Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Wait for the next release. I want usable mugs damn it!

55 (71.4%)

We can use the current one. I like the big trees and slightly smarter dorfs.

17 (22.1%)

I'll take .34.11 thanks. I want to know I'll get to kill things for sure.

5 (6.5%)

Total Members Voted: 77

[Splint]

Likewise to the lot of you. Also: Who else thinks alot of people were pissed on the morning of the 22nd?

[Mr Frog]

I dunno, I was rather happy that the world as we know it hadn't ended, and that I'd have a few weeks of peace while the loonies pulled the next doomsday theory out of their collective rectums.

E: Holy crap, is this really only Turn 11!? It feels like we've gone through at least 24 turns worth of WTF by this point.

[Lolfail0009]

Yep, Turn 11.
Should be able to get through at least a month a day, so Slate'll be up later. Also, it's still Christmas in America, so Merry Christmas! (again)

[Splint]

Doesn't help that we'e suffered skips and losses like other games.... Made it seem like more turns have passed.

[Mr Frog]

Random thought that occurred to me: Should Mr Frog be capable of wielding magic? Gnomes are generally magical creatures in most other contexts I've encountered them in, and he seems pragmatic enough to use any conceivable tool at his disposal. On the other hand, he'd probably find some of the details of the current magic system as irritating as I do, would probably have used magic earlier if he could do so, and is already ten kinds of hax anyways, so I'm not sure.

[Splint]

As a whole the gnomes of Everoc probably would be pragmatists and use whatever is at their disposal, if most share that sort of nature as Mr Frog (Guess who'll be showing up as a trading race in SB II!) but on an individual level Mr frog strikes me as more inclined to ignore magic in favor of using tools and weapons he knows will work (Or is at least pretty sure they will.)

[Aseaheru]

will there be hobbits?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

i really dont know why i am still hopping for this. i mean, the movie was disappointing, but still. HOBBITS!
i imagine they will be cooks...

[soulslicerjames]

Personally, I think magic should always be at least a little chaotic and unpredictable, and therefore somewhat unreliable.  Otherwise it isn't so much magic as it is science operating under different rules.

On an unrelated note, the new Draconik picture is now officially late, Splint.

[Aseaheru]

What if it is a form of science, and our view of science is wrong?

[soulslicerjames]

What if it is a form of science, and our view of science is wrong?

Then, by how I define magic and science, it would merely be science instead of magic and our knowledge of science is faulty.  With magic, you preform an experiment where literally every variable is unchanged and get a completely different result each time, and there is no pattern to what any given change would do to a spell.  I.E. adding an extra frog eye to the mix of a potion at the very beginning of the recipe could make a water-breathing potion instead turn the drinker orange, a healing potion summon a swarm of frogs, or a strength-increasing potion growing an extra pair of arms out of your forehead.

[Splint]

I know it is but I'm somewhat of a perfectionist. I just cant seem to get it right and I refuse to post something I feel is that sub-par.

[Hanslanda]

So. I don't particularly like my voice. But Reudh asked me to put one of these on here. So. Here it is.

https://soundcloud.com/hanspanda/hanslanda

[Mr Frog]

@Splint:

If Mr Frog!gnomes go into SB2, make sure you call them 'high gnomes' or something -- DF kinda already has gnomes (Talvi pointed it out to me after the fact), which don't seem to be civilised.

@Asea:

That comment made me smile. Magic Vs Science as a trope seems to be hardwired into modern culture for some reason, which is a shame, because I've yet to see an implementation that actually makes sense.

Spoiler: Not sure where this came from (click to show/hide)

I feel that our culture's concept of magic is a memetic fossil from a bygone era in which the world itself seemed to work by magic. Nobody knew why lightning fell or why seasons changed, so saying that putting a bunch of animal parts in a giant cookpot would let one see the future made about as much sense as anything in the real world.
     However, we now, as a species, have built a fairly-comprehensive understanding of the world around us that seems to work fairly well when put into practice, so the arbitrary functioning of 'classic' magic feels jarringly-incongruous with what I currently understand to be reality, when it isn't actively-contradictory. I feel that this necessitates a change in approach, though others will disagree with me.

I also believe that the whole Magic Vs. Science thing stems from a perception that people's traditional beliefs were 'under attack' by the march of scientific progress; I say this because in most of the examples I've seen, the scientist is painted as a narrow-minded buffoon whereas the magician is always, always 100% right about everything, which indicates a degree of bias on the authours' part to me, as well as a lack of understanding of what 'science' actually is -- it usually isn't even science the magician is fighting, but rather basic human arrogance, and implicitly conflating the two like that says a lot about the authour's worldview.
     (Sometimes, if the authour is feeling charitable, the scientist will get tech-y gadgetry to play with, but the magician still gets to be an almighty know-it-all.)

(Okay, so at some point this turned into a rant about one of my many pet peeves. I'm leaving it here, though, because hopefully someone will find it interesting. I'm not looking for a debate with this, though.
     This isn't directed at what anyone in-thread said; I saw an episode of Gargoyles the other night that touched my Raeg Button, and the discussion at hand indirectly reminded me of it.)

[Aseaheru]

That still exists?

[soulslicerjames]

Mr Frog, I myself don't like the Magic Vs Science either, I am just trying to provide a clear-cut line defining whether any given thing is one or the other.  Clark's Third Law (and corollaries) leaves the only difference between the two as whether or not we understand how it works.  Therefore, I make the dividing line this:

• If the underlying means of how something works can be deconstructed to provide consistent rules for how it works and/or follow follow pre-existing ones, then it is science.  Otherwise, it is magic.
• All science in the same reality, universe, and dimension share the same set of rules, with no 2 rules being direct contradictions of each other. 
  • side-note: Magic powerful enough to change the rules science follows is the same as magic capable new realities/universes/dimensions, but these rules mean only with near omnipotence could expect to be able to control it enough to get the desired result, and even then it's all but guaranteed that some if not most minor details will be off.
• It does not matter whether or not any has figured out the rules science follows, only that they (that is, the rules) are.

Following this, magic can be far more powerful but science will always remain consistent, predictable, and reliable.  A mage could one day find none of his spells do what they originally did (like his fireball spell now summoning an orange instead) but you can always rely on a gun and predict what effects any change in the design will have.  (this would also serve as another good reason for why Dorf!Frog would not use magic.)