From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: Axiom mania!
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:44:05 GMT
Organization: New York University

marcogan@student.anu.edu.au writes:

>I seem to have created a monster. But a very interesting monster,
>nonetheless. I wish I was in the same time zone as everybody else so I
>could reply less then twelve hours late...What follows is all, naturally,
>IMHO.

  A very interesting monster that I believe people are looking at from
different perspectives.

> The 'laws' of physics in, say, the Living
>Land, are simply the charcteristics of physical behaviour that the cosm
>exhibits. They may appear to superficially resemble those of Core Earth,
>but, upon examination, may be very, very different (they may well lack
>'internal consistency').

  Agreed.  It may even be that the laws of physics in LL appear to have
no internal consistency, but they must PLAY according to a consistent
set of rules.  One perspective on this conversation is that it is about
nailing down the "rules" for what constitutes the cause and effect of
a disconnection.

>So, in the Living Land, living, growing things exhibit different
>charcteristics than identical things which are not living and growing, or
>which are detatched (however recently) from living/growing things.

  Which is, IYHO, how the Living Land operates, but I doubt that other
people are using the same model.  In order for this to satisfy consistency,
it must be playable in a variety of settings involving living/unliving
components interacting in a significant manner via this rule.

> A wood
>and skin hang glider will not function like a pterodactyl, because it is
>not a pterodactyl.

  It is not sufficient to say what a wood and skin glider will not do.
For a wood and skin glider to be playable, you must state what it will
do.  I have no argument with your assertion that the glider does not
behave like a pterodactyl.  (Although I reserve my right to disagree and
play this differently.)

> In the Living Land,
>however, being alive does make a difference to whether something can fly or
>not. 

  Is this part of a world law which disallows certain types of movement
from unliving objects?  For instance, why is falling preferred to gliding?
As I understand Sean's argument, the problem of disallowing the ability
of unliving things to glide in the wind is that this is very close to
being blown by the wind.  Can dust-storms occur in LL?  How about a
tornado which enters a camp of PCs?  Does everything not strapped down
blow away or not?

>People do not have an intuitive understanding of the maximum technology
>possible in thier cosm.

  But this is as arbitrary as the notion that cosm physics must rely
upon consistent application of physical principles.  This is even
more arbitrary if we move the discussion to disconnection with the
Magic axiom rather than the Tech axiom, as magic, at least in Aysle,
does work by this principle.  (Law of Observation.)

>I see the axioms as being, barring interference from High Lords or what
>have you, fixed in a given cosm. So CE's tech level has always been 22+;...

  Again, I have no problem with this, if this is the way you wish to play
things.  (Also, I would prefer not to play things in this way, as it makes
the rules of a cosm more rigid than necessary.)

>As for the problem of the bonus to one'e Science skill rolls,...
[Discusses game mechanics that I am not concerned with.  Leonardo
daVinci's knowledge would be limited by what information he had
access to at the time.  The ability of Leonardo daVinci to learn
and to experiment in the Near Now would however depend upon how one
interprets the axiom rules.  I.e. is 15th-16th century Italy the same
cosm as Core Earth in the near now?]

>I am aware that this (a) contradicts what is in the rulebook, and
>                     (b) has little to do with the actualy *playing* of
>TORG.
>But *I* think its interesting, anyway.

  But if it has nothing to do with the game, why is it interesting for
you?  (I am curious, actually.  I'm not sure that I understand your
motivation for your arguments.)


--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg