Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sat Feb 16 16:20:02 2002
> Nothing in the invisibility spell says it makes things transparent- it
> just makes it so that people don't see them.

Only the title, it's what invisible means. SEE THROUGH.

You want harder to see...we have a stealth spell. Which does the same thing
as the skill.
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Aristotle)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sat Feb 16 16:40:01 2002
[posted by: Sebastian Wiers]
>> Nothing in the invisibility spell says it makes things transparent- it
>> just makes it so that people don't see them.

[posted by: Jonathan]
> Only the title, it's what invisible means. SEE THROUGH.


I disagree. invisible does not share the same definition as transparent. It
is merely the state of not being visible. Their is a slight difference.
"Invisible" implies something that is unable to be seen, while
"transparent"
implies something that can be seen through.

in·vis·i·ble Pronunciation Key (n-vz-bl)
adj.
1. Impossible to see; not visible: Air is invisible.
2. Not accessible to view; hidden: mountain peaks invisible in the fog.
3. Not easily noticed or detected; inconspicuous: “The poor are politically
invisible” (Michael Harrington).
4. Not published in financial statements: an invisible asset.


trans·par·ent Pronunciation Key (trns-pârnt, -pr-)
adj.
1. Capable of transmitting light so that objects or images can be seen as if
there were no intervening material. See Synonyms at clear.
2. Permeable to electromagnetic radiation of specified frequencies, as to
visible light or radio waves.
3 So fine in texture that it can be seen through; sheer. See Synonyms at
airy.
4.
a. Easily seen through or detected; obvious: transparent lies.
b. Free from guile; candid or open: transparent sincerity.
5. Obsolete. Shining through; luminous.


$0.02,
-- Aristotle.
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (George S Waksman)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sat Feb 16 18:05:01 2002
"Jonathan" wrote:

>Only the title, it's what invisible means. SEE THROUGH.

Invisible does not mean see through, look at the roots of the word. Invisible means not
visible; translucent means light can pass through; transparent means you can see through.

Just because something can't be seen doesn't mean it's transparent just not visible. If I
look at a room with a closed door, everything inside is technically invisible to me.

-George Waksman
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sat Feb 16 18:20:01 2002
> Just because something can't be seen doesn't mean it's transparent just
not visible. If I look at a room with a closed door, everything inside is
technically invisible to me.
>

My bad for using the wrong wording. However if you can't see it, you can see
through it no? :)

And if you're looking at a room with a closed door, the things inside are
not invisible, play on the word all you like, you can't see them, but that's
because you have a wall and door, two solid and visible obstructions,
blocking your view it's not because the objects inside can't be seen. They
just can't be seen while you're outside, open the door and wow there they
are. :-)

Now if they had an invisibility spell on them, regardless of whether or not
something was blocking your line of sight they couldn't be seen. :-)
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sat Feb 16 19:25:01 2002
Jonathan wrote:
>
> > Just because something can't be seen doesn't mean it's transparent just
> not visible. If I look at a room with a closed door, everything inside is
> technically invisible to me.
> >
>
> My bad for using the wrong wording. However if you can't see it, you can see
> through it no? :)


Not necessarily. If you can't see it, it may mean you see something in
it's place (i.e. something is blocking your view, see below). What some
are saying is that the brain is being told something is not where it is,
and the brain fills the "void" with the most logical image. Either the
scene behind (in the case of invisible people) or the continuation of a
wall (in the case of an invisible door).

>
> And if you're looking at a room with a closed door, the things inside are
> not invisible, play on the word all you like, you can't see them, but that's
> because you have a wall and door, two solid and visible obstructions,
> blocking your view it's not because the objects inside can't be seen.



--
Iridios
--
From:The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord
(http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)

I will only employ bounty hunters who work for money. Those who
work for the pleasure of the hunt tend to do dumb things like
even the odds to give the other guy a sporting chance.

Used Without Permission
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sat Feb 16 19:40:01 2002
> Not necessarily. If you can't see it, it may mean you see something in
> it's place (i.e. something is blocking your view, see below). What some
> are saying is that the brain is being told something is not where it is,
> and the brain fills the "void" with the most logical image. Either the
> scene behind (in the case of invisible people) or the continuation of a
> wall (in the case of an invisible door).
>

An interesting view along the lines of what Bo just stated and one
interpretation of the effect. In my own belief yes you are still there, you
can be touched, smelt, heard etc. However now people can see through you,
much a kin to a window. A window is a physical obstruction but because you
can see through it you can cast "mana" spells through the physical
obstruction. The difference is you can see the window as you look through
it, with invisibility there's nothing there, it's like looking through clear
air.

So yes you're still there and yes if someone tried to cast a fireball
through you it would incinerate your ass. But if someone attempted to cast
say a manabolt through you at the target on the other side, I myself would
allow it. But that's more because I view invisibility as invisibility not a
magician gimmick of a trick of the light. :)

But anyways enough ranting from me, quite obvious I'm not gonna change my
view of how it should work so I'll just agree to disagree :-)
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sat Feb 16 20:20:01 2002
Jonathan wrote:
>
> > Not necessarily. If you can't see it, it may mean you see something in
> > it's place (i.e. something is blocking your view, see below). What some
> > are saying is that the brain is being told something is not where it is,
> > and the brain fills the "void" with the most logical image. Either
the
> > scene behind (in the case of invisible people) or the continuation of a
> > wall (in the case of an invisible door).
> >
>
> An interesting view along the lines of what Bo just stated and one
> interpretation of the effect. In my own belief yes you are still there, you
> can be touched, smelt, heard etc. However now people can see through you,
> much a kin to a window. A window is a physical obstruction but because you
> can see through it you can cast "mana" spells through the physical
> obstruction. The difference is you can see the window as you look through
> it, with invisibility there's nothing there, it's like looking through clear
> air.

Invisibility is an illusion spell that makes an object unseen, not a
manipulation spell that makes objects transparent. So what happens when
you cast invisibility on an object and the viewer doesn't know what's
behind the object? As in the example of casting invisibility on a
closed door in a wall.

>
> But anyways enough ranting from me, quite obvious I'm not gonna change my
> view of how it should work so I'll just agree to disagree :-)

I'm not asking you to change your view of invisibility, just explain how
it'll work in the situation above. :)

--
Iridios
--
From:The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord
(http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)

If I decide to hold a double execution of the hero and an
underling who failed or betrayed me, I will see to it that the
hero is scheduled to go first.

Used Without Permission
Message no. 8
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sat Feb 16 21:20:02 2002
> I'm not asking you to change your view of invisibility, just explain how
> it'll work in the situation above. :)
>

People are assuming the spell generates an image of what lays beyond an
invisible object. I view invisibility as true invisibility, basically what
was seen is seen no longer, you can see with your own eyes what lays behind
an object when that object is turned invisible.

In other words I feel the spell does not generate the illusion of what lays
beyond a solid, line of sight blocking, object rather the illusion is that
nothing is there blocking said line of sight.

Basically, as I understand most others views, they treat invisibility as a
clairvoyance spell, treating the target object as a surface to display the
information on. Basically from the posts invisibility does not turn you
invisible but rather casts the illusion of a scene an observer knows about.
But as you point out how can this happen if you do not know what the room
contains, you can't "guess" or "assume", hence why I harp on the fact
the
illusion is making the target unseen and viewable through rather than, what
I consider, the absurd notion of an image being generated.

Basically to sum it up in short version, I stick to invisibility making it
appear as if you are not there, rather than hiding you behind an image of
what observers assume is there.
Message no. 9
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sun Feb 17 02:25:01 2002
>My bad for using the wrong wording. However if you can't see it, you can
see
>through it no? :)

No, that's my point. There is a spot on the retina that is not sensative to
light. Its pretty much in the center of your field of vision, and if
something is in that spot, you won't see it. Its "invisible"- you not only
don't see it, you won't realise that you don't see it and you won't see
something else that was behind it.

I wish I could better explain what the bilnd spot is. There's a test with a
cross and a dot that reveals its effect, and its pretty damn wierd.

Note that this is NOT the same as a "SEP field" or a "Disregard"
spell. Its
a purely visual phenomenon.

-Seb
Message no. 10
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sun Feb 17 02:30:02 2002
>Basically to sum it up in short version, I stick to invisibility making it
>appear as if you are not there, rather than hiding you behind an image of
>what observers assume is there.

My original idea is a third option. A blindspot is neither- it does not
require the object to appear as if not there, and it does not require it to
be hidden behind anything. It simply makes the viewer's vision fail to
detect the target of the spell, via an adaptation of an already existing
optical illusion.

-Seb
Message no. 11
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sun Feb 17 10:50:01 2002
Jonathan wrote:
>
> > I'm not asking you to change your view of invisibility, just explain how
> > it'll work in the situation above. :)
> >
>
> People are assuming the spell generates an image of what lays beyond an
> invisible object. I view invisibility as true invisibility, basically what
> was seen is seen no longer, you can see with your own eyes what lays behind
> an object when that object is turned invisible.

I'm not assuming that invisibility generates an image of what's behind.
I'm using the theory that invisibility makes an object no longer
visible. But, the fact that it's an illusion means that the object has
not turned transparent (as in the "The Invisible Man" movie), just that
the viewers have been "fooled" into not seeing it. Your viewpoint works
for objects in the middle of a space, but not for walls. If
invisibility is cast on a wall, and the viewer does not know what is on
the other side of the wall, what do they see? Remember, people on the
other side of the wall are not affected by the spell. The wall is not
affected by the spell. The spell affects viewers on this side of the
wall (p.195 SR3 "Invisibility affects the minds of viewers"). Allowing
affected viewers to see what's on the other side of the wall is akin to
using the Clairvoyance spell. Both have the same drain, but
Clairvoyance has a higher target. Also invis affects all viewers within
LOS while clairvoyance affects a target viewer. In effect, your use of
invisibility in this manner reduces the usefulness of clairvoyance.


> Basically, as I understand most others views, they treat invisibility as a
> clairvoyance spell, treating the target object as a surface to display the
> information on. Basically from the posts invisibility does not turn you
> invisible but rather casts the illusion of a scene an observer knows about.
> But as you point out how can this happen if you do not know what the room
> contains, you can't "guess" or "assume", hence why I harp on the
fact the
> illusion is making the target unseen and viewable through rather than, what
> I consider, the absurd notion of an image being generated.

Clairvoyance is remote viewing. Seeing what cannot be seen normally
(through walls or over great distance). Invisibility does not generate
this affect. Invisibility is not seeing what can be seen. When a
viewer cannot see the invisible man in a room, the viewers mind (not the
spell) generates an image to fill the hole. This image is generated by
a semi-logical process using the available surroundings. (i.e. the
carpet behind an invisible man will appear the same as the carpet to
either side of him) This is the same effect as seen in the human eye
blind spot phenomenon.

So when a door in a wall becomes invisible, the viewer (who is the one
affected by the spell) does not see the door. But if he also does not
know what is behind the door the only information he has to fill the
void is the walls surrounding the door. If the viewer has some
knowledge of what's behind the door (i.e. the furniture in the room), he
will believe he sees through the door. But if there is an unexpected
item (a bomb recently placed in the room), he does not know it's there
and cannot see it.

If in doubt, read page 195 of SR3. In the invisibility spell
description "Invisibility affects the minds of viewers".

--
Iridios
--
From:The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord
(http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)

If I'm eating dinner with the hero, put poison in his goblet,
then have to leave the table for any reason, I will order new
drinks for both of us instead of trying to decide whether or not
to switch with him.

Used Without Permission
Message no. 12
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Chris Beilby)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sun Feb 17 11:05:02 2002
> If in doubt, read page 195 of SR3. In the invisibility spell
> description "Invisibility affects the minds of viewers".

I'd give it up, guys. Jonathan is obviously not going to be swayed in this
matter. So let it go. Let him encourage his players misconceptions about
this. And then, when his players go to a con and play with a different GM,
they can learn the hard way, as they most assuredly will...
Message no. 13
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sun Feb 17 12:50:01 2002
> I'd give it up, guys. Jonathan is obviously not going to be swayed in
this
> matter. So let it go. Let him encourage his players misconceptions about
> this. And then, when his players go to a con and play with a different
GM,
> they can learn the hard way, as they most assuredly will...
>

Everyone has their own rulings on how game mechanics work. I'm sure you've
got more than a few "house rules" that go against what the book says. I read
invisibility as the illusion that what was seen is now unseen, to me this
means you can see through it with your own eyes. So you view it
differently...Welcome to house rules and interpretations.

However as to encouraging player misconception, no. Players in these parts
have the books and if they don't, they borrow mine and read it for
themselves. When we take turns GMing, everyone has little quirks about how
they play, on how they read the rules. We don't force everyone else to
accept one example of the rules reading, this leaves them open to other play
styles.

Accepting only 1 version of how the rules are read means playing with any
other GM would cause conflicts regardless. Look at the combat system threads
for other house rules in this forum Chris, think they'll be at con? No,
those players and GMs will adhere to con rules as readily as me or my fellow
players and GMs would.

So kindly step back and keep your views about my house rules to yourself.
I'm willing to agree to disagree as long as someone doesn't try to kick dirt
at how I play, it may be different but no one asked you to like how I run
with my friends. Just like no one asked me to accept yours, but we can
civilly agree to disagree without hinting at an insult at either of our
choices.

btw: Cons come up this way about never and no time. So playing by con GM
rules is kinda moot since they never come up this way. We had a SCI-fi con I
think it was about 4-5 years ago, a two day star trek con whose biggest
games were with the trading card game of said name. No, cons are no big
worry up this way, they don't view it as profitable enough to spur a fan
base this far east in Canada.
Message no. 14
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sun Feb 17 13:40:01 2002
According to Jonathan, on Sun, 17 Feb 2002 the word on the street was...

> My bad for using the wrong wording. However if you can't see it, you can
> see through it no? :)

No :) I can't see the computer in the next room from where I am, because
there's a wall in the way. Does that mean I, or anyone else, can see
through that computer?

> And if you're looking at a room with a closed door, the things inside are
> not invisible, play on the word all you like, you can't see them, but
> that's because you have a wall and door, two solid and visible
> obstructions, blocking your view it's not because the objects inside
> can't be seen. They just can't be seen while you're outside, open the
> door and wow there they are. :-)

Yes, at which point they become visible to you. They don't turn from
see-through to non-see-through, but they do "un-invisible" :)

> Now if they had an invisibility spell on them, regardless of whether or
> not something was blocking your line of sight they couldn't be seen. :-)

That, though, is true.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 15
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sun Feb 17 13:40:14 2002
According to Sebastian Wiers, on Sun, 17 Feb 2002 the word on the street was...

> I wish I could better explain what the bilnd spot is. There's a test
> with a cross and a dot that reveals its effect, and its pretty damn
> wierd.

At night, look straight at a star, then move your focus to another star. (It
works for me, anyway -- the star I look directly at becomes a lot dimmer, or
even disappears entirely, and then re-appears when I look at another one.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 16
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jed Mitten)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sun Feb 17 19:55:01 2002
>invisible object. I view invisibility as true invisibility, basically what
>was seen is seen no longer, you can see with your own eyes what lays behind
>an object when that object is turned invisible.
>
>In other words I feel the spell does not generate the illusion of what lays
>beyond a solid, line of sight blocking, object rather the illusion is that
>nothing is there blocking said line of sight.

I'm wondering if maybe Jonathan is saying that the illusion is actually that
of what is _in reality_ on the other side of the door. Because the spell is
illusory, there is an image cast over the object which is "invisibled", but
what is magically superimposed over the object is the seamless image of what
will be seen on the other side of the object in reality. In the case of the
door, this would still make everything see through the door an illusion, but
would not be just what the mind expects to find on the other side.

Jed

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Message no. 17
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sun Feb 17 20:15:01 2002
> I'm wondering if maybe Jonathan is saying that the illusion is actually
that
> of what is _in reality_ on the other side of the door. Because the spell
is
> illusory, there is an image cast over the object which is "invisibled",
but
> what is magically superimposed over the object is the seamless image of
what
> will be seen on the other side of the object in reality. In the case of
the
> door, this would still make everything see through the door an illusion,
but
> would not be just what the mind expects to find on the other side.
>

See why I dis approve of the image theory: How can the mind generate an
image of an area you can't even begin to guess what it contains? Maybe if
you peaked with a clairvoyancy spell first, yes your mind could generate a
rough image of what is behind a door, but an on the fly casting? No your
mind would have no clue what to occupy what lays beyond with. Basically
instead of seeing the next room you'd see the magic (swirling color, inky
blackness whatever you want to represent the unknown). You might hear
voices, or the hum of machinery but you wouldn't be able to generate images
from that little info. At least not images that were worth anything. You'd
generate images of men or women, nude (since you can't tell what someone is
wearing), features would be blank (assuming the structure you stereotype -
typical elf, typical troll etc), you'd have a devil of a time picking out
what job each person accomplishes.

That's why it's a play on the mind, it's not convincing your mind to tell
your eyes: Here's what the next room contains. Rather it's your mind
convincing your eyes the obstruction isn't there. You'd see the door frame,
the hinges but the door is unseeable. However people explain the unseeable
as blind spots or for example the use of a stealth spell to lengthen the
shadows to cover it so its "unseeable", the door is still viewable it's just
hidden from sight.

But anyways it's all in how you define the unseeable. They're welcome to
explain a magical effect using science and logical reason. Just as I'm
welcome to explain magic as being able to do the impossible simply because
it's magic, I don't need to rationalize how the magic works to produce the
effect. Magic is magic, it does what it will do. So rather than continue
ranting back and forth on two equally plausible view points it's just better
for the list to agree to disagree. Yes I fully see what they're saying, I
understand their points. I just refuse to have magic work the way they have
it work just as they refuse to have magic work as I do. Thank heavens for
house rules. :o)
Message no. 18
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jed Mitten)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sun Feb 17 20:25:01 2002
>Yes I fully see what they're saying, I>understand their points. I just
>refuse to have magic work the way they have>it work just as they refuse to
>have magic work as I do. Thank heavens for
>house rules. :o)

I hadn't finished reading the thread (thus realizing it was all concluded)
by the time I posted... sorry. :-)

-Jed-

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
Message no. 19
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Sun Feb 17 20:35:01 2002
> I hadn't finished reading the thread (thus realizing it was all concluded)
> by the time I posted... sorry. :-)
>

lol no need to apologize, everyones 2 cents are welcome and I know my rants
aren't exactly the most clear always ;)
Message no. 20
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Iridios)
Subject: invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research)
Date: Mon Feb 18 19:10:02 2002
Jonathan wrote:

> effect. Magic is magic, it does what it will do. So rather than continue
> ranting back and forth on two equally plausible view points it's just better
> for the list to agree to disagree.

Agreed then. I have too much in life to keep arguing the same point.
Even if I'm right. ;P

--
Iridios
--
From:The Top 100 Things I'd Do
If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord
(http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html)

Once my power is secure, I will destroy all those pesky
time-travel devices.

Used Without Permission

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about invisability = blind spot (was re: after doing some research), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!