| From: | Phil Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Mage hood |
| Date: | Tue, 6 Jun 1995 14:46:11 +0100 |
>>>Then what good is a mage hood? Actually, I always did wonder that.
>> Actually, the mage hood does lots of things that the SR game system says is
>> unnecessary: the gag tube for instance. Nobody needs to speak to cast magic,
>> unless they've got a speaking geas;
>
> Well, it'd be irritating, distracting, humiliating and (rarely)
> useful for those geased people. Isn't that enough?
Not really :) If you're keeping him captive then keep him unconcious
and if your interogatting him then a gag is a _real_ bright idea :)
>> the hood won't block your astral
>> perception I guess, because which organs do you use to astrally perceive?
>
> I think this argument is a furphy. Can you see through walls?
> Nope. You can't see through physical objects with astral perception.
The obvious retort is that I'm a sorcery adept and don't need to percieve
to start tossing spells :)
> Some people claim that a mage can astrally perceive with their eyes
> shut; this sounds ludicrous to me, and leads to contradictions like
> the above. What _is_ the justification for it, anyway?
>
> Blind mages can astrally perceive. Maybe the astral sight is a
> magical field effect localised to the place the optic nerve emerges,
> or something.
Yes I reckon you can percieve with eyes closed as your 'receptors' cannot
be the optic nerve as it has to be on the outside of your aura,
since you cannot see through your own aura. And if your aura cannot
does not extend beyond the hood then it won't extend beyond normal clothes
which could therefore be used as masking :) by covering your aura, or that
of your foci under your clothes.
>> Maybe it boils down to WYTIWYG... think that the hood won't allow you to
>> cast spells, and hey presto, and you can't cast spells...
>
> Have I ever commented on just how open to abuse the What You Think Is
> What You Get model is? It seems so obvious an invitation to munchkinism.
I'm not sure its was intended that literally, I think someone suggested
that you couldn't change the fundamental laws of astral space or magic
but rather the extent to which your understanding/link to astral space went
affects the extent of your limitations etc.. that wasn't very clear was it?
such as a shamans totem modifiers are an example of greater understanding
of empathy with
certain areas and more limited in others, and how the
greater link provided by initiation explains the higher powers... sort of..
> `Gee, my mad mage believes he's got 6 people in his head - so he can
> cast 6 spells per action, cause he thinks he can.'
Ahh but does he _really_ believe? :)
anyway he can, its called spell stacking now add +12to his TN and
watch him drop from the drain.
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
>>>Then what good is a mage hood? Actually, I always did wonder that.
>
> Also, as the hood material is opaque, you cannot "see" through it
> physically or astrally (in my game astral sight stem from the head, but
> not necessarily the eyes).
See above, note that I have not said you can see through them only
that sorcery adepts do not percieve to cast spells, and I believe the
aural synching is required with los so that the entity that is the spell
can see the target, this does not therefore require astral perception
for spell casting.
I suppose its like saying you don't need infravision to use a
heat seeking missile :)
> And finally, up to 90 dB of white noise will put a serious cramp
> in your day. I would call this a major target # penalty, on the order of +6.
but since the only time the mage needs to be awake is during interrogation
then it is almost as bad as the gag. as you cannot concentrate on
interogating and he/she cannot concentrate on answerring.
>> Maybe it boils down to WYTIWYG... think that the hood won't allow you to
>> cast spells, and hey presto, and you can't cast spells...
>
> Will you guys can it with the WYTIWYG thing. It's such a lame
> kludge, and is rapidly becoming the catch-all "well, it's magic and we
> don't want to think about how it works, so WYTIWYG."
Yes I agree that while there are valid aspects of it it is not a complete
explanation, actually its barely an explanation at all.
how about WYTIWYTYG - What You Think Is What You Think You Get.
