Re: Blue Field Proposals

[Jevan Furmanski <furmansj@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

Are you actually trying to make majiphysics manifest?  This is insanity.
We don't need to open this can, and it is ludicrous to begin with given
that we as game players know little or nothing about the matters of the
higher dimentions of the universe, let alone the fuzzy and diffuse logic
behind magic (something even less real than pseudo physics theory).

Not to flame you on the list, Sean, but I don't think we need this.  Not
the explanation anyway.

Jevan

On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Sean L. McLane wrote:

> 
> Here they are, as I intend to present to the GM Meeting.
> 
> -Sean
> 
> -------------------
> 
> Pseudo-scientific treknological explanation of Blue Fields:
> 
> When someone is placed in a blue field, Time is not stopped, but rather they 
> are taken out of the standard spacetime perceptual universe, and transported
> through the fourth dimension (that of time) to another point in standard 
> spacetime. The Blue Field that is perceived by observers still in the standard
> spacetime is not actually a field, but rather an analog image of what is being
> transported. The PFM (pure freaking magick) allows the image to stay locked 
> with the frame of reference from which it was removed, to the point where
> the subject of the spell effect is returned to normal space time. For the
> effects that only last 24 hours, this is a set duration, or a specific move
> through the fourth dimension. The effect that is permanent until revoked is
> indefinite, moving the subject through the fourth dimension until the effect
> can be dropped. The reason a revocation can be used on the image is because
> the image is an inherent part of the spell effect, and the revocation stops
> the effect, which is moving the subject through the fourth dimension. When
> it is revoked, the subject suddenly drops back in to standard spacetime, with
> the apparent effect of the 'blue field' dropping.
> 
> ***********
> Do you agree with this proposal?           Yes_____   No_____
> ***********
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> What is 'immobile'?
> 
> Here's a suggestion:
> 
> The parameters of most magickal effects are determined by the perception of
> the caster. A large number of spells won't work if the subject is not in 
> the caster's line of sight. None will work if they are too far from the caster.
> 
> Given that, I propose that immobility is defined by the perception of the
> caster as well. To all appearances, the ground does not move. A boat, however,
> does move. The argument may be made (and I expect it to be made, which is why
> I attempt to refute it beforehand) that to the perception of the caster, the
> boat is still, and the world is moving around him. This may be so, except 
> that the caster KNOWS the boat is moving with respect to the world, not the
> other way around.
> 
> Therefore, Blue Fields that are cast are immobile with respect to the ground,
> or whatever other frame of reference there is, if there is no ground in 
> perception. This final phrase allows for oddball situations like spaceships, 
> and air pockets. If a space ship appears to not be moving, and the caster 
> does not know it is moving, (an unwilling or unknowing passenger) the Blue
> Field will stay with the ship. If the caster knows the ship is moving, then
> the BF gets left behind, staying motionless with respect to the surrounding 
> perceived environment (It moves with the galaxy, because the caster cannot
> perceive the galaxy's movement). In an air pocket, the Blue Field would remain
> stationary where it was cast, relative to the surroundings.
>  
> As always, people can always come up with loopholes, like Endwarfing yourself
> small enough to fit in someone's pocket, and deferring spells on the pocket
> lint therein and then timestopping them. These special cases are subject to
> GM interpretation, but GMs should report how they adjudicated oddball things
> like this, so that consistency can be maintained.
> 
> 
> ***********
> Do you agree with this proposal?           Yes_____   No_____
> ***********
>