Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: pentaj2@********.edu (pentaj2@********.edu)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:26:57 -0400
Looking at the map of North America on shadowrunrpg.com, I can only
ask one, massive question:

...What The Hell happened to California? There's no fault line where
that island was created...

John
Message no. 2
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:36:25 -0600
On 8/17/05, pentaj2@********.edu <pentaj2@********.edu> wrote:
> Looking at the map of North America on shadowrunrpg.com, I can only
> ask one, massive question:
>
> ...What The Hell happened to California? There's no fault line where
> that island was created...

Not that we know of ;)

Seriously, there was an earthquake in LA a few years ago that stunned
geologists because the epicenter was located in a spot they thought
was empty of faultlines. Course, with the quake data they were able
to identify several major faults at and around the epicenter. If it
doesn't move, they don't know about it until it moves.

So.. we all know that pressure is building along the San Andreas fault
(the big one). Its entirely plausible that the pressure could build
to the point that a new fault could be created if the San Andreas
doesn't slip (the energy has to go somewhere).

--
-Graht
Message no. 3
From: pentaj2@********.edu (pentaj2@********.edu)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:52:12 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: Graht <graht1@*****.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:36 am
Subject: Re: The new SR4 map

> On 8/17/05, pentaj2@********.edu <pentaj2@********.edu> wrote:
> > Looking at the map of North America on shadowrunrpg.com, I can only
> > ask one, massive question:
> >
> > ...What The Hell happened to California? There's no fault line
where
> > that island was created...
>
> Not that we know of ;)
>
> Seriously, there was an earthquake in LA a few years ago that stunned
> geologists because the epicenter was located in a spot they thought
> was empty of faultlines. Course, with the quake data they were able
> to identify several major faults at and around the epicenter. If it
> doesn't move, they don't know about it until it moves.
>
> So.. we all know that pressure is building along the San Andreas
fault
> (the big one). Its entirely plausible that the pressure could build
> to the point that a new fault could be created if the San Andreas
> doesn't slip (the energy has to go somewhere).

Yes, but THAT much?

How big an earthquake would be necessary to sink the area from LA down
through Baja and create the island seen?
Message no. 4
From: pb3209@****.utah.edu (Jamison Cooper-Leavitt)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:05:56 -0600
It is actually impossible for a Strike/Slip fault earthquake to cause
any land to fall into the ocean. The big one hitting is so much
Hollywood junk, that Hollywood itself should be thrown into the ocean.
The most that would happen if the 'Big one' hit is about 7-8 meters of
lateral displacement. A river bed, or roadway might be offset by a few
meters that is all, not half of the LA coast line falling into the
ocean. That is absurd.


pentaj2@********.edu wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Graht <graht1@*****.com>
>Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:36 am
>Subject: Re: The new SR4 map
>
>
>
>>On 8/17/05, pentaj2@********.edu <pentaj2@********.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Looking at the map of North America on shadowrunrpg.com, I can only
>>>ask one, massive question:
>>>
>>>...What The Hell happened to California? There's no fault line
>>>
>>>
>where
>
>
>>>that island was created...
>>>
>>>
>>Not that we know of ;)
>>
>>Seriously, there was an earthquake in LA a few years ago that stunned
>>geologists because the epicenter was located in a spot they thought
>>was empty of faultlines. Course, with the quake data they were able
>>to identify several major faults at and around the epicenter. If it
>>doesn't move, they don't know about it until it moves.
>>
>>So.. we all know that pressure is building along the San Andreas
>>
>>
>fault
>
>
>>(the big one). Its entirely plausible that the pressure could build
>>to the point that a new fault could be created if the San Andreas
>>doesn't slip (the energy has to go somewhere).
>>
>>
>
>Yes, but THAT much?
>
>How big an earthquake would be necessary to sink the area from LA down
>through Baja and create the island seen?
>
>
>
Message no. 5
From: The_Sarge@***.de (MatthÀus_Cebulla)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:19:15 +0200
> It is actually impossible for a Strike/Slip fault earthquake to cause
> any land to fall into the ocean. The big one hitting is so much
> Hollywood junk, that Hollywood itself should be thrown into the ocean.
> The most that would happen if the 'Big one' hit is about 7-8 meters of
> lateral displacement. A river bed, or roadway might be offset by a few
> meters that is all, not half of the LA coast line falling into the
> ocean. That is absurd.

You're all correct, but why are you only assuming a natural cause
for this? I mean... With dargons flying around and terrorist wackos
like Winternight. Or even Saito getting overzealous and trying some-
thing incredibly stupid, there could be enough other ways for land
to go awry in the 6th world. ;)

Matthäus
Message no. 6
From: shadowrun@*****.net (Abschalten)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:18:07 -0400
Oh hey, anybody know what happened to Atlantis? ;)



> It is actually impossible for a Strike/Slip fault earthquake to cause
> any land to fall into the ocean. The big one hitting is so much
> Hollywood junk, that Hollywood itself should be thrown into the ocean.
> The most that would happen if the 'Big one' hit is about 7-8 meters of
> lateral displacement. A river bed, or roadway might be offset by a few
> meters that is all, not half of the LA coast line falling into the
> ocean. That is absurd.
Message no. 7
From: sfeley@*****.com (Stephen Eley)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:16:00 -0400
On 8/17/05, Abschalten <shadowrun@*****.net> wrote:
> Oh hey, anybody know what happened to Atlantis? ;)

I ate it. It was delicious.

--
Have Fun,
Steve Eley (sfeley@*****.com)
ESCAPE POD - the SF podcast magazine
http://escape.extraneous.org
Message no. 8
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:22:36 -0600
On 8/17/05, Abschalten <shadowrun@*****.net> wrote:
> Oh hey, anybody know what happened to Atlantis? ;)

I left it out in the rain, and it melted <sob>.

;)

<GridSec>

Btw, please place your replies after/below quoted text. Thank you :)

</GridSec>

--
-Graht
Message no. 9
From: zebulingod@*******.net (Zebulin)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:28:32 -0700
Matthäus Cebulla wrote:
#
#You're all correct, but why are you only assuming a natural
#cause for this? I mean... With dargons flying around and
#terrorist wackos like Winternight. Or even Saito getting
#overzealous and trying some- thing incredibly stupid, there
#could be enough other ways for land to go awry in the 6th world. ;)
#
#Matthäus
#

Agreed, why argue physics, in a world of magic?

Zebulin

AIM: zebulingod
ICQ: 21932827
WEB: http://www.zebulin.com/
MSN: zebulingod
YIM: zebulingod
SRGC: SR1 SR2++ SR3+++ h+ b+++ !B UB IE+
RN+ STK++ W- dk+ ri++ m-(d++) gm++ M- P++
Message no. 10
From: davek@***.lonestar.org (David Kettler)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:53:44 +0000
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 10:28:32AM -0700, Zebulin wrote:
> Agreed, why argue physics, in a world of magic?
>
> Zebulin
>

Because it's fun? ;)

--
Dave Kettler
davek@***.lonestar.org
http://davek.freeshell.org/
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Message no. 11
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:35:59 -0600
On 8/17/05, David Kettler <davek@***.lonestar.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 10:28:32AM -0700, Zebulin wrote:
> > Agreed, why argue physics, in a world of magic?
> >
> > Zebulin
> >
>
> Because it's fun? ;)

And it gives us a distraction at work ;)

--
-Graht
Message no. 12
From: snicker@*********.net (snicker@*********.net)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:43:09 +0000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pentaj2@********.edu [mailto:pentaj2@********.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 03:52 PM
> To: 'Shadowrun Discussion'
> Subject: Re: The new SR4 map
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Graht <graht1@*****.com>
> Date: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:36 am
> Subject: Re: The new SR4 map
>
> > On 8/17/05, pentaj2@********.edu <pentaj2@********.edu> wrote:
> > > Looking at the map of North America on shadowrunrpg.com, I can only
> > > ask one, massive question:
> > >
> > > ...What The Hell happened to California? There's no fault line
> where
> > > that island was created...
> >
> > Not that we know of ;)
> >
> > Seriously, there was an earthquake in LA a few years ago that stunned
> > geologists because the epicenter was located in a spot they thought
> > was empty of faultlines. Course, with the quake data they were able
> > to identify several major faults at and around the epicenter. If it
> > doesn't move, they don't know about it until it moves.
> >
> > So.. we all know that pressure is building along the San Andreas
> fault
> > (the big one). Its entirely plausible that the pressure could build
> > to the point that a new fault could be created if the San Andreas
> > doesn't slip (the energy has to go somewhere).
>
> Yes, but THAT much?
>
> How big an earthquake would be necessary to sink the area from LA down
> through Baja and create the island seen?

Well, I don't know many weather systems powerful enough to create a permanent fogbank
impenetrable to even radar... but that doesn't stop the 'Nog. Sometimes you gotta ignore
physics and such in favour of the cinematics of the game. It's like a Kurt Russell movie:
implausible as all hell, but a heckuva fun thing to watch.

*snicker*
Message no. 13
From: Steve.Garrard@********.co.za (Steve Garrard)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 14:38:50 +0200
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.


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. 14
From: korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:09:57 -0700 (PDT)
> > Agreed, why argue physics, in a world of magic?

> Because it's fun? ;)

Actually, I submit that it is necessary. Necessary because the topic
in a different thread where someone spoke of preferring "John Woo
action" to realism.

Why are John Woo movies more exciting than the Olympics? Olympic
athletes do things that shouls astound us. In their field, they
accomplish feats most of us could never duplicate. Their practice
runs break the barrier of what most other athletes in their field can
do. But, we do not as a rule pour a lot of money into snacks to sit
in a large theater and watch them perform. Why? We do it for John
Woo movies with unrealistic stunts that are pure fantasy, but not for
the real thing. Why?

Because we know the real thing. We know it is doable. Even if it is
beyond our own capability. We see some stunt in an action flick and
we know that we are witnessing a combination of fantastic stunt work,
amazing camera work, and ever more impressive special effects. We
are enthralled and entertained by the contrast between real and
imaginary. Which requires knowing what is real. How do we capture
the excitement of a John Woo film within our game if we do not first
have a baseline of realism against which to contrast our character's
feat? Quite simply, we can't.

So we take Shadowrun, set in a near-future Earth, and grant it the
same physics we are familiar with from our real world. Now that
human street sam grabbing a Harley and tossing it at the troll is
"cool". As opposed to something anyone can do, even any olympic
bodybuilder. The fact that the size of a troll is impressive at all
is because of the contrast between the description of a troll and
what we ~know~. Hence, realism is a necessary baseline for fantasy
to impress and entertain. Gravity functions in SR as it does in our
world, so we are then thrilled when our character pulls off something
extraordinary, that we could not (and that an Olympian could not).
You see, we have to agree on what ordinary is before we can revel in
the extraordinary.

And magic is the great stumbling block. What is a baseline metric
for magic? Gravity, friction, conductivity, magnetism... these work
in SR as they do in the real world (or as nearly as we can portray
then within the limits of our understanding of them). The internal
consitency of the world is maintained, and suspension of disbelief
becomes possible. But Invisibility? How does it work? Does it
effect light? Or the senses of the viewer? We have to agree on what
the word means, and how magic accomplishes it, before we can know
what is possible, plausible, and "ordinary".

Arguing realism and debating physics is MORE important in a setting
where you have a completely contrived set of metaphysics. You have
to establish conventions. Otherwise dragon breath and flame throwers
cannot be contrasted equally for all your players. I can't convey to
you how impressive a dragon is in my game if I don't give you some
frame of reference for contrasting the dragon with its surroundings.
It's called perspective. A cockroach looks pretty massive in a crowd
of ants. A basketball is going to stand out in a bucket of tennis
balls. How are you going to distinguish extraordinary unless you
establish conventions?

For example... an earthquake turning part of California into an
island. Is that within the realm of physics for SR? No. Because SR
physics are extrapolated from real world physics and anyone can
learn, with a half hour of research, that in our world that can't
happen. Is it within the realm of metaphysics for SR? Yes. In so
far as it would take magic on the scale of the Great Ghost Dance...
yes. If some kid with a Force 8 telekinesis spell did it, your game
world pretty much comes crumbling down. Your conventions of scale
just got fragged. Sunspension of disbelief is irrelevant, since no
one knows where to start suspending.

So, I submit that in a world of magic, arguing physics is a
necessity. It's the only way we can establish which things are
magical.

======Korishinzo
--"Here there be dragons!"
"How do you know?"
"Because we haven't found them anywhere else, and this is
the only place we haven't been."



____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Message no. 15
From: pentaj2@********.edu (pentaj2@********.edu)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:41:36 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: Ice Heart <korishinzo@*****.com>
Date: Thursday, August 18, 2005 1:09 pm
Subject: Re: The new SR4 map

<snip>

<applause>
Message no. 16
From: graht1@*****.com (Graht)
Subject: The new SR4 map
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:04:53 -0600
Okay, here's my problem with the new California look. I don't think
that whoever made the map (sorry if it was you Adam ;) took a good
look at a topographic map of California. There are areas that flooded
that used to be mountainous/hilly, where as areas that are flat are
still above water. I think the map wasn't drawn with regards to
existing terrain features and that southern California wasn't flooded
that badly.

Or, it was a major fragging earthquake on a scale that would have
knocked down every building in California and neighboring states.
That's not an earthquake with an epicenter, it's a massive drop/slip
along 300+ miles of faultline. At first it sounds like a cool idea,
until you start to think about it and the actual results of that much
energy being released.

I'm gonna go with option 1 and say that he map is "not to scale" ;)

--
-Graht

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about The new SR4 map, 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!