Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Barriers
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 10:46:27 GMT
Damion Milliken writes

> Vincent Pellerin writes:
>

> > Think about this, a regular physical barrier stop anything physical,
> > a bullet barrier (or blade) is stopping specific things but have a lesser
> > drain. So it is logical to assume that the spell is simplier, so why
> > would it have the capacity to "recognize" objects and
"choose" to let it
> > pass or not?
>
> Well, you could always look at it the other way around. The general barrier
> spell has to recognise _everything_ which has a physical presence and stop it
> from passing (a pretty broad definition), while the specific barrier spell
> has a much easier time of it my only needing to recognise <specific thing>
> and stop it from passing (a comparatively simple task).
>
> > [Suggestion for mechanism of Bullet Barrier]
>
> Well, I can't say yay or nay, but a barrier such as that would have effects
> on more objects than just bullets I'd imagine. Likewise the idea for a Blade
> Barrier (I'd like to see someone drive through that for example, and a car
> as not exactly a blade in my books :-)).
>

The answer to how does a barrier recognise a bullet is it's magic and
how SR magic works for you depends on your world view. (FASA stated
that admission in harlequins back) Therefore i would have thought
your 'anti bullet barrier' recognises as a bullet what you have been
condioned by your experiences as a bullet as its your spell and how
it works is determined by your view of the world. Note rules abusers
thats veiw not present opinion or conveniet temporary bending of your
ideas its on the very subconciuos level so pretendings sword=bullet
for a couple of seconds won't trick the multiverse sorry.

> Adam? You out there? <grin>
>
> --
> Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
>
Mark

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.