Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: sp@*****.gr (Stefanos Patelis)
Subject: Physics and Realism in SR (and other games)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:24:03 +0300
Steve Garrard wrote:

>Zebulin wrote:
>
>
>>Agreed, why argue physics, in a world of magic?
>>
>>
>
>Because the alternative would be to say "anything is possible" and just stop
>talking :p
>
>Besides, we need clearly defined boundaries of what is and isn't possible to
>remain sane, and as such anything magic-related not clearly defined in the
>rulebooks falls into the realm of physics and what we DO know. I think
>that's where a lot of these arguments stem from...those who think as I do,
>and those who are happy to accept infinity and just move on.
>
>
>
>
>
Doesn't the fact you are playing a fictional game and still trying to
apply reality to it loose the overall plot a bit though?
If I play a game where someone whistles and a dragon drops buy to ride
as his Holy steed or a Game where one guy is a mesh of human and steel
cyberzombie and the other is a Shamanic spell caster I usually try to
avoid real-life down-to-earth explanations of physics and reality...
A problem that might be considered is the fact that if players could
identify and ration with the cause-effect of a situation or, more to the
point, a spell's details; they might come up with an ingenius way of
using/avoiding it which does make things more interesting. On the other
hand one might say fine as a player but what if I am a GM and am forced
to explain why something happens to the players?

I personally tend to see my roleplaying sessions and games mainly from
the perspective of a storyteller/writter whether as a player or GM. When
you are telling a fictional story, even more when it is based on another
reality with differing laws than the one you have grown up and gotten
accustomed to, you concentrate more on the plot and less on the
real-life explanation of why and how something happened. Otherwise the
story looses its essense and magic. It doesn't matter what a manabolt
really is; what molecular reactions happen in its area of effect; when
the important stuff is that the specifc Personae used it , in the
specific plot scene for a reason.

I do find myself sometimes contradicting my own rules (although very
rarely as I am "blessed" with rules lawyers in my tabletop group!!) :
"Yes I know that last time the orc's spell had that effect on the car
but this time it doesn't! Why??? because my plot will work better for
all!!! The damn kidnapped victim you should be saving is in there - I
don't want him melting/disintegrating/etc etc". But there is a reason I
am doing that - I want to offer them excitement, action, romance or
whatever is needed for a specific scene. I am not going to concentrate
on whether the spell leaves a stain on the man's clothes unless th eplot
will really need it later on!

here is an example:
If Arnie jumps off a plane and evades the burning up turbine and manages
to grab his parachute and make it safely down in order to come up with a
memorable one liner I don't care if it is not realistic! I didn't go to
the movies to see a National Geographic representaion of Heros fighting
Crime throughout the 20th century! I went to see an Arnie movie where he
performs unrealistic, utterly fake stunts that create a tension in the
storytelling; and gives us memorable one liners...(U do have to be an
arnie fan though to agree with me - that I must confess ;)

Granted you may only want to see National Geographic documentaries that
try to explain the laws of physics...But what can you gain from an
action film then? Wouldn't such an action film be boring? John Woo or
Quentin Tarantino doing a Planetary Orbits Documentary!!!! OH MY GOD!
There goes the sun! BOOM!

Hope I wasn't too offensive - my intention was far different from that...
Regards,
Stef

--
??????? ????????

EWORX S.A.
22 Rodou Street - Maroussi 15122 - Greece
tel: +30 210 61 48 380, +30 210 61 48 360
mob: +30 6978853066 - fax +30 210 6148381
mailto:sp@*****.gr -- http://www.eworx.gr
Message no. 2
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: Physics and Realism in SR (and other games)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:19:40 +0000
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 04:24:03PM +0300, Stefanos Patelis wrote:
>
> Doesn't the fact you are playing a fictional game and still trying to
> apply reality to it loose the overall plot a bit though?
> If I play a game where someone whistles and a dragon drops buy to ride
> as his Holy steed or a Game where one guy is a mesh of human and steel
> cyberzombie and the other is a Shamanic spell caster I usually try to
> avoid real-life down-to-earth explanations of physics and reality...
> A problem that might be considered is the fact that if players could
> identify and ration with the cause-effect of a situation or, more to the
> point, a spell's details; they might come up with an ingenius way of
> using/avoiding it which does make things more interesting. On the other
> hand one might say fine as a player but what if I am a GM and am forced
> to explain why something happens to the players?
>
> I personally tend to see my roleplaying sessions and games mainly from
> the perspective of a storyteller/writter whether as a player or GM. When
> you are telling a fictional story, even more when it is based on another
> reality with differing laws than the one you have grown up and gotten
> accustomed to, you concentrate more on the plot and less on the
> real-life explanation of why and how something happened. Otherwise the
> story looses its essense and magic. It doesn't matter what a manabolt
> really is; what molecular reactions happen in its area of effect; when
> the important stuff is that the specifc Personae used it , in the
> specific plot scene for a reason.
>

<more stuff along the same lines cut>

I have to disagree vehemently. Good stories and good physics are hardly contradictory.
In fact, I would say that they go hand in hand. Why? Because it forces consistency. If
you find yourself doing things one way one time, and a different way another time then
that is no different from using a lot of deus ex machina and destroys suspension of
disbelief. Yeah, it's easier to write such stories. It's really easy to write stories
with deus ex machina too, but in the end they're pretty crummy stories.

Now here is a system that involves magic, so obviously it doesn't follow the laws of
physics as we know them. That's kind of the point of magic. But the way in which it
violates those laws is generally pretty specific and consistent. This is a good thing.
So, yeah, when people wave their arms and say "it's magic, who cares how it
works" I get a little annoyed. Even magic has its limitations, and it's important to
stick to those limitations.

It may not matter what a manabolt is, but making sure that manabolt B has the same
properties and limitations as manabolt A is important. To do otherwise "for the sake
of the story" is NOT good storytelling. It's a crutch.

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org/
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 3
From: keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject: Physics and Realism in SR (and other games)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:35:33 -0700
> I have to disagree vehemently. Good stories and good physics
> are hardly contradictory. In fact, I would say that they go
> hand in hand. Why? Because it forces consistency.

I'm going to say this again... The game rules *are* the laws
of physics in the game universe.

A well thought out game system takes into account the reality
the players experience when making up its rules for falling,
jumping, explosives et al. Or, a good gaming system (eg TOON)
tells the player to specifically throw what he or she knows
about the laws of physics away.

The game rules should be all that's needed for consistent
play. When people start applying the laws of physics of their
native universe to the universe of the game, one of two things
is wrong. Either the game does a bad job of explaining its
physics model, or the player doesn't like, doesn't understand,
or just plain can't wrap there mind around the physics model
the game designers laid out.

When a player argues with the physics model of a well written
game universe, what I hear them saying is "I'm so uncreative
that I can't let go of all the trivial crap I learned in
college."

Open your minds people. Judge a rules/consistency issue based
on the internal workings of the game, not the laws of my pal
Isaac Newton or his cohabitating life partner Al Einstein.
Their rules apply to this universe.

Don't we all remember Einstein saying "God doesn't play dice
with the universe?" (or whatever the exact quote was...)

Well then, don't apply his rules to any universe where dice
are specifically called for by the gods...

Thanks for listening,

-k
Message no. 4
From: sfeley@*****.com (Stephen Eley)
Subject: Physics and Realism in SR (and other games)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:01:19 -0400
On 8/18/05, Keith Johnson <keith@***********.com> wrote:
>
> Don't we all remember Einstein saying "God doesn't play dice
> with the universe?" (or whatever the exact quote was...)

To which Niels Bohr replied, "Don't tell God what to do."

Einstein was wrong. He was trying to refute some of the implications
of quantum mechanics; but quantum mechanics has been experimentally
verified. Whether God plays dice with the universe is a religious
question, but it's pretty clear now that the universe plays with
itself all the time.

(Um. You know what I mean.)

Back to the topic: all this philosophy is very interesting, but I
think it might be making mountains out of muons. The initial question
wasn't a true physics problem; it was "How did that piece of
California fall into the ocean when there isn't a fault line there?"

Two good answers were given: "Hey, sometimes fault lines just happen"
and "Magic. Duh." I don't recall anyone arguing with either one of
those answers; this is a game world where a crazy old Indian can have
a beer party and make five volcanoes erupt simultaneously, so you have
to accept that big geologic change is possible. All this debate is
simply with the *phrasing* of the "Magic. Duh." answer.

--
Have Fun,
Steve Eley (sfeley@*****.com)
ESCAPE POD - the SF podcast magazine
http://escape.extraneous.org
Message no. 5
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Physics and Realism in SR (and other games)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
> When a player argues with the physics model of a well written
> game universe, what I hear them saying is "I'm so uncreative
> that I can't let go of all the trivial crap I learned in
> college."

There are, IMO, two deeply flawed assumptions to this line of
reasoning.

1. The Shadowrun game system presents a well written set of physical
laws.

2. A college-level grasp of the functioning laws of physics is
'trivial crap'. :p

I will ignore assumption #2, because I did not attend your college.
Assumption #1, however, I can confidently take head on.

The Shadowrun game system builds its basic physics model by saying,
in effect, "It's Earth, 60 years in the future. Oh, and magic came
back."

Thanks.

That adequately clears up any chance that anyone will have to even
discuss physics. I mean, we all graduated high school with a passing
understanding of... wait, did you say magic came ~back~!?

The game system starts by asserting that we can reasonably assume we
are on a world very much like our own, but with some disproportionate
advances in certain types of tech. The laws of physics are NOT
different from those of our own world. The game rules say so.

Nor, by the way, are the laws of physics equal to the game mechanics.
Game mechanics are an abstract method of representing physics. And
sociology. And economics. And chemistry, biology, blah blah blah.
They are a medium for experiencing the world without being in it. As
an abstraction, THEY HAVE TO BE BASED ON SOMETHING (sorry, not
yelling, but no bold italics in plain text, and this needs emphasis).
Mechanics are not a stand alone measure of a reality, imagined or
otherwise. They are a presentation of a reality, a means of
simulating experience. Your monitor, keyboard, and mouse are NOT
your computer. They are how you interact with it. Mechanics are the
peripheral devices of the game world. The game world's OS is very
similar to that of our world, for which our five senses and brain are
peripherals. Granted, SR's operating system has the Magic service
pack installed and is currently running on its third major patch, but
more applications will port. Say, jumping. Or shooting. Or
driving. (Are you sick of the computer analogy yet? I know I am.
:p )

Any halfway decent player who is arguing physics is probably actually
trying to be creative. They want to know what they can reasonably
expect as the parameters for their character's actions, so they can
derive creative plans for that character.

======Korishinzo
--we seem to have this particular debate a lot :)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 6
From: keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject: Physics and Realism in SR (and other games)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:59:13 -0700
> Back to the topic: all this philosophy is very interesting,
> but I think it might be making mountains out of muons. The
> initial question wasn't a true physics problem; it was "How
> did that piece of California fall into the ocean when there
> isn't a fault line there?"

Back to my explanation as it stands...

In which universe is there no fault line there?

If the guys who designed the universe decided to split
California there and they decided to say that it's because
of a fault line rupture that caused exactly the result that
happens in the game... then in that universe two things are
true:

1 there is a fault line there

and

2 earthquakes and plate shifting can and did cause exaclty
what we see in the map.

My point is that the Shadowrun universe isn't this
universe. Get over it.

<yoda>
you must unlearn what you have learned
</yoda>


-k
Message no. 7
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: Physics and Realism in SR (and other games)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:04:35 -0700 (PDT)
> Back to my explanation as it stands...
>
> In which universe is there no fault line there?

In which universe are we now supposed to accept that a mere
earthquake can sink a significantly large portion of land under the
sea?

> If the guys who designed the universe decided to split
> California there and they decided to say that it's because
> of a fault line rupture that caused exactly the result that
> happens in the game... then in that universe two things are
> true:
>
> 1 there is a fault line there
>
> and
>
> 2 earthquakes and plate shifting can and did cause exaclty
> what we see in the map.
>
> My point is that the Shadowrun universe isn't this
> universe. Get over it.

I see...

"And so it came to pass...

That the world as you know it now changed in all these internally
consistant ways... and then the laws of plate techtonics got
hoop-fragged by a dragon having a bad day. Sorry for the utterly
implausible inconvenience."

Here's the problem.

For an earthquake to turn California into an island, something on the
scale of the Great Ghost Dance has to have taken place. Dormant
volcanoes don't just errupt. Dragons don't just suddenly come out of
hiding. Humans don't just turn into orks at purberty. These things
all defy the laws of nature. Unless magic is involved. Magic
introduces new natural laws. We can all accept that some Force 30
Great Form Earth Elemental Free Spirit shoved California a mile out
into the ocean for some reason. And if the game writers have
secretly got some plot of that nature cooking, fine. However, if
California is now an island because some writer was watching "Escape
from L.A." and gave NO thought to the scientific impossibility of
such a thing happening, then we have a legitimate complaint.

After all, at some point, a player is going to want an island. What
Force effect is it to sail a chunk of North America out to sea? Can
such a thing be done with nanites? Please please please Madame GM,
tell us how they moved Caifornia, so we can move it back.

Yes, you are right. The game writers can do whatever they want to
the world. And it is a fanciful setting, certainly. However,
deciding for the sake of the story that conventions of the setting
(e.g. it is basically Earth with magic) will be suspended here and
there is very poor writing.

It would be like writing a new Batman movie, and spending a whole lot
of time trying to explain the technology Batman uses in terms of
current science. I mean, really struggling to get the audience
accepting that the Batman storyline could believably come to pass in
our world. Then, two thirds of the way along, introducing a device
that can almost instantly vaporize water in a water main a hundred
feet below through asphalt and steel without the slightest effect on
human beings right next to it. I mean, it would just be
irresponsbile writing.

> <yoda>
> you must unlearn what you have learned
> </yoda>

I really really wish Kermit's dad would stop posting on this list.
:p

======Korishinzo
--Really glad the Batman analogy didn't happen... oh wait. Drek. :(



____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Message no. 8
From: keith@***********.com (Keith Johnson)
Subject: Physics and Realism in SR (and other games)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:16:17 -0700
> There are, IMO, two deeply flawed assumptions to this line of
> reasoning.
>
> 1. The Shadowrun game system presents a well written set of
> physical laws.

No, the assumption is that the games rules given an internally
consistent means of dealing with in-game situations and that
they accurately describe the physics of the game world.

That's all.

Again, the "Laws of Physics" of our universe don't mean
anything in the game world. The only thing that is important
is that a player understand the rules and how they apply to
given situations in the game.

Shadowrun does a decent job of being internally consistent.

> 2. A college-level grasp of the functioning laws of physics
>is 'trivial crap'. :p

Well... ;>



> I will ignore assumption #2, because I did not attend
>your college.

...University of Wisconsin, majored in Astronautical Engineering
and Japanese... god, that was a long time ago...

> Assumption #1, however, I can confidently take head on.
>
> The Shadowrun game system builds its basic physics model by
> saying, in effect, "It's Earth, 60 years in the future. Oh,
> and magic came back."
>
> Thanks.

Not true. It builds its basic physics model with its notion
of Power and Damage Level. It defines human physiology with
physical attribute and Stun and Physical damage concepts.

You know... the rules... The rules are the laws of physics
in the game. And Shadowrun does a good job of being internally
consistent.

>The game system starts by asserting that we can reasonably
>assume we are on a world very much like our own, but with
>some disproportionate advances in certain types of tech. The
>laws of physics are NOT different from those of our own
>world. The game rules say so.

The game philosophy says so. It helps give a more complete
picture of the world. The rules say that a pistol does 9M
damage, with step ups for damage level based on a successful
skill test blah blah blah... and that is to simulate the
fact that a more skilled shooter has a better chance of
hitting more vital areas blah blah blah...

And the rules are internally consistent in describing the
laws of physics in the game world.


>
> Nor, by the way, are the laws of physics equal to the game
> mechanics. Game mechanics are an abstract method of
> representing physics. And sociology. And economics. And
> chemistry, biology, blah blah blah.

and F=V(i)dm/dt*M(i)dv/dt (F=ma for you physics for artist types)

Doesn't mean anything in Shadowrun. Nor do the laws of
organic chemistry or physical chem for that matter.

The rules are the laws of phsyics.


> They are a medium for experiencing the world without being in
> it. As an abstraction, THEY HAVE TO BE BASED ON SOMETHING

Yelling is ok by me, and I hear you. Now let me give you
an answer as to what they're based on...

When the game designers sat in their mom's basement inventing
the game, the said, "Ok, we've got to have a way to describe
characters, describe weapons, and how to make combat work
well... They came up with abilities/attributes/skills/merits/flaws
for characters, Range, Power, Reach, and Damage Staging for
weapons, and a combat system that does the job.

Once they have descriptions of the way the universe works,
They say, "ok, the world is just like our except..." so that
anything that isn't covered by the rules can be assumed
to be similar with the exception of the things the spell
out to be different... like the California fault line and
the fact that a sniper rifle has an effect range of over
1km...

Disagree all you want, and use the laws of physics
and your experiences in this universe to back you up.

>Mechanics are not a stand alone measure of a reality,
>imagined or otherwise. They are a presentation of a
>reality, a means of simulating experience.

In exactly the same way that the laws of physics and chemistry
aren't what we think of when we say that an apple tastes
good... so?

> Your monitor, keyboard, and mouse are NOT your computer.
> They are how you interact with it. Mechanics are the
> peripheral devices of the game world.

The mechanics are the guts of the game computer, not
the peripherals. The rules are the hardware, the setting
is the OS and the adventures are the programs that we
put through the OS and the hardware...

That's why, when people decide to use the laws of physics
of this universe to modify the game... the fucking thing
crashes.

> Any halfway decent player who is arguing physics is probably
> actually trying to be creative. They want to know what they
> can reasonably expect as the parameters for their character's
> actions, so they can derive creative plans for that character.

Except that the parameters for their characters actions are
already determined by the rules of the game... and when they
try to get creative, it's usually because the idea they have
in their heads for their characters don't match up with the
limits imposed by the rules as written... like a sniper who
has to be within however many meters to shoot with his high
tech rifle, when the player very well knows that a real world
sniper rifle has a much longer range.

-k
Message no. 9
From: Steve.Garrard@********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Physics and Realism in SR (and other games)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:31:44 +0200
Keith Johnson wrote:
> > There are, IMO, two deeply flawed assumptions to this line of
> > reasoning.
> >
> > 1. The Shadowrun game system presents a well written set
> of physical
> > laws.
>
> No, the assumption is that the games rules given an
> internally consistent means of dealing with in-game
> situations and that they accurately describe the physics of
> the game world.
>
> That's all.
>
> Again, the "Laws of Physics" of our universe don't mean
> anything in the game world. The only thing that is important
> is that a player understand the rules and how they apply to
> given situations in the game.
>
> Shadowrun does a decent job of being internally consistent.

See the problem here is this: if we're talking about a video game, then all
of this is fine. The software defines very strict limitations on what can be
done within the parameters of the "game world". However, the beauty of a
paper-and-pencil RPG (to me anyway) is that these limitations are removed.
The rules define the fundamentals, and in the case of SR these fundamentals
are based upon real-world laws (and I know you disagree on this, but read
on), but you can conceivably do whatever you can think of. Some actions are
not covered by the rules, because like a video game, there is no way to
define rules and mechanics for every possible action. This is where we, as
players and GMs, must apply some structured thinking to the game world in
order to define certain undocumented situations and their outcomes. Since we
cannot feasibly invent laws of physics as you claim the game writers have
(this would be inconsistent), and since regardless of your opinion the
real-world laws of physics DO apply unless otherwise stated (gravity for
example), this forms the basis in my thinking.

> >The game system starts by asserting that we can reasonably assume we
> >are on a world very much like our own, but with some
> disproportionate
> >advances in certain types of tech. The laws of physics are NOT
> >different from those of our own world. The game rules say so.
>
> The game philosophy says so. It helps give a more complete
> picture of the world. The rules say that a pistol does 9M
> damage, with step ups for damage level based on a successful
> skill test blah blah blah... and that is to simulate the fact
> that a more skilled shooter has a better chance of hitting
> more vital areas blah blah blah...

Yes, and this SIMULATES the world model as a video game does. RPG rules and
mechanics can be thought of as the engine of the game, but unlike a video
game, if Joe Sammie wants to punch his TV with his bare fist, where do I
find the rules that determine what will happen? They're not in the book.
Should I assume he cannot do this? Or should I apply what I know of
real-world laws to determine the likely outcome? Perhaps I should just stop
thinking and e-mail the SR writers so they can tell me how to play the game.

> > Nor, by the way, are the laws of physics equal to the game
> mechanics.
> > Game mechanics are an abstract method of representing physics. And
> > sociology. And economics. And chemistry, biology, blah blah blah.
>
> and F=V(i)dm/dt*M(i)dv/dt (F=ma for you physics for artist types)
>
> Doesn't mean anything in Shadowrun. Nor do the laws of
> organic chemistry or physical chem for that matter.
>
> The rules are the laws of phsyics.

Sorry, but again, this makes no sense. So what you're saying is that because
the SR rulebooks do not define how gravity works, it does not exist? Because
they don't tell us how light travels, everything is darkness? C'mon.

> When the game designers sat in their mom's basement inventing
> the game, the said, "Ok, we've got to have a way to describe
> characters, describe weapons, and how to make combat work
> well... They came up with abilities/attributes/skills/merits/flaws
> for characters, Range, Power, Reach, and Damage Staging for
> weapons, and a combat system that does the job.
>
> Once they have descriptions of the way the universe works,

...but these are not descriptions of how the universe works, they are simple
and structured ways of representing certain aspect of how the universe
works, in a way that can be used with dice etc. There's a difference.

> >Mechanics are not a stand alone measure of a reality, imagined or
> >otherwise. They are a presentation of a reality, a means of
> simulating
> >experience.
>
> In exactly the same way that the laws of physics and
> chemistry aren't what we think of when we say that an apple
> tastes good... so?

Eh?!?

> > Your monitor, keyboard, and mouse are NOT your computer.
> > They are how you interact with it. Mechanics are the peripheral
> > devices of the game world.
>
> The mechanics are the guts of the game computer, not the
> peripherals. The rules are the hardware, the setting is the
> OS and the adventures are the programs that we put through
> the OS and the hardware...

Well, no offence, but I'm guessing you're not a programmer :)

> That's why, when people decide to use the laws of physics of
> this universe to modify the game... the fucking thing crashes.

Well if this is how you think of the computer analogy, then I can understand
why it crashes for your players :)

> > Any halfway decent player who is arguing physics is
> probably actually
> > trying to be creative. They want to know what they can reasonably
> > expect as the parameters for their character's actions, so they can
> > derive creative plans for that character.
>
> Except that the parameters for their characters actions are
> already determined by the rules of the game... and when they
> try to get creative, it's usually because the idea they have
> in their heads for their characters don't match up with the
> limits imposed by the rules as written... like a sniper who
> has to be within however many meters to shoot with his high
> tech rifle, when the player very well knows that a real world
> sniper rifle has a much longer range.

The parameters are defined only in certain areas. Refer to my TV punching
scenario above.


Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon



________________________________________________________________________
This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar
malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan.

DISCLAIMER

This email and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential
and may contain privileged or copyright information. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
Microgen.

If you are not the named or intended recipient of this email you
must not read, use or disseminate the information contained within
it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received
this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete this email from your system.

It is your responsibility to protect your system from viruses and
any other harmful code or device, we try to eliminate them from
emails and attachments, but accept no liability for any which remain.
We may monitor or access any or all emails sent to us.

In the event of technical difficulty with this email, please contact
the sender or it.support@********.co.uk

Microgen Information Management Solutions
http://www.microgen.co.uk
Message no. 10
From: sp@*****.gr (Stefanos Patelis)
Subject: Physics and Realism in SR (and other games)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 12:09:16 +0300
Additionall food for thought:

Where does one stop with trying to explain how and why things happen? If
you want a realistic model of our world "beefed up" by magic, creatures
and cyberpunk where do you define your realism line?

How can people who argue for the need of explainning the game world and
mechanics still use a system that defines wounds as a Medium Or Serious
Stun and doesn't really suport locational damage? A system that supports
technology that although feasible in theory has not been really proven
to work (Let us not concentrate on this statement thought as it will
spark a whole new discussion about how close are we in the Shadowrun
described reality) ? How can others use systems that define your "vital
health" in a number of Hit Points?

Frankly I really don't understand what is the real argument here. If it
is whether everything in the world should be explained then I don't get
it. We haven't even explained our real everyday world physics and yet we
need to explain the physics in an interactive, fictinal game world?

To go back to the first question. I personally stop explainning things
when they tend to bog down my stories. I stop them and stick to the
original plan of action that I invented because I considered it would
provide the plot scene with the sentiments and feelings I wanted to
convey my players. I will not go through a single battle scene three
times just because a player went to the library, picked up a technical
encyclopedia and proven to me that his special alloy cyberware doe snot
heat up like normal metal!!!!!! Especially when the heat was produce by
a magical spell!!!

I don't know. In real life I am trully a sceptic and rational person and
I want to see everything explained before I believe in it. But when I am
playing a fictional game I want the scientist hat off and the GM hat on.
I am not some god God that creates a universe and knows how everything
works. I am a storyteller that creates a story with the twist that his
limited audience can interact in it and change parts. I understand the
need for a close to realism bare bone mechanics approach behind the
scenes (an arbitrary rules system) which is why I steer clear of most
freeform gaming styles. But I also don't underestimate the difficulties
in a system that has rules about every single possibility in the game
(if I want adamant rules I will probably play a simple board game like
chess or turn on my PC on and play a game there as Steve Garrard
correctly explained).
Regards,
Stef

--
Πατέλης
ΣτέφαΜος

EWORX S.A.
22 Rodou Street - Maroussi 15122 - Greece
tel: +30 210 61 48 380, +30 210 61 48 360
mob: +30 6978853066 - fax +30 210 6148381
mailto:sp@*****.gr -- http://www.eworx.gr
Message no. 11
From: Steve.Garrard@********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: Physics and Realism in SR (and other games)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:15:59 +0200
Stefanos Patelis wrote:
> Where does one stop with trying to explain how and why things
> happen? If you want a realistic model of our world "beefed
> up" by magic, creatures and cyberpunk where do you define
> your realism line?
>
> [big snip]

Personally, I'm not saying that everything must be extremely detailed and
scientific. I was just arguing against the mentality that nothing outside of
the rulebook exists or can be explained using real-world laws. There
obviously must be a line drawn before the game bogs down in tiny details,
but there also must be some method to define situations not covered by the
rulebook or setting. The line is up to the GM and players I suppose, and if
some people want to exclude all actions without clearly documented rules or
mechanics, that's up to them. For me, as you agreed, I'll play a video game
if I want such absolute restrictions.


Slayer

"Beware my wrath, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
- Unknown Dragon



________________________________________________________________________
This email was checked on leaving Microgen for viruses, similar
malicious code and inappropriate content by MessageLabs SkyScan.

DISCLAIMER

This email and any attachments transmitted with it are confidential
and may contain privileged or copyright information. Any views or
opinions expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
Microgen.

If you are not the named or intended recipient of this email you
must not read, use or disseminate the information contained within
it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received
this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete this email from your system.

It is your responsibility to protect your system from viruses and
any other harmful code or device, we try to eliminate them from
emails and attachments, but accept no liability for any which remain.
We may monitor or access any or all emails sent to us.

In the event of technical difficulty with this email, please contact
the sender or it.support@********.co.uk

Microgen Information Management Solutions
http://www.microgen.co.uk
Message no. 12
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Physics and Realism in SR (and other games)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:38:19 +0100
At 08:59 PM 8/18/2005, Keith Johnson wrote:
>In which universe is there no fault line there?

Ours as experienced - now that doesn't mean that there isn't one that we
haven't discovered (because it hasn't moved) but...

>My point is that the Shadowrun universe isn't this
>universe. Get over it.

Yes it is. The primary premise of the game is that it is our near future.
Seattle is not just a coincidence of naming it is the same Seattle as we
know after sixty odd (seventy odd in SR4) years of technological and
socialogical "advance".
The basis of the game rules is that physics is more or less unchanged,
while it's possible to say that the game rules substitute for the laws of
physics they can only get so far - what happens for example if you fire a
handgun unrestrained on a sub-orbital at paragee? I need a page reference
for those rules... No? So where do you go to find out? you look at the laws
of physics.
Game rules version:
You're firing at the window are you? and what gun are you using? Beretta
101-t... OK well the Semi-Ballistic is a vehicle so that has no effect
because if stages down automatically.
Laws of physics version:
You're firing at the window are you? and what gun are you using? Beretta
101-t... OK. The window is effectively armoured because it's designed to
withstand the pressure differential between the cabin and the high
atmosphere, the edge of space... but it's at the edge of space so that
force is already being applied - so the only thing stopping your bullet is
the factor of safety... <Rolls some dice> The inner skin of the window is
starred by your shot but just about holds, meanwhile you get pushed
backwards somewhat by the recoil, gravity not allowing you a firm firing
position and you begin to somersault backwards, Now are you going to take
your second shot?

Personally I much prefer the second - and I'd rather not have a main
rulebook which I need a truck to move around as it contains rules for
dealing with the sum of all human knowledge.


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? C++(+) US++ P! L E? W++ N o? K? w+ O! M- V? PS+ PE-()
Y PGP? t+@ 5++ X- R+>+++$>* tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e+ h r* y+>+++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 13
From: cmd_jackryan@***.net (Phillip Gawlowski)
Subject: Physics and Realism in SR (and other games)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:41:39 +0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Lone Eagle wrote:

> Ours as experienced - now that doesn't mean that there isn't one that we
> haven't discovered (because it hasn't moved) but...

So, you just assume that there is no fault line. Since fault lines can
only be detected, if they move, you have a moot point. It is just as
easy to prove that there is a $DEITY around.
You have no proof for either theory.

>> My point is that the Shadowrun universe isn't this
>> universe. Get over it.
>
>
> Yes it is.

No. It isn't. Why? Time. as you said, SR is a game set in the
"near-future". And by design, the time we live in is the "now", so it
is
impossible that SR is our universe.
Obviously, the books containing the content "Shadowrun" are part of our
universe, as everybody can get the books (even OOP ones, by various means).
But the game world itself is just imaginary, unless we are discussing
parallel universes here, which makes it de facto a part of a
"meta-universe" containing parallel universes, and it is still not part
of our universe.

> The primary premise of the game is that it is our near
> future. Seattle is not just a coincidence of naming it is the same
> Seattle as we know after sixty odd (seventy odd in SR4) years of
> technological and socialogical "advance".

Ever been to the SR Seattle? Then, how do you know it is the same
Seattle? That is something you (and everybody else) "just" assumes. Why?
Because the developers counted on that: You will fill all the gaps that
they left out with your own knowledge. And unless we can get hold of a
time machine, we cannot prove that Today's Seattle = SR Seattle.
Of course, there exist similarities, but not by chances: This is clearly
a decision to make it easy in terms of developing a whole City and for
players to get into the "Cyberpunk w/ Fantasy" feeling.

> The basis of the game rules is that physics is more or less unchanged,

Yeah, if you consider magic a "small" change. I bet, that (be hind the
scenes of the game world), the re-appearance of magic made all those
scientist scramble for explanations. The division of magic into
(broadly) the three branches Hermetic, Shamanistic, Adepts doesn't make
it easier. And unless FanPro publishes a treatise (or summary of common
theories on magic), we don't know how much magic changed the perception
of the universe in SR. We can only assume that it was a big change
(maybe resulting in a Unified Field Theory? After all magicians can
conjure fireballs, eliminate gravity, and alter perception!). Some
spells can even be video taped, sort of objectively prooving that magic
is "real" (A Sleep spell can be rationalized as hyponisis, while a
fireball on tape cannot).

> while it's possible to say that the game rules substitute for the laws
> of physics they can only get so far - what happens for example if you
> fire a handgun unrestrained on a sub-orbital at paragee? I need a page
> reference for those rules... No? So where do you go to find out? you
> look at the laws of physics.

Or someplace else, making sense to you. As you said, there is no rule
reference for the "trivial" stuff like Natural Laws. Thus, you can do
what you want. And that be it.

> Game rules version:
> You're firing at the window are you? and what gun are you using? Beretta
> 101-t... OK well the Semi-Ballistic is a vehicle so that has no effect
> because if stages down automatically.
> Laws of physics version:
> You're firing at the window are you? and what gun are you using? Beretta
> 101-t... OK. The window is effectively armoured because it's designed to
> withstand the pressure differential between the cabin and the high
> atmosphere, the edge of space... but it's at the edge of space so that
> force is already being applied - so the only thing stopping your bullet
> is the factor of safety... <Rolls some dice> The inner skin of the
> window is starred by your shot but just about holds, meanwhile you get
> pushed backwards somewhat by the recoil, gravity not allowing you a firm
> firing position and you begin to somersault backwards, Now are you going
> to take your second shot?

That is a GM-version, with you using the laws of physics to flesh out
the scene. There is no rule in SR stating: "When in doubt, use the laws
of physic". Instead there is a rule stating: "What ever you do, have fun."
Of course, it is much easier to use the laws of physics we know, but
that doesn't make them the Natural Laws of the game world, unless you
want to enforce your point of view on every single SR player, which I doubt.

> Personally I much prefer the second - and I'd rather not have a main
> rulebook which I need a truck to move around as it contains rules for
> dealing with the sum of all human knowledge.

Of course. The second option of yours makes GMing easier. And a lot at
that. Surely all of use use your approach. But not because SR is a real
place, but because it makes it easier for players and GMs to
communicate, as both sides have a common framework to work from.

- --
Phillip Gawlowski

Bastard Gamemaster from Hell

"We are proud to deliver any round in under 24 hours"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDB0EikbmIhbNRDo0RAlhjAJ9aEyCjF50waTT+39rLKJ9c9kwjTgCfZyWM
3zFRyZ4tkEtFThk7szgJk0c¹23
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Physics and Realism in SR (and other games), 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!