Interesting city locations

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

I've used a city set on top of a messa and a city hidden in the
twistings of a canyon. What other nteresting places have people put cities?
Ken
77 answers Last reply
More about interesting city locations
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    > I've used a city set on top of a messa and a city hidden in the
    > twistings of a canyon. What other nteresting places have people put cities?
    > Ken

    There's always the ye old floating city in the clouds. Could put one in a
    sea of magma... Could put one on top of a giant geyser (or series of
    geysers) that rises up as the geyser(s) erupt. Perhaps tilting as the
    geysers erupt at different levels. Delicately balanced atop a narrow
    spire. Perched below a mountain that is floating above the city.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    In article <1vadnaY9X8TWWQ7fRVn-hw@rogers.com>, Ken Vale <k3nv4l3@r0g3r5.com>
    wrote:

    > I've used a city set on top of a messa and a city hidden in the
    > twistings of a canyon. What other nteresting places have people put cities?

    Under the Arabian Desert, and the under the snow at the South Pole. There's also
    one at the center of the Earth, but my PCs never made it that far - damn their
    oily hides! :-)
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Lots of interesting places over the years. Two of the more interesting
    were (1) slightly out of phase with the rest of the world so that there
    were entry and passage of time effects and (2) at the nexus of the
    entries to several outer planes. (This was about ten years before TSR
    made it cool to think about a town with lots of gateways in it.)

    In service,

    Rich
    http://www.drgames.org
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Ken Vale wrote:
    > I've used a city set on top of a messa and a city hidden in the
    > twistings of a canyon. What other nteresting places have people put cities?

    I've used gigantic creatures in some of my city building.
    One was built in and among the bones of what seemed to
    be a huge dragon, one with ribs that stretched upwards
    for miles. Another was built on the back of a mile-long
    whale that always swam at the surface. A jungle
    civilization built their towns in the branches of
    very large ent-like creatures in a sort of symbiotic
    relationship.

    Cities in regular trees can be nice, or in the boughs
    of a singular giant tree. Others have already mentioned
    cities in the clouds, I've made ones ruled by cloud
    giants or Djinn and I've made others that were built
    on rock that was overgrown with a magical levitating
    moss.

    One ancient city was in a high, narrow mountain valley,
    built into the cliffs on both sides and connected by
    a web of bridges. The city's government center was
    a tower hanging in space in the middle of the valley,
    supported by several bridges that came together there.

    While I haven't used them, I've seen fantasy works
    that included city-sized sailing vessels.

    One of my characters met a wizard who showed him
    a bottle that magically contained an entire city.
    I don't know if the bottle was a gate to where the
    city was, or if the city was shrunk down like Kandor
    (the bottled Kryptonian city in Superman's Fortress
    of Solitude). The wizard may have simply had a
    magical version of a snow globe, some sort of illusion.

    Walt Smith
    Firelock on DALNet
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    <firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1117049945.325929.6550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Ken Vale wrote:
    >> I've used a city set on top of a messa and a city hidden in the
    >> twistings of a canyon. What other nteresting places have people put
    >> cities?
    >
    > I've used gigantic creatures in some of my city building.
    > One was built in and among the bones of what seemed to
    > be a huge dragon, one with ribs that stretched upwards
    > for miles. Another was built on the back of a mile-long
    > whale that always swam at the surface. A jungle
    > civilization built their towns in the branches of
    > very large ent-like creatures in a sort of symbiotic
    > relationship.

    Or a greater Tarrasque or god or a "normal" human...
    >
    > Cities in regular trees can be nice, or in the boughs
    > of a singular giant tree. Others have already mentioned
    > cities in the clouds, I've made ones ruled by cloud
    > giants or Djinn and I've made others that were built
    > on rock that was overgrown with a magical levitating
    > moss.

    Or in THE tree of life.
    >
    > One ancient city was in a high, narrow mountain valley,
    > built into the cliffs on both sides and connected by
    > a web of bridges. The city's government center was
    > a tower hanging in space in the middle of the valley,
    > supported by several bridges that came together there.
    >
    > While I haven't used them, I've seen fantasy works
    > that included city-sized sailing vessels.
    >
    > One of my characters met a wizard who showed him
    > a bottle that magically contained an entire city.
    > I don't know if the bottle was a gate to where the
    > city was, or if the city was shrunk down like Kandor
    > (the bottled Kryptonian city in Superman's Fortress
    > of Solitude). The wizard may have simply had a
    > magical version of a snow globe, some sort of illusion.
    >
    > Walt Smith
    > Firelock on DALNet
    >
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    In article <1117049945.325929.6550@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
    firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:

    > The city's government center was
    > a tower hanging in space in the middle of the valley,
    > supported by several bridges that came together there.

    I can see a coup being pretty easy to pull off in this town :-)
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    On Wed, 25 May 2005 11:00:17 -0400, Kent Allard
    <evil@hearts_of_men.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the
    rec.games.frp.gurps beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following

    >In article <1vadnaY9X8TWWQ7fRVn-hw@rogers.com>, Ken Vale <k3nv4l3@r0g3r5.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >> I've used a city set on top of a messa and a city hidden in the
    >> twistings of a canyon. What other nteresting places have people put cities?
    >
    >Under the Arabian Desert, and the under the snow at the South Pole. There's also
    >one at the center of the Earth, but my PCs never made it that far - damn their
    >oily hides! :-)

    On a series of small islands. Most of the city is made up of boats
    and barges. Occasionally, entire neighborhoods drift off with the
    tide.

    Inside an extinct volcano.

    The one thing to remember about cities, if you are clinging to any
    remnants of realism, is that the inhabitants have three main
    requirements that cannot be ignored:

    1. Water.

    2. Food.

    3. Waste disposal.

    Without these three, there will be no city.

    --

    Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
    Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5

    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
    when they do it from religious conviction."
    Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    In article <pqi9915psua8sb8k27v6k4fdlu01l3bphv@4ax.com>,
    Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:

    > On a series of small islands. Most of the city is made up of boats
    > and barges. Occasionally, entire neighborhoods drift off with the
    > tide.

    I'm working my PCs toward a floating city. Found some really good inspiration
    here....

    http://oceania.org/

    No need for me to draw up maps :-)
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Kent Allard wrote:
    > In article <pqi9915psua8sb8k27v6k4fdlu01l3bphv@4ax.com>,
    > Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>On a series of small islands. Most of the city is made up of boats
    >>and barges. Occasionally, entire neighborhoods drift off with the
    >>tide.
    >
    >
    > I'm working my PCs toward a floating city. Found some really good inspiration
    > here....
    >
    > http://oceania.org/
    >
    > No need for me to draw up maps :-)


    Have you read The Scar? An interesting floating city with a
    steampunk/horror setting.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    In article <8x4le.828947$w62.140578@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
    "Michael W. Ryder" <_mwryder@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

    > Have you read The Scar? An interesting floating city with a
    > steampunk/horror setting.

    Never saw it, but I generally know what I want when I go into my local game
    shop, so I don't browse too much, especially in genres that might not seem to
    mesh with my current scenario. (I love maps and especially maps with lots of
    built in detail/history.)
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    I have a gnome city in my campaign that is carved out of the inside of a
    mountain. There are absolutely no bricks, stones, or masonry used in the
    construction. The gemstone traces provide nice light play through the walls,
    bridges, and stairways.
    "Ken Vale" <k3nv4l3@r0g3r5.com> wrote in message
    news:1vadnaY9X8TWWQ7fRVn-hw@rogers.com...
    > I've used a city set on top of a messa and a city hidden in the twistings
    > of a canyon. What other nteresting places have people put cities?
    > Ken
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Kent Allard wrote:
    > In article <8x4le.828947$w62.140578@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
    > "Michael W. Ryder" <_mwryder@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Have you read The Scar? An interesting floating city with a
    >>steampunk/horror setting.
    >
    >
    > Never saw it, but I generally know what I want when I go into my local game
    > shop, so I don't browse too much, especially in genres that might not seem to
    > mesh with my current scenario. (I love maps and especially maps with lots of
    > built in detail/history.)


    It's the second book in a series by China Mieville. Very good writing
    and some neat ideas. The series includes a lot of detail about the area
    and the people.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Ken Vale wrote:
    > I've used a city set on top of a messa and a city hidden in the
    > twistings of a canyon. What other nteresting places have people put cities?
    > Ken


    In a large series of caves and caverns on a rugged coast. The only
    entries were a couple of large ramp/tunnel/gates or small
    stairways on the bluffs, and via ship or boat through the cave
    entrances at the foot of the cliffs by the sea. Some of the
    Subterranean caverns that were part of the city were only
    accesssible by teleportation gates, or by travelling underwater
    for a time.

    Re,
    Dirk
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Ken Vale wrote:
    > I've used a city set on top of a messa and a city hidden in the
    > twistings of a canyon. What other nteresting places have people put cities?
    > Ken

    I put a Half Orc city inside a volcano. It was under the floor of the
    caldera crater and was lit by the red glow of the lava about a mile down
    below.

    --
    The Kedamono Dragon
    Pull Pinky's favorite words to email me.
    http://www.ahtg.net
    Have Mac, will Compute

    Check out the PowerPointers Shop at:
    http://www.cafeshops.com/PowerPointers

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Wrapped around a spire of stone (think Devil's Tower with a city wrapped
    around it)

    As part of a waterfall (the waterfall steps down several cataracts as it
    passes through the various levels of the city - this is the main city in my
    fantasy campaign)
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
    > "Sam Spade" <sam@spade.com> writes:
    >
    >
    > > As part of a waterfall (the waterfall steps down several cataracts as it
    > > passes through the various levels of the city - this is the main city in my
    > > fantasy campaign)
    >
    > Have you read "Dinotopia" (or seen the movie)? It uses that idea.

    Waterfall City, very visually impressive. The Dinotopia movie
    was so-so, but some of the visuals were astounding and the
    view of Waterfall City was one of them.

    I remembered another city that one of my characters encountered,
    but we never learned its name. There was a temple on a hill in
    the city center with large bells in tall towers, and we guessed
    that the bells cast some sort of magical silence over the entire
    city and for a mile or so around it. I suppose this counts as
    an unusual "setting" - a setting of silence. The inhabitants
    were mostly illiterate, and communicated through a hand & body
    sign language sort of like the Drow can use. The lords of the
    city were some mysterious monks who didn't take kindly to
    disruptive strangers.

    Walt Smith
    Firelock on DALNet
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    "Sam Spade" <sam@spade.com> writes:


    > As part of a waterfall (the waterfall steps down several cataracts as it
    > passes through the various levels of the city - this is the main city in my
    > fantasy campaign)

    Have you read "Dinotopia" (or seen the movie)? It uses that idea.

    Other interesting locations:

    - On a narrow land bridge between two large land masses. Lot's of
    trade and toll opportunities.

    - On both sides of a narrow channel separating two large land masses.
    Ditto.

    - Floating on a matte of seaweed-like plants.

    - On a narrow ledge on a cliff face. The houses would be built on
    the out-facing side of the ledge, with a single street between the
    houses and the cliff. A few dwellings may also be carved out of
    the cliff.

    - On a bridge: A bridge spans a shallow channel between two land
    masses, with houses built into the columns supporting the bridge.

    Torben
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    In article <7zu0kqjthn.fsf@app-2.diku.dk>,
    torbenm@diku.dk (Torben AEgidius Mogensen) wrote:

    > - Floating on a matte of seaweed-like plants.

    I did this once. In the sargasso sea, but it wasn't so much a city as it was a
    collection of lost ships stuck in the swirling net of vegetation.
    --
    Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts and minds of men? The Shadow do!
    --Flip Wilson
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Ken Vale wrote:
    > I've used a city set on top of a messa and a city hidden in the
    > twistings of a canyon. What other nteresting places have people put cities?
    > Ken

    A city I created, but never used, is situated on a narrow strip of land
    separating an inner sea from the ocean. The sea level of the inner sea
    is about 100 ft lower than the ocean.

    This city thus has two harbors, one at the ocean side (inside a rougly
    circular bay, the result of an ancient meteor crash), and another at the
    shore of the inner sea. A system of pulleys and tracks is used to haul
    freight between these two harbors.

    A lot of land traffic between the southern and northern subcontinents
    goes through the city - you have to pass through if you pass along the
    land strip.

    The citystate is protected by a rather large navy and by huge walls on
    the land sides.

    - Klaus
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
    > - On a narrow land bridge between two large land masses. Lot's of
    > trade and toll opportunities.

    Not necessarily. Moving goods by water is cheaper than
    moving them by road.

    GURPS Low-Tech (for 3rd Edition) says that river freight is
    5 times cheaper than road freight, and sea freight is 5
    times cheaper than river freight. That's taking the cost of
    food, for the crew and for beasts of burden, into account.

    --
    Peter Knutsen
    sagatafl.org
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Andrew James Alan Welty wrote:
    > There's always the ye old floating city in the clouds. Could put one in a

    But if the laws of magic in the setting are thus that
    floating cities can be created, what *else* can magic do?
    (And why is nobody doing those other things?)

    > sea of magma... Could put one on top of a giant geyser (or series of
    > geysers) that rises up as the geyser(s) erupt. Perhaps tilting as the

    Again, if magic can do those exceedingly powerful things,
    magic should also be capable of doing other exceedingly
    powerful things.

    And seeing as the setting is populated by Humans, a species
    which is by definition aggressively ambitious, if something
    is magically possible then Humans *will* be doing it.

    > geysers erupt at different levels. Delicately balanced atop a narrow
    > spire. Perched below a mountain that is floating above the city.

    --
    Peter Knutsen
    sagatafl.org
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:

    >
    > Andrew James Alan Welty wrote:
    >
    >> There's always the ye old floating city in the clouds. Could put one
    >> in a
    >
    >
    > But if the laws of magic in the setting are thus that floating cities
    > can be created, what *else* can magic do? (And why is nobody doing those
    > other things?)
    >
    >> sea of magma... Could put one on top of a giant geyser (or series of
    >> geysers) that rises up as the geyser(s) erupt. Perhaps tilting as the
    >
    >
    > Again, if magic can do those exceedingly powerful things, magic should
    > also be capable of doing other exceedingly powerful things.
    >
    > And seeing as the setting is populated by Humans, a species which is by
    > definition aggressively ambitious, if something is magically possible
    > then Humans *will* be doing it.
    >
    >> geysers erupt at different levels. Delicately balanced atop a narrow
    >> spire. Perched below a mountain that is floating above the city.
    >

    Some human artifacts /are/ more or less one-of-a-kind though. Consider the
    Great Wall of China or the Concorde*. Not everything that can be done will be
    done more than once. It would be very easy to assume that such constructs
    ("city in the clouds" or "city in a volcano") are prohibitively expensive, and
    thus, unlikely to be duplicated. Now, of course, you have to justify why it was
    done the first time. But that's the fun part.

    * not that there was only a single Concorde, but that despite further advances
    in aviation technology, there has not been (though I could be mistaken) another
    attempt to construct a supersonic commercial aircraft
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Aluddy wrote:
    > Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Andrew James Alan Welty wrote:
    >>
    >>> There's always the ye old floating city in the clouds. Could put one
    >>> in a
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> But if the laws of magic in the setting are thus that floating cities
    >> can be created, what *else* can magic do? (And why is nobody doing
    >> those other things?)
    >>
    >>> sea of magma... Could put one on top of a giant geyser (or series of
    >>> geysers) that rises up as the geyser(s) erupt. Perhaps tilting as the
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Again, if magic can do those exceedingly powerful things, magic should
    >> also be capable of doing other exceedingly powerful things.
    >>
    >> And seeing as the setting is populated by Humans, a species which is
    >> by definition aggressively ambitious, if something is magically
    >> possible then Humans *will* be doing it.
    >>
    >>> geysers erupt at different levels. Delicately balanced atop a narrow
    >>> spire. Perched below a mountain that is floating above the city.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Some human artifacts /are/ more or less one-of-a-kind though. Consider
    > the Great Wall of China or the Concorde*. Not everything that can be
    > done will be done more than once. It would be very easy to assume that
    > such constructs ("city in the clouds" or "city in a volcano") are
    > prohibitively expensive, and thus, unlikely to be duplicated. Now, of
    > course, you have to justify why it was done the first time. But that's
    > the fun part.
    >
    > * not that there was only a single Concorde, but that despite further
    > advances in aviation technology, there has not been (though I could be
    > mistaken) another attempt to construct a supersonic commercial aircraft

    See Hadrian's Wall, see the Russian counter to the Concorde (dubed
    Concordeski because it was very similiar to the Concorde). If it has
    been done once it has been done many times (the pyramids in Egypt,
    Thailand, Central America).
    Ken
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Aluddy wrote:
    > Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Andrew James Alan Welty wrote:
    >>
    >>> There's always the ye old floating city in the clouds. Could put one
    >>> in a
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> But if the laws of magic in the setting are thus that floating cities
    >> can be created, what *else* can magic do? (And why is nobody doing
    >> those other things?)
    >>
    >>> sea of magma... Could put one on top of a giant geyser (or series of
    >>> geysers) that rises up as the geyser(s) erupt. Perhaps tilting as the
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Again, if magic can do those exceedingly powerful things, magic should
    >> also be capable of doing other exceedingly powerful things.
    >>
    >> And seeing as the setting is populated by Humans, a species which is
    >> by definition aggressively ambitious, if something is magically
    >> possible then Humans *will* be doing it.
    >>
    >>> geysers erupt at different levels. Delicately balanced atop a narrow
    >>> spire. Perched below a mountain that is floating above the city.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Some human artifacts /are/ more or less one-of-a-kind though. Consider
    > the Great Wall of China or the Concorde*. Not everything that can be
    > done will be done more than once. It would be very easy to assume that
    > such constructs ("city in the clouds" or "city in a volcano") are
    > prohibitively expensive, and thus, unlikely to be duplicated. Now, of
    > course, you have to justify why it was done the first time. But that's
    > the fun part.
    >
    > * not that there was only a single Concorde, but that despite further
    > advances in aviation technology, there has not been (though I could be
    > mistaken) another attempt to construct a supersonic commercial aircraft


    Boeing had its SST before ending the project in the early 70's.
    Supposedly it was capable of over Mach 2.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    On Thu, 26 May 2005 21:20:19 +0200, Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:

    >
    > Torben Ægidius Mogensen wrote:
    >> - On a narrow land bridge between two large land masses. Lot's of
    >> trade and toll opportunities.
    >
    > Not necessarily. Moving goods by water is cheaper than
    > moving them by road.
    >
    > GURPS Low-Tech (for 3rd Edition) says that river freight is
    > 5 times cheaper than road freight, and sea freight is 5
    > times cheaper than river freight. That's taking the cost of
    > food, for the crew and for beasts of burden, into account.

    Remember, such a city would be raking it in on 'freight forwarding':
    Ships come in on one side, they offload the cargo going to the other side,
    which is then carted the short distance to the other docks and loaded on
    ships.

    Now, since this would mean you have what amounts to not one, but two
    major ports: You also get a fair draw for overland freight, even assuming
    the two continents are relatively narrow.

    --
    Phoenix
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    "Peter Knutsen (usenet)" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

    > Andrew James Alan Welty wrote:
    >> There's always the ye old floating city in the clouds.
    >
    > But if the laws of magic in the setting are thus that
    > floating cities can be created, what *else* can magic do?
    > (And why is nobody doing those other things?)

    It might be an exotic natural phenomenon. Imagine a material
    'cloudstone' that is as strong as granite, but a bit lighter
    than air. It would tend to rise until it reached an altitude
    where it's neutrally bouyant and then stay there.

    (idea stolen from Vernor Vinge's 'bobbles'...)

    --
    >;k
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    > > As part of a waterfall (the waterfall steps down several cataracts as it
    > > passes through the various levels of the city - this is the main city in
    my
    > > fantasy campaign)
    >
    > Have you read "Dinotopia" (or seen the movie)? It uses that idea.
    >

    No. I steer clear of anything with "dino" in the title, since they all seem
    to be targeted at children. I wouldn't mind settings with dinosaurs if
    someone would write for adults.

    > On both sides of a narrow channel separating two large land masses.

    RL example: Istanbul
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    On Thu, 26 May 2005 17:52:58 -0400, Ken Vale wrote:

    > Aluddy wrote:
    >> Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
    >>
    >>> Again, if magic can do those exceedingly powerful things, magic should
    >>> also be capable of doing other exceedingly powerful things.
    >>>
    >>> And seeing as the setting is populated by Humans, a species which is
    >>> by definition aggressively ambitious, if something is magically
    >>> possible then Humans *will* be doing it.
    >>
    >> Some human artifacts /are/ more or less one-of-a-kind though. Consider
    >> the Great Wall of China or the Concorde*. Not everything that can be
    >> done will be done more than once. It would be very easy to assume that
    >> such constructs ("city in the clouds" or "city in a volcano") are
    >> prohibitively expensive, and thus, unlikely to be duplicated. Now, of
    >> course, you have to justify why it was done the first time. But that's
    >> the fun part.
    >>
    > See Hadrian's Wall, see the Russian counter to the Concorde (dubed
    > Concordeski because it was very similiar to the Concorde). If it has
    > been done once it has been done many times (the pyramids in Egypt,
    > Thailand, Central America).

    When magic's involved, you can have some extreme costs.

    "magicmumblemumblemagicmumble"

    "Now I will know what is needed to forge another Heart of Fire!"

    "ok, ok, ok, I could get that, that's hard but doable..."

    "THE RED DRAGON MATRIARCH AND HER ENTIRE BROOD, _ALIVE_?!? AS A BLOOD
    SACRIFICE?!?!?"


    "Ohhhkaaay, 'living god' was more than just embellishment."

    --
    Phoenix
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Ken Vale wrote:
    > Aluddy wrote:
    >> Some human artifacts /are/ more or less one-of-a-kind though.
    >> Consider the Great Wall of China or the Concorde*. Not everything
    >> that can be done will be done more than once. It would be very easy
    >> to assume that such constructs ("city in the clouds" or "city in a
    >> volcano") are prohibitively expensive, and thus, unlikely to be
    >> duplicated. Now, of course, you have to justify why it was done the
    >> first time. But that's the fun part.
    >>
    >> * not that there was only a single Concorde, but that despite further
    >> advances in aviation technology, there has not been (though I could be
    >> mistaken) another attempt to construct a supersonic commercial aircraft
    >
    >
    > See Hadrian's Wall, see the Russian counter to the Concorde (dubed
    > Concordeski because it was very similiar to the Concorde). If it has
    > been done once it has been done many times (the pyramids in Egypt,
    > Thailand, Central America).
    > Ken

    Hadrian's Wall - 118 km long.
    Great Wall of China - 2400 km long.
    Not the same thing.

    I grant you that the Soviets may have produced an SST. Another poster mentioned
    that Boeing had as SST project in the early 70's reportedly capable of Mach 2
    before canceling the project (which I thing almost strengthens my point).

    Many things are simply NOT worth repeating. Peter's post seemed to say that if
    magic could do these things once, then it could do them all the time. That is
    not necessarily the case, IMO. You may feel differently, of course.

    Could have added the Spruce Goose, too.
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Aluddy wrote:
    > Ken Vale wrote:
    >
    >> Aluddy wrote:
    >>
    >>> Some human artifacts /are/ more or less one-of-a-kind though.
    >>> Consider the Great Wall of China or the Concorde*. Not everything
    >>> that can be done will be done more than once. It would be very easy
    >>> to assume that such constructs ("city in the clouds" or "city in a
    >>> volcano") are prohibitively expensive, and thus, unlikely to be
    >>> duplicated. Now, of course, you have to justify why it was done the
    >>> first time. But that's the fun part.
    >>>
    >>> * not that there was only a single Concorde, but that despite further
    >>> advances in aviation technology, there has not been (though I could
    >>> be mistaken) another attempt to construct a supersonic commercial
    >>> aircraft
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> See Hadrian's Wall, see the Russian counter to the Concorde (dubed
    >> Concordeski because it was very similiar to the Concorde). If it has
    >> been done once it has been done many times (the pyramids in Egypt,
    >> Thailand, Central America).
    >> Ken
    >
    >
    > Hadrian's Wall - 118 km long.
    > Great Wall of China - 2400 km long.
    > Not the same thing.
    >
    > I grant you that the Soviets may have produced an SST. Another poster
    > mentioned that Boeing had as SST project in the early 70's reportedly
    > capable of Mach 2 before canceling the project (which I thing almost
    > strengthens my point).
    >

    Actually, the problem with Boeing's SST project was that our government
    pulled out of the project, something the British and French governments
    didn't do. The reason I remember hearing at the time was that there was
    no need for two supersonic passenger planes.


    > Many things are simply NOT worth repeating. Peter's post seemed to say
    > that if magic could do these things once, then it could do them all the
    > time. That is not necessarily the case, IMO. You may feel differently,
    > of course.
    >
    > Could have added the Spruce Goose, too.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    On Thu, 26 May 2005 17:52:58 -0400, Ken Vale <k3nv4l3@r0g3r5.com>
    wrote:
    >See Hadrian's Wall, see the Russian counter to the Concorde (dubed
    >Concordeski because it was very similiar to the Concorde).

    Hadrian's wall, while impressive, is just not on the same scale as the
    Great Wall of China. The Russian SST was a bad rip-off of Concorde,
    and was junked even (far) quicker.

    Some ideas just turn out not to be worth doing very much.

    Magic also introduces the possibility of one-off inputs and materials.
    If your cloud city was built by a sky titan who's since been slain by
    the gods for giving mortals ideas, or is supported by the magic of a
    unique Usulum Gem, you ain't gettin' two, not without some hot heroic
    PC action.

    --
    Phil Masters http://www.philm.demon.co.uk
    Consternation: RPG Convention, Cambridge, 2005:
    http://www.consternation.org.uk/
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Mad Bad Rabbit wrote:

    >It might be an exotic natural phenomenon. Imagine a material
    >'cloudstone' that is as strong as granite, but a bit lighter
    >than air. It would tend to rise until it reached an altitude
    >where it's neutrally bouyant and then stay there.
    >
    I can just see a little bit of turbulance or wind shear sending your
    city slowly tumbling end over end ...

    Luke
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    LukeCampbell <lwcampbe@uci.thetrash.edu> wrote:

    > Mad Bad Rabbit wrote:
    >
    >>It might be an exotic natural phenomenon. Imagine a material
    >>'cloudstone' that is as strong as granite, but a bit lighter
    >>than air. It would tend to rise until it reached an altitude
    >>where it's neutrally bouyant and then stay there.
    >>
    > I can just see a little bit of turbulance or wind shear
    > sending your city slowly tumbling end over end ...

    I think it'd be stable against capsizing, because if it's (say)
    a few miles in diameter, then trying to upend it would push the
    top edge up into much less dense air than the center-of-gravity;
    so the weight would force it back down towards the horizontal.
    Similarly, as the bottom edge was pushed down into denser air,
    the increased bouyancy would force it back upwards.

    So yeah, in a storm the cloud-city would pitch and heave and
    make people seasick, but if it is wide enough compared to the
    scale height of the atmosphere, it probably can't tip all the
    way over. You might want a wall around the edge to keep stuff
    from sliding off, though.

    Hmm. Masonry buildings will need to be reinforced (by having
    rope or metal chain embedded inside the walls) so they don't
    collapse when the city's sloshing back and forth. Maybe it's
    all wood construction. Or cloudstone (which I imagine to look
    like white and grey marble).

    --
    >;k
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    On Thu, 26 May 2005, Aluddy wrote:

    > Ken Vale wrote:
    >> Aluddy wrote:
    >>> Some human artifacts /are/ more or less one-of-a-kind though. Consider
    >>> the Great Wall of China or the Concorde*. Not everything that can be
    >>> done will be done more than once. It would be very easy to assume that
    >>> such constructs ("city in the clouds" or "city in a volcano") are
    >>> prohibitively expensive, and thus, unlikely to be duplicated. Now, of
    >>> course, you have to justify why it was done the first time. But that's
    >>> the fun part.
    >>>
    >>> * not that there was only a single Concorde, but that despite further
    >>> advances in aviation technology, there has not been (though I could be
    >>> mistaken) another attempt to construct a supersonic commercial aircraft
    >>
    >>
    >> See Hadrian's Wall, see the Russian counter to the Concorde (dubed
    >> Concordeski because it was very similiar to the Concorde). If it has been
    >> done once it has been done many times (the pyramids in Egypt, Thailand,
    >> Central America).
    >> Ken
    >
    > Hadrian's Wall - 118 km long.
    > Great Wall of China - 2400 km long.
    > Not the same thing.

    Serves the same purpose. thus, functionally equivalent. And, yes, the
    roman empire could have built the same thing as the great wall of china,
    if they had needed to.

    Lena
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    In article <AtAle.255752$cg1.6123@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
    Michael W. Ryder <_mwryder@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
    >
    >Actually, the problem with Boeing's SST project was that our government
    >pulled out of the project, something the British and French governments
    >didn't do. The reason I remember hearing at the time was that there was
    >no need for two supersonic passenger planes.

    As far as I remember, one of the design requirements of the Boeing
    project was that it needed to be much much faster than the European
    one or else the president wouldn't be interested. In order to achieve
    the (somewhat arbitratily) chosen minimum speed, they would have
    needed to use titanium to build the thing and at the time, this
    material was too expensive and too difficult to work for the project
    to be economically viable.

    They _could_ have built it out of more mundane materials and still
    have one that went faster than the Concorde, but apparantly it
    wouldn't be faster by enough of a margin to give the desired prestige
    effect :-)

    Cheers
    Bent D
    --
    Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
    powered by emacs
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    Lena B Katz wrote:

    > On Thu, 26 May 2005, Aluddy wrote:
    >
    >> Ken Vale wrote:
    >>
    >>> Aluddy wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Some human artifacts /are/ more or less one-of-a-kind though.
    >>>> Consider the Great Wall of China or the Concorde*. Not everything
    >>>> that can be done will be done more than once. It would be very easy
    >>>> to assume that such constructs ("city in the clouds" or "city in a
    >>>> volcano") are prohibitively expensive, and thus, unlikely to be
    >>>> duplicated. Now, of course, you have to justify why it was done the
    >>>> first time. But that's the fun part.
    >>>>
    >>>> * not that there was only a single Concorde, but that despite
    >>>> further advances in aviation technology, there has not been (though
    >>>> I could be mistaken) another attempt to construct a supersonic
    >>>> commercial aircraft
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> See Hadrian's Wall, see the Russian counter to the Concorde (dubed
    >>> Concordeski because it was very similiar to the Concorde). If it has
    >>> been done once it has been done many times (the pyramids in Egypt,
    >>> Thailand, Central America).
    >>> Ken
    >>
    >>
    >> Hadrian's Wall - 118 km long.
    >> Great Wall of China - 2400 km long.
    >> Not the same thing.
    >
    >
    > Serves the same purpose. thus, functionally equivalent. And, yes, the
    > roman empire could have built the same thing as the great wall of china,
    > if they had needed to.

    But not constructionally equivalent. A cloud city and an expanse of sod huts
    serve the same purpose, but are not equivalent (which was the origin of this
    discussion).

    And I would point out that the Romans did NOT build a wall on the border between
    Gaul and Germany, despite having more problems dealing with the Germanic
    barbarians than they ever had with the Picts.

    Not to attack you (you're right, the Romans completed some truly impressing
    construction projects, and probably /could/ have constructed something like the
    GWC), but they didn't and no one else has, because it's just too prohibitive,
    and the original point was that if one group can build a floating city in the
    clouds then anyone can and will do so.
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    In article <MJWdnWsk9Z0bCQvfRVn-vQ@adelphia.com>,
    Aluddy <aluddy.nospam@nospam.adelphia.net> wrote:
    >Ken Vale wrote:
    >> Aluddy wrote:
    >>> Some human artifacts /are/ more or less one-of-a-kind though.
    >>> Consider the Great Wall of China or the Concorde*. Not everything
    >>> that can be done will be done more than once. It would be very easy
    >>> to assume that such constructs ("city in the clouds" or "city in a
    >>> volcano") are prohibitively expensive, and thus, unlikely to be
    >>> duplicated. Now, of course, you have to justify why it was done the
    >>> first time. But that's the fun part.
    >>>
    >>> * not that there was only a single Concorde, but that despite further
    >>> advances in aviation technology, there has not been (though I could be
    >>> mistaken) another attempt to construct a supersonic commercial aircraft
    >>
    >>
    >> See Hadrian's Wall, see the Russian counter to the Concorde (dubed
    >> Concordeski because it was very similiar to the Concorde). If it has
    >> been done once it has been done many times (the pyramids in Egypt,
    >> Thailand, Central America).
    >> Ken
    >
    >Hadrian's Wall - 118 km long.
    >Great Wall of China - 2400 km long.
    >Not the same thing.
    >
    >I grant you that the Soviets may have produced an SST. Another poster
    >mentioned
    > that Boeing had as SST project in the early 70's reportedly capable of Mach 2
    >before canceling the project (which I thing almost strengthens my point).
    >
    >Many things are simply NOT worth repeating. Peter's post seemed to say that if
    >magic could do these things once, then it could do them all the time. That is
    >not necessarily the case, IMO. You may feel differently, of course.
    >
    >Could have added the Spruce Goose, too.


    It doesn't have to be done once and only once. It might have been twice,
    even three or four times. Is every fantasy world limited to only one
    magic city?

    But it isn't easy! It can't be done by a single person. It takes
    resources, workers, a national will. Some old man didn't just wake up in
    Giza one day and say "I think I'll take a few days off and build me a
    pyramid." The Pyramid of Menkaure, the smallest of the pyramids at Giza,
    has a gash in the side from a caliph's unsuccessful attempt to dismantle
    it in 1186, which is a testament to the effort expended in building the
    largest. Tourists go to Egypt to see pyramids because they don't have
    them at home. It was a relatively brief period, and nobody has made
    pyramids like that since. And sure, there's smaller pyramids in Central
    America, and in China? Not many regions in the entire world, all the
    structures are ancient, it can rightly be called a rare practice.
    --
    "Out of the way, you slime, a physicist is coming!"
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    In rec.games.frp.misc Aluddy <aluddy.nospam@nospam.adelphia.net> wrote:
    > Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
    >> Andrew James Alan Welty wrote:
    >>
    >>> There's always the ye old floating city in the clouds. Could put one
    >>> in a
    >>
    >> But if the laws of magic in the setting are thus that floating cities
    >> can be created, what *else* can magic do? (And why is nobody doing those
    >> other things?)

    In a fantasy world with floating cities, you can count on magic being
    used for other things as well. Take Earthdawn, for example. It has
    floating fortresses, and everything is magic in that setting, including
    life, skills, and names, even. Especiallly names, in fact.

    >>> sea of magma... Could put one on top of a giant geyser (or series of
    >>> geysers) that rises up as the geyser(s) erupt. Perhaps tilting as the
    >>
    >> Again, if magic can do those exceedingly powerful things, magic should
    >> also be capable of doing other exceedingly powerful things.
    >>
    >> And seeing as the setting is populated by Humans, a species which is by
    >> definition aggressively ambitious, if something is magically possible
    >> then Humans *will* be doing it.
    >>
    >>> geysers erupt at different levels. Delicately balanced atop a narrow
    >>> spire. Perched below a mountain that is floating above the city.
    >
    > Some human artifacts /are/ more or less one-of-a-kind though. Consider the
    > Great Wall of China or the Concorde*. Not everything that can be done will be
    > done more than once. It would be very easy to assume that such constructs
    > ("city in the clouds" or "city in a volcano") are prohibitively expensive, and
    > thus, unlikely to be duplicated. Now, of course, you have to justify why it was
    > done the first time. But that's the fun part.

    Or perhaps the nature of magic is such that it's easier to make something
    truly unique, than to duplicate something. Sort of like reversed morphic
    resonance, perhaps.

    Or perhaps it really is prohibitively expensive, and only once has
    someone been crazy enough to do it.


    mcv.
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    In rec.games.frp.misc Gregory L. Hansen <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
    > In article <MJWdnWsk9Z0bCQvfRVn-vQ@adelphia.com>,
    > Aluddy <aluddy.nospam@nospam.adelphia.net> wrote:
    >>Ken Vale wrote:
    >>> Aluddy wrote:
    >>>> Some human artifacts /are/ more or less one-of-a-kind though.
    >
    > It doesn't have to be done once and only once. It might have been twice,
    > even three or four times. Is every fantasy world limited to only one
    > magic city?
    >
    > But it isn't easy! It can't be done by a single person. It takes
    > resources, workers, a national will. Some old man didn't just wake up in
    > Giza one day and say "I think I'll take a few days off and build me a
    > pyramid." The Pyramid of Menkaure, the smallest of the pyramids at Giza,
    > has a gash in the side from a caliph's unsuccessful attempt to dismantle
    > it in 1186, which is a testament to the effort expended in building the
    > largest. Tourists go to Egypt to see pyramids because they don't have
    > them at home. It was a relatively brief period, and nobody has made
    > pyramids like that since.

    Pyramids are an excellent example. It's clearly possible, so why wasn't
    every king doing it? For the same reason not everybody has a floating
    city or a city in some other unlikely location. The fact that it is
    so incredibly hard and expensive to build a floating city adds to the
    prestige and status of the owner(s) of the city, ofcourse.

    On the other hand, if the world is filled with unique, unlikely
    cities like that, each one special in their own way, but still
    sort of mundane since magic is so easy and abundant, I'd go with
    my reversed morphic resonance theory.


    mcv.
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    "Peter Knutsen (usenet)" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
    >
    > Torben ?gidius Mogensen wrote:
    >> - On a narrow land bridge between two large land masses. Lot's of
    >> trade and toll opportunities.
    >
    > Not necessarily. Moving goods by water is cheaper than
    > moving them by road.

    That ofcourse depends quite a lot on tech level.


    mcv.
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    On Fri, 27 May 2005, Aluddy wrote:

    > Lena B Katz wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 26 May 2005, Aluddy wrote:
    >>
    >>> Ken Vale wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Aluddy wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Some human artifacts /are/ more or less one-of-a-kind though.
    >>>>> Consider the Great Wall of China or the Concorde*. Not everything
    >>>>> that can be done will be done more than once. It would be very easy
    >>>>> to assume that such constructs ("city in the clouds" or "city in a
    >>>>> volcano") are prohibitively expensive, and thus, unlikely to be
    >>>>> duplicated. Now, of course, you have to justify why it was done the
    >>>>> first time. But that's the fun part.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> * not that there was only a single Concorde, but that despite
    >>>>> further advances in aviation technology, there has not been (though
    >>>>> I could be mistaken) another attempt to construct a supersonic
    >>>>> commercial aircraft
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> See Hadrian's Wall, see the Russian counter to the Concorde (dubed
    >>>> Concordeski because it was very similiar to the Concorde). If it has
    >>>> been done once it has been done many times (the pyramids in Egypt,
    >>>> Thailand, Central America).
    >>>> Ken
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Hadrian's Wall - 118 km long.
    >>> Great Wall of China - 2400 km long.
    >>> Not the same thing.
    >>
    >>
    >> Serves the same purpose. thus, functionally equivalent. And, yes, the
    >> roman empire could have built the same thing as the great wall of china,
    >> if they had needed to.
    >
    > But not constructionally equivalent. A cloud city and an expanse of sod huts
    > serve the same purpose, but are not equivalent (which was the origin of this
    > discussion).

    Depends on what you consider the purpose of a city to be, doesn't it?

    Castles were primarily defensive structures, and I'd assume that a
    floating city would probably have a better defensive strategy than some
    huts.

    > And I would point out that the Romans did NOT build a wall on the border
    > between Gaul and Germany, despite having more problems dealing with the
    > Germanic barbarians than they ever had with the Picts.

    No horses. Thus wall doesn't create the same economic disincentive. Wall
    was never built to _stop_ incursions, just to make them less profitable
    than raiding others.

    > Not to attack you (you're right, the Romans completed some truly impressing
    > construction projects, and probably /could/ have constructed something like
    > the GWC), but they didn't and no one else has, because it's just too
    > prohibitive,

    It is rather surprising that none of the eurpeans around the time of the
    huns came up with the idea. Other than that, these are surprisingly
    specialized cases.

    > and the original point was that if one group can build a
    > floating city in the clouds then anyone can and will do so.

    I thought the original point was that if someone can build a floating
    city, other people are probably going to be able to destroy it in short
    order?

    Lenna

    cuurrently pondering the idea of a city which is used only for trade. no
    houses. no industry.
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    LukeCampbell <lwcampbe@uci.thetrash.edu> writes:

    > Mad Bad Rabbit wrote:
    >
    > >It might be an exotic natural phenomenon. Imagine a material
    > >'cloudstone' that is as strong as granite, but a bit lighter
    > >than air. It would tend to rise until it reached an altitude
    > >where it's neutrally bouyant and then stay there.
    > >
    > I can just see a little bit of turbulance or wind shear sending your
    > city slowly tumbling end over end ...

    You could put a "keel" on it in the form of a bit of very heavy
    material at the end of a very long (and strong) pole sticking out of
    the bottom of the rock.

    Anyway, such material would require magic, and I can' see it forming
    "naturally" even in a magic-rich world, as it requires something to
    hold it down during formation.

    Torben
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    In article <7zzmugekm1.fsf@app-2.diku.dk>,
    Torben Ægidius Mogensen <torbenm@diku.dk> wrote:
    >> Mad Bad Rabbit wrote:
    >> >It might be an exotic natural phenomenon. Imagine a material
    >> >'cloudstone' that is as strong as granite, but a bit lighter
    >> >than air. It would tend to rise until it reached an altitude
    >> >where it's neutrally bouyant and then stay there.
    >
    >Anyway, such material would require magic, and I can' see it forming
    >"naturally" even in a magic-rich world, as it requires something to
    >hold it down during formation.

    It could form underground. Perhaps some sort of rock, when subjected
    to intense pressure in a strong magical field, becomes cloudstone.

    And, since an open-pit quarry wouldn't work too well, you now have an
    excuse for all the man-made underground excavations that pop up so
    frequently in fantasy RPGs.
    --
    Julian Lighton jl8e@fragment.com
    /* You are not expected to understand this. */
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Aluddy wrote:
    [...]
    > Many things are simply NOT worth repeating. Peter's post seemed to say that if
    > magic could do these things once, then it could do them all the time. That is
    > not necessarily the case, IMO. You may feel differently, of course.
    [...]

    That's not my point.

    --
    Peter Knutsen
    sagatafl.org
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:

    >
    > Aluddy wrote:
    > [...]
    >
    >> Many things are simply NOT worth repeating. Peter's post seemed to
    >> say that if magic could do these things once, then it could do them
    >> all the time. That is not necessarily the case, IMO. You may feel
    >> differently, of course.
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > That's not my point.
    >

    <looks back at Peter's original post> True. I misrepresented you. My bad. You
    did say "if something is magically possible then Humans *will* be doing it",
    which my post was apropos to, since just because something proves /possible/ to
    do /once/ does not mean it will be done /again/.

    I assume that the main thrust of your post (which I agree with) is that if you
    have magic that can build floating cities in the clouds /however difficult that
    may be/, then you will /not/ have an unchanged version of medieval Europe with
    the same technology, society, economics, etc., but with the addition of floating
    cities in the clouds. All you have to do is ask the question "What would the
    possibility of flying attackers have done to the development of the medieval
    castle?" to realize that there are going to be a LOT of changes.
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

    mcv wrote:
    > "Peter Knutsen (usenet)" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
    >>Not necessarily. Moving goods by water is cheaper than
    >>moving them by road.
    >
    > That ofcourse depends quite a lot on tech level.

    Why?

    --
    Peter Knutsen
    sagatafl.org
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Aluddy wrote:
    > Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
    >>That's not my point.
    >
    > <looks back at Peter's original post> True. I misrepresented you. My bad. You
    > did say "if something is magically possible then Humans *will* be doing it",
    > which my post was apropos to, since just because something proves /possible/ to
    > do /once/ does not mean it will be done /again/.
    >
    > I assume that the main thrust of your post (which I agree with) is that if you
    > have magic that can build floating cities in the clouds /however difficult that
    > may be/, then you will /not/ have an unchanged version of medieval Europe with
    > the same technology, society, economics, etc., but with the addition of floating
    > cities in the clouds. All you have to do is ask the question "What would the
    > possibility of flying attackers have done to the development of the medieval
    > castle?" to realize that there are going to be a LOT of changes.

    Well, not exactly, my point was mostly that if magic can
    create flying cities, then magic can also *easily* create a
    lot of other lesser wonderful effects, such as mass curings
    of diseases, large-scale irrigation of arid lands, and so
    forth (which would then be utilized. Frequently).

    Which, in a way, does lead to your argument that the world
    would then not resemble medieval Europe.

    --
    Peter Knutsen
    sagatafl.org
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    In rec.games.frp.gurps "Peter Knutsen (usenet)" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
    > Aluddy wrote:
    >> Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
    >>>That's not my point.
    >>
    >> <looks back at Peter's original post> True. I misrepresented you. My bad. You
    >> did say "if something is magically possible then Humans *will* be doing it",
    >> which my post was apropos to, since just because something proves /possible/ to
    >> do /once/ does not mean it will be done /again/.
    >>
    >> I assume that the main thrust of your post (which I agree with) is that if you
    >> have magic that can build floating cities in the clouds /however difficult that
    >> may be/, then you will /not/ have an unchanged version of medieval Europe with
    >> the same technology, society, economics, etc., but with the addition of floating
    >> cities in the clouds. All you have to do is ask the question "What would the
    >> possibility of flying attackers have done to the development of the medieval
    >> castle?" to realize that there are going to be a LOT of changes.
    >
    > Well, not exactly, my point was mostly that if magic can
    > create flying cities, then magic can also *easily* create a
    > lot of other lesser wonderful effects, such as mass curings
    > of diseases, large-scale irrigation of arid lands, and so
    > forth (which would then be utilized. Frequently).

    If cities can fly, then yes, there will probably be a lot more magic,
    but since we seem to be talking about fantasy here, I'd say that's
    a given anyway. It doesn't say anything about what sort of specific
    magical effects will be found in that world, however. It doesn't have
    to be mass curings and large scale irrigation. That depends entirely
    on the way magic works, how much power you'd need for such effects,
    and how the economics of that world and the minds of the people
    with that power work.


    mcv.
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

    Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
    >
    > Aluddy wrote:
    >
    >> Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
    >>
    >>> That's not my point.
    >>
    >>
    >> <looks back at Peter's original post> True. I misrepresented you. My
    >> bad. You did say "if something is magically possible then Humans
    >> *will* be doing it", which my post was apropos to, since just because
    >> something proves /possible/ to do /once/ does not mean it will be done
    >> /again/.
    >>
    >> I assume that the main thrust of your post (which I agree with) is
    >> that if you have magic that can build floating cities in the clouds
    >> /however difficult that may be/, then you will /not/ have an unchanged
    >> version of medieval Europe with the same technology, society,
    >> economics, etc., but with the addition of floating cities in the
    >> clouds. All you have to do is ask the question "What would the
    >> possibility of flying attackers have done to the development of the
    >> medieval castle?" to realize that there are going to be a LOT of changes.
    >
    >
    > Well, not exactly, my point was mostly that if magic can create flying
    > cities, then magic can also *easily* create a lot of other lesser
    > wonderful effects, such as mass curings of diseases, large-scale
    > irrigation of arid lands, and so forth (which would then be utilized.
    > Frequently).
    >

    The downside of this is that whatever man can create, he can destroy.
    Imagine living in a floating city when suddenly it plummets to the
    ground 1 mile down. Or getting ready to reap your abundant harvest when
    suddenly a violent hail storm strikes. I think that a lot of the
    magical ability will be tied up protecting what you value rather than
    creating new marvels.


    > Which, in a way, does lead to your argument that the world would then
    > not resemble medieval Europe.
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games