From: jogle@dopey.vlba.nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim))
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 07:20:54 GMT

Mark C. writes:

> Several things seem to have emerged.
> 
> Firstly, remember that technology includes materials. In the solo
> adventure, the airplane is not only a machine too complicated for the tech
> axiom, but a machine made of materials too sophisticated for the tech
> axioms. Gliding is a function of shape, not technology; if technology
> produces the shape, and the technology (materials) that maintain the
> gliding shape are not supported, then the shape will decay: the aeroplane
> should have rusted, disintegrated, or whatever. (similarly with synthetic
> fabrics in clothing)

It wouldn't have fallen apart right away, but over time it would have
(it would actually transform most likely).

> The orangewood bowstave example is somewhat more puzzling. Sure, the low
> tech axiom means no eidinos will think of using a longer bowstave. But it
> should alos mean that the longer bowstave won't work. Remember that the
> 'laws of physics' Rick talks about are the laws of Core Earth. These 'laws'
> are a function of the axioms and World Laws (try explaining the Ayslish Law
> of Observation in terms of the 'laws of physics'). So in the Living Land,
> there is not necessarily any reason why the longer bow should work... It
> might be that at Tech axiom 7, the maximum amount of enegry you can get
> from a bow is the amount you would get from a 3' shortbow; a longer bow
> will be heavier, harder to pull, but would yield no more energy. 

That sounds good to me (the excess energy gets drained away by the Everlaws
perhaps).
 
> I think that the axioms _limit_ both possibility and understanding; so not
> only will a sailboat not work in the Living Land, anyone operating under
> those axioms won't even be able to understand how it could work. However,
> axioms do not grant intuitive knowledge, either for possibility-rated
> people, or for ords. If they granted intuitive knowledge for the P-rated,
> how come some P-rated Zulu (say, Shaka. He must have been P-rated) didn't
> invent tech 22 goodies? 

Maybe he didn't the right tools?  8-)

Actually, the intuitive understanding should only come into play when a 
character transforms to a new reality, not when he disconnects.  So a 
disconnected edeinos in Core Earth may be able to use a gun now, but he
still doesn't know how it works.  If he transforms though, he has become
a part of that reality and the 'intuitive knowledge' is more a reflection
of his new ability to understand how it works rather than an immediate 
understanding of how it works (ie, if you tell the transformed edeinos
how his gun works he'll understand you, but on his own will not know the
physics of it).

> As for the Law of Action, why does the _character_ have to be concious of
> 'rolling two dice'? One of the properties of Core Earth is that it exist in
> three-dimensional space. Are you concious of this thiree dimensionality
> every time you turn a corner or go up some stairs? Does one say 'whoa, time
> to translate along the z-axis here...' to oneself before climbing a ladder?
> No, we just climb. Similarly, Nile characters simply 'try real hard' and
> (in the game-implementation of the Nile), get to roll 2 dice. Its the
> _player_ who decides _what_ to roll.

I don't remember the post but perhaps the person was using player and 
character interchangably?  A mistake yes, but a forgivable one.

> Similarly for all world laws. Ayslish charcters are not concious of thier
> 'honor adds' in the way the players are; Kanawa people may not be aware of
> the rewards of vengance in the same way the players are. And, as discussed
> a while ago, I think that Possibilities work the same way (i.e, the
> charcters are not concious of them in anything resembing the way the
> players are)

Agreed; that's the way a character should be played, but sometimes players
forget that.  How many times have you heard a player say something like 
"I'll charge the guy with the minigun, because I can use a Possibility to 
buy off the worst part of the damage"?  But what would the character be
thinking?  Certainly not that he can 'manipulate reality so that the most
favorable result arises'.

Kansas Jim (jogle@nrao.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg