costume
moonwalking through the group... roll the video back he's there the
whole time, moving around and between the players of the two teams.
Apparently almost no viewers notice him until they look for him, then
it's painfully obvious.

Of course, I expect combining the two would be even more powerful --
don't be what they're looking for, but can easily accept in case they
find you.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "chain letter and chain mail...
keith....@kjdavies.org not the same thing, right?"
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org -- Naomi
Echelon: http://www.echelond20.org

[Tetsubo]

I recently read The Art of Deception in Warfare by Dewar. It is a bit
dated (Cold War era) but it was quite interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L0JDIWeqNs

>
>
> Keith

[D.J.]

On 23 May 2012 20:20:48 GMT, Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org>
wrote:

>tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> D. J. wrote:
>>
>>> They showed the guy and the scientist inventor on a city sidewalk.
>>> Most of the background was static, but he wasn't pressed up against a
>>> wall. There were pedestrians and cars moving behind the person wearing
>>> it. He was totally covered top of head to sides of his shoes.
>>
>> As far as I can find, that only works if the observer (or camera) stands
>> in the right place and you don't have to turn at all. I'm thinking of the
>> theoretical(?) ones with huge numbers of narrow angle projectors on multi-
>> faceted surfaces, at least then you'd look right to within a few degrees.
>
>There appear to be two ways to hide in sight:
>
>1. look like what they expect to see (camouflage, invisibility cloaks)
>2. don't look like what they're looking for
>
>I find #2 more interesting. I saw a video where they bet that you
>couldn't count the number of times the ball was passed between the
>players in white, in a game of keepaway between two different colors.
>
>Then they bet you didn't notice the guy in the gorilla costume
>moonwalking through the group... roll the video back he's there the
>whole time, moving around and between the players of the two teams.
>Apparently almost no viewers notice him until they look for him, then
>it's painfully obvious.
>
>Of course, I expect combining the two would be even more powerful --
>don't be what they're looking for, but can easily accept in case they
>find you.

I remember a similar thing back in Boy Scouts. Two older scouts come
out into the meeting room, the rest of the group is seated watching.
One of the adults says they are going to demo what to take on a
camping trip and how to pack it.

While they are doing this, one or more other scouts stand behind them
and start juggling, or singing.

All four finish at the same time, they bow and walk out.

The adult then asks what color kerchief the 4 were wearing.

Few get it correct.

[D.J.]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 17:09:17 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> I recently read The Art of Deception in Warfare by Dewar. It is a bit
>dated (Cold War era) but it was quite interesting.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L0JDIWeqNs

You might look for a book called 'Mind Hacks'. It covers how the human
mind and eyes see and notice things.

http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596007799.do

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

D.J. <pongb...@cableone.net> wrote in
news:9puer7lgk7nc79q15...@4ax.com:

And did the camera move relative to the test subjects? No? I wonder
why they never do.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Loren Pechtel]

On 23 May 2012 20:20:48 GMT, Keith Davies <keith....@kjdavies.org>
wrote:

>Then they bet you didn't notice the guy in the gorilla costume
>moonwalking through the group... roll the video back he's there the
>whole time, moving around and between the players of the two teams.
>Apparently almost no viewers notice him until they look for him, then
>it's painfully obvious.
>
>Of course, I expect combining the two would be even more powerful --
>don't be what they're looking for, but can easily accept in case they
>find you.

Make yourself look like something that nobody will care about--say,
another rock where there are many of them.

[tussock]

Keith Davies wrote:

> tussock wrote:
>> D. J. wrote:
>>
>>> They showed the guy and the scientist inventor on a city sidewalk.
>>> Most of the background was static, but he wasn't pressed up against a
>>> wall. There were pedestrians and cars moving behind the person wearing
>>> it. He was totally covered top of head to sides of his shoes.
>>
>> As far as I can find, that only works if the observer (or camera) stands
>> in the right place and you don't have to turn at all. I'm thinking of the
>> theoretical(?) ones with huge numbers of narrow angle projectors on
>> multi- faceted surfaces, at least then you'd look right to within a few
>> degrees.
>
> There appear to be two ways to hide in sight:
>
> 1. look like what they expect to see (camouflage, invisibility cloaks)
> 2. don't look like what they're looking for
>
> I find #2 more interesting.

<snip: gorilla suit basketball trick, unforgettable>
I've seen a few variations on that theme. It works the other way too,
tell them to ignore the gorilla and most people can't see anything else.

Note that camouflage often works by #2 as much or more than #1. It
breaks up the silhouette of the animal or object with contrasting patterns.
Brains work with outlines first, shapes. No clear shape? Most things won't
look at you long enough to process the image properly.

> Of course, I expect combining the two would be even more powerful --
> don't be what they're looking for, but can easily accept in case they
> find you.

Hunting accidents are all about people seeing what they expect to see.
You're looking for a deer, and your best friend steps out in a bright orange
safety vest carrying a gun and wearing a hat with a bright light on it?
Sometimes you will see a deer and shoot him in his head.

Give a security guard something to inspect, walk on past. The classic
throw a rock over that-a-way works. Hell, just look like you belong there,
doing something normal.

--
tussock

[ala]

<brian.b.m...@lmco.com> wrote in message
news:22428745.262.1337112544407.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yneo6...
>In terms of game mechanics, psionics and magic are equivalent. You want
>certain characters to be able to >produce certain effects in a mysterious
>way (without use of an obvious physical mechanism) without specifying >the
>details of how this works. In a fantasy game, you call it "magic" because
>that word fits better in a pseudo->medieval setting. In a science fiction
>game you call it "psionics" because that is a scientific-sounding buzzword
> >that fits that genre better.

http://threewordphrase.com/magic.htm