Revenge is sweet

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I love when the DM doesn't take consequences into account...

There's a trap near the drow city Orbb Elg'cahl. It's a Sphere of
Annihilation, similar to the Tomb of Horrors.
Less than three hundred yards away is a massive sea.
I say we move the Sphere to 100 feet below sea level, and walk away.

I'm looking for a downside, but I'm not seeing one...


------
Recovering MCSE/MCT/MCP
"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they
have rebelled they cannot become conscious." -- Winston Smith, _1984_
79 answers Last reply
More about revenge sweet
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    NonMCSE wrote:
    > I love when the DM doesn't take consequences into account...
    >
    > There's a trap near the drow city Orbb Elg'cahl. It's a Sphere of
    > Annihilation, similar to the Tomb of Horrors.
    > Less than three hundred yards away is a massive sea.
    > I say we move the Sphere to 100 feet below sea level, and walk away.
    >
    > I'm looking for a downside, but I'm not seeing one...

    Depends how similar it is to the one in the Tomb - that one
    was a special Sphere that was immovable, IIRC.

    Walt Smith
    Firelock on DALNet
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    There was a rule once that there were 2 items players could never
    create themselves. One was Sphere of Annihilation because players had
    been known to drain seas with them.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    John H wrote:
    > There was a rule once that there were 2 items players could never
    > create themselves. One was Sphere of Annihilation because players
    had
    > been known to drain seas with them.

    I wonder how the SoA water annihilation rate compares
    the average ocean's rate of evaporation? I remember
    from the AD&D Manual of the Planes that most oceans
    had at least one elemental gate to the Plane of Water,
    it may be the flow rate from a Water Gate would make
    up for one or more submerged SoA's - though the water
    inflow to a submerged SoA could make for some
    interesting whirlpools and such.

    Walt Smith
    Firelock on DALNet
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    NonMCSE wrote:

    > I love when the DM doesn't take consequences into account...
    >
    > There's a trap near the drow city Orbb Elg'cahl. It's a Sphere of
    > Annihilation, similar to the Tomb of Horrors.
    > Less than three hundred yards away is a massive sea.
    > I say we move the Sphere to 100 feet below sea level, and walk away.
    >
    > I'm looking for a downside, but I'm not seeing one...

    Possible Ecological Havoc.

    How fast does the water get destroyed?
    Does it, since air doesn't?
    Maybe the Sphere only affects "objects".
    But if it will destroy water then that sea likely links to other
    seas including surface ones. Possible eventual loss of much of
    the water in the world unless you are sure you can get someone there
    to move the sphere back above water.

    Plus the water will replenish to a higher level as new water filters in.
    (IOW, dry out a lake, it will refill as streams or rain empty into it.)
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    NonMCSE <midnightcomp@comcast.net> wrote:
    >I love when the DM doesn't take consequences into account...

    >There's a trap near the drow city Orbb Elg'cahl. It's a Sphere of
    >Annihilation, similar to the Tomb of Horrors.
    >Less than three hundred yards away is a massive sea.
    >I say we move the Sphere to 100 feet below sea level, and walk away.

    >I'm looking for a downside, but I'm not seeing one...

    Well, it's not the easiest thing in the world to move, but
    if you can make the checks, yeah, it sounds like a good plan.
    Why only 100 feet below sea level, though? Get yourself some
    protective and breathing magic and send it straight to the bottom.

    As far as downsides go, who or what else relies on that
    underground sea? If a non-evil city also needs it, you're
    screwing them over, too. And if it's got anything living
    in it (and every proper underground sea has at least
    dinosaurs in it) you'll be killing all of them, as well.
    You wouldn't kill all of them if you stuck to 100 feet
    below the surface, so that might be a good idea.

    Another, riskier tactic, would be to move the Sphere
    into an important area of the Drow city and cast Gate
    on it. You'd have a 15% chance of essentially destroying
    a large chunk of the city. That'd ruin their day. Of
    course, you'd have an 85% chance of not doing anything
    in particular besides probably destroying the Sphere.

    The danger of bringing the thing inside the Drow city,
    of course, is that someone's going to try to steal
    control away from you. That could end badly.

    I can't think of any other uses against the city without
    knowing more about the geography of the area. It's
    underground, obviously. Is it in a huge cavern? The
    roof high above the city, I mean? If so you might be
    able to use the sphere to cause ginormous hunks of rock
    to fall on the city. It'd be tricky as hell to manage
    seeing exactly where the Sphere is as you work, though,
    not to mention that you'd have to avoid detection.

    You could do something similar with Transmute Rock to Mud,
    of course, especially if you then followed it up with
    Transmute Mud to Rock. The inhabitants of this kind of
    city might put a lot of effort into fiddling with the roof
    of the cavern until it counts as "worked stone," though.

    Pete
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
    > John H wrote:
    >> There was a rule once that there were 2 items players could never
    >> create themselves. One was Sphere of Annihilation because players
    >> had been known to drain seas with them.
    >
    > I wonder how the SoA water annihilation rate compares
    > the average ocean's rate of evaporation? I remember
    > from the AD&D Manual of the Planes that most oceans
    > had at least one elemental gate to the Plane of Water,
    > it may be the flow rate from a Water Gate would make
    > up for one or more submerged SoA's - though the water
    > inflow to a submerged SoA could make for some
    > interesting whirlpools and such.

    I've seen several suggestions related to using Decanters of Endless Water
    dropped into the ocean on maximum setting as an attempt to create
    biblical-style floods. Maybe, on a global level, the aggregate number of
    endless-decanter-flooder-conspiracies is comfortably balanced by the number
    of annihilation-sphere-drainer-conspiracies.

    --
    Mark.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
    news:399f8vF5u8jhnU1@individual.net:

    > firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
    >> John H wrote:
    >>> There was a rule once that there were 2 items players could never
    >>> create themselves. One was Sphere of Annihilation because players
    >>> had been known to drain seas with them.
    >>
    >> I wonder how the SoA water annihilation rate compares
    >> the average ocean's rate of evaporation? I remember
    >> from the AD&D Manual of the Planes that most oceans
    >> had at least one elemental gate to the Plane of Water,
    >> it may be the flow rate from a Water Gate would make
    >> up for one or more submerged SoA's - though the water
    >> inflow to a submerged SoA could make for some
    >> interesting whirlpools and such.
    >
    > I've seen several suggestions related to using Decanters of Endless
    > Water dropped into the ocean on maximum setting as an attempt to
    > create biblical-style floods. Maybe, on a global level, the aggregate
    > number of endless-decanter-flooder-conspiracies is comfortably
    > balanced by the number of annihilation-sphere-drainer-conspiracies.
    >
    Perhaps a SoA is what's left after you create a DEW.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:05:10 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

    >Does it say that a SoA isn't affected by gravity? If not, *how* do you keep
    >it in a box, without it simply falling out (and continueing to the center
    >of the planet)?

    "A sphere of annihilation is static, resting in some spot as if it were a normal
    hole"

    If it can be shown that an SOA has mass, or weight, then it should be affected
    by gravity. What is an SOA made of? The text calls it "nothingness" with a shape
    of 2-foot-diameter sphere.

    I rather think that if an SOA existed, what would actually happen is not that
    the SOA falls to the center of the planet, but that the planet would be drawn
    wholly to the SOA until its center of mass was coincident with the SOA, all the
    while being slowly eaten away.

    --

    Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

    "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    when they're out of their depth."
    -Jeff Heikkinen
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    I always assumed in my games that it levitated slightly above what ever
    surface it was near. And that only matter actually touching it would get
    annihilated. It would actually float above the water if controlled by a
    character and only submerge if forced to do so by the controller.

    Matthias wrote:
    > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:05:10 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    > <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Does it say that a SoA isn't affected by gravity? If not, *how* do you keep
    >>it in a box, without it simply falling out (and continueing to the center
    >>of the planet)?
    >
    >
    > "A sphere of annihilation is static, resting in some spot as if it were a normal
    > hole"
    >
    > If it can be shown that an SOA has mass, or weight, then it should be affected
    > by gravity. What is an SOA made of? The text calls it "nothingness" with a shape
    > of 2-foot-diameter sphere.
    >
    > I rather think that if an SOA existed, what would actually happen is not that
    > the SOA falls to the center of the planet, but that the planet would be drawn
    > wholly to the SOA until its center of mass was coincident with the SOA, all the
    > while being slowly eaten away.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)
    >
    > "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    > do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    > when they're out of their depth."
    > -Jeff Heikkinen
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns96149E3902311taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
    > "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
    > news:399f8vF5u8jhnU1@individual.net:
    >
    >> firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
    >>> John H wrote:
    >>>> There was a rule once that there were 2 items players could never
    >>>> create themselves. One was Sphere of Annihilation because players
    >>>> had been known to drain seas with them.
    >>>
    >>> I wonder how the SoA water annihilation rate compares
    >>> the average ocean's rate of evaporation? I remember
    >>> from the AD&D Manual of the Planes that most oceans
    >>> had at least one elemental gate to the Plane of Water,
    >>> it may be the flow rate from a Water Gate would make
    >>> up for one or more submerged SoA's - though the water
    >>> inflow to a submerged SoA could make for some
    >>> interesting whirlpools and such.
    >>
    >> I've seen several suggestions related to using Decanters of Endless
    >> Water dropped into the ocean on maximum setting as an attempt to
    >> create biblical-style floods. Maybe, on a global level, the aggregate
    >> number of endless-decanter-flooder-conspiracies is comfortably
    >> balanced by the number of annihilation-sphere-drainer-conspiracies.
    >>
    > Perhaps a SoA is what's left after you create a DEW.


    or drop a LOAD
    --
    zimriel sbc dot
    at global net
    ..
    http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/
    *new improved shorter .sig*
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> writes:


    >I've seen several suggestions related to using Decanters of Endless Water
    >dropped into the ocean on maximum setting as an attempt to create
    >biblical-style floods. Maybe, on a global level, the aggregate number of
    >endless-decanter-flooder-conspiracies is comfortably balanced by the number
    >of annihilation-sphere-drainer-conspiracies.

    That's brilliant, and it also gives True Neutrals something
    to conspire about.


    --
    Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
    Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
    Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
    www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/ got my mojo properly adjusted
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    >>>(And, BTW, one of my favorite hobbies is to screw with the basic
    >>>physics of the world, to make things work the way the ancients thought
    >>>they did. Had a blast with a guy who was running himself - a modern,
    >>>educated professional engineer - who wanted his character to be a
    >>>military engineer. Imagine his confusion when he figured out that a
    >>>big rock really did fall faster than a small rock.


    Does that mean that if you tie a big rock to a small rock, the small
    rock will rotate around the big rock? This of course leads to the
    obvious conclusion that everything that falls, spins around it's
    center of mass. As your head heads for the ground, your feet would
    float up off the ground, briefly.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in news:4230559f.133190964
    @news.telusplanet.net:

    > As your head heads for the ground, your feet would
    > float up off the ground, briefly.
    >
    >

    I believe this is called a "facefault"

    --
    Shadow Wolf
    shadowolf3400 at yahoo dot com
    Stories at http://www.asstr.org/~Shadow_Wolf
    AIF at http://www.geocities.com/shadowolf3400

    ----== 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 =----
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    news:4230559f.133190964@news.telusplanet.net:

    >
    >>>>(And, BTW, one of my favorite hobbies is to screw with the basic
    >>>>physics of the world, to make things work the way the ancients thought
    >>>>they did. Had a blast with a guy who was running himself - a modern,
    >>>>educated professional engineer - who wanted his character to be a
    >>>>military engineer. Imagine his confusion when he figured out that a
    >>>>big rock really did fall faster than a small rock.
    >
    >
    > Does that mean that if you tie a big rock to a small rock, the small
    > rock will rotate around the big rock?

    Why would that be the case? Assuming you're talking about dropping the
    combined rock structure, I would imagine the little rock would simply trail
    behind at the length of the rope.

    And since it was my world, my imagining would be the most important.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <Xns9614A3A334828taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >Does it say that a SoA isn't affected by gravity? If not, *how* do you keep
    >it in a box, without it simply falling out (and continueing to the center
    >of the planet)?

    Just do what Gygax and design-alikes did: totally ignore the problem and embed
    a sphere of annihilation in a wall to look like a dark portal.
    --
    "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
    http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) wrote in
    news:d0qcpb$77v$1@knot.queensu.ca:

    > In article <Xns9614A3A334828taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    > No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >>Does it say that a SoA isn't affected by gravity? If not, *how* do you
    >>keep it in a box, without it simply falling out (and continueing to
    >>the center of the planet)?
    >
    > Just do what Gygax and design-alikes did: totally ignore the problem
    > and embed a sphere of annihilation in a wall to look like a dark
    > portal.

    I agree completely. Worrying about such things is a sign of having way too
    much time on one's hands.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:33:00 -0500, "NonMCSE" <midnightcomp@comcast.net> wrote:


    >Less than three hundred yards away is a massive sea.
    >I say we move the Sphere to 100 feet below sea level, and walk away.
    >

    One wonders what would happen if it got moved way down. I'm thinking the earth's core, but you'd probably get
    bored before it got there. Still do a lot of damage, tho, over time, once it hits the molten part.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:19:24 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

    >dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) wrote in
    >news:d0qcpb$77v$1@knot.queensu.ca:
    >
    >> In article <Xns9614A3A334828taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    >> No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >>>Does it say that a SoA isn't affected by gravity? If not, *how* do you
    >>>keep it in a box, without it simply falling out (and continueing to
    >>>the center of the planet)?
    >>
    >> Just do what Gygax and design-alikes did: totally ignore the problem
    >> and embed a sphere of annihilation in a wall to look like a dark
    >> portal.
    >
    >I agree completely. Worrying about such things is a sign of having way too
    >much time on one's hands.

    And what's wrong with that ! :)

    --

    Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

    "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
    do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
    when they're out of their depth."
    -Jeff Heikkinen
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:04:04 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

    >rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    >news:4230559f.133190964@news.telusplanet.net:
    >
    >>
    >>>>>(And, BTW, one of my favorite hobbies is to screw with the basic
    >>>>>physics of the world, to make things work the way the ancients thought
    >>>>>they did. Had a blast with a guy who was running himself - a modern,
    >>>>>educated professional engineer - who wanted his character to be a
    >>>>>military engineer. Imagine his confusion when he figured out that a
    >>>>>big rock really did fall faster than a small rock.
    >>
    >>
    >> Does that mean that if you tie a big rock to a small rock, the small
    >> rock will rotate around the big rock?

    Actually I should have said "swing around". It won't complete an
    orbit.

    >
    >Why would that be the case? Assuming you're talking about dropping the
    >combined rock structure, I would imagine the little rock would simply trail
    >behind at the length of the rope.

    If they are dropped while side by side then the slower rock will,
    constrained by the rope, move in a circle imparting angular momentum
    to the faster rock which will begin to rotate back and forth as the
    smaller rock tic-tocs from side to side like a upside-down pendulum.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:41:39 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

    >> ...which is of course where the "guns=magic wands of instant death"
    >> thing came from.
    >>
    >Yeah. Or you could go the other way, like Hero, where a .44 magnum cannot,
    >under any circumstances, instantly kill someone, even with the barrel
    >pressed to the base of the victim's skull. (Without variants, that is.)

    Do tell? Lemme see now. 44 mag does 2d6 killing. Doubled for a Head
    shot, that's a maximum damage of 24. Typical person has 8 to 10 body.

    Instant death. Or do you think of hit location as a "variant"?. But
    if you have no hit locations, how can you press a gun to the base of
    someone skull except by GM fiat? (In which case you can also declare
    them dead by GM fiat.)
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    news:42307fac.143957963@news.telusplanet.net:

    > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:04:04 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    > <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >
    >>rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    >>news:4230559f.133190964@news.telusplanet.net:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>>>>(And, BTW, one of my favorite hobbies is to screw with the basic
    >>>>>>physics of the world, to make things work the way the ancients
    >>>>>>thought they did. Had a blast with a guy who was running himself -
    >>>>>>a modern, educated professional engineer - who wanted his
    >>>>>>character to be a military engineer. Imagine his confusion when he
    >>>>>>figured out that a big rock really did fall faster than a small
    >>>>>>rock.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Does that mean that if you tie a big rock to a small rock, the small
    >>> rock will rotate around the big rock?
    >
    > Actually I should have said "swing around". It won't complete an
    > orbit.
    >
    >>
    >>Why would that be the case? Assuming you're talking about dropping the
    >>combined rock structure, I would imagine the little rock would simply
    >>trail behind at the length of the rope.
    >
    > If they are dropped while side by side then the slower rock will,
    > constrained by the rope, move in a circle imparting angular momentum
    > to the faster rock which will begin to rotate back and forth as the
    > smaller rock tic-tocs from side to side like a upside-down pendulum.
    >
    I don't see it that way at all. There's a continuous force on the small
    rock, relative to the larger one, that simply pulls the rope taught, and
    keeps it that way.

    (Are you beginning to understand why the licensed, professional engineer
    who ran the character found it . . . challenging?)

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in
    news:cdm131d0af1ejuk2mjbcqtgjlrl0trjnv2@4ax.com:

    > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:19:24 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    > <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >
    >>dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) wrote in
    >>news:d0qcpb$77v$1@knot.queensu.ca:
    >>
    >>> In article <Xns9614A3A334828taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    >>> No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >>>>Does it say that a SoA isn't affected by gravity? If not, *how* do
    >>>>you keep it in a box, without it simply falling out (and continueing
    >>>>to the center of the planet)?
    >>>
    >>> Just do what Gygax and design-alikes did: totally ignore the problem
    >>> and embed a sphere of annihilation in a wall to look like a dark
    >>> portal.
    >>
    >>I agree completely. Worrying about such things is a sign of having way
    >>too much time on one's hands.
    >
    > And what's wrong with that ! :)
    >
    You go through a lot of soap trying to wash it off.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    news:423080f7.144288849@news.telusplanet.net:

    > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:41:39 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    > <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >
    >>> ...which is of course where the "guns=magic wands of instant death"
    >>> thing came from.
    >>>
    >>Yeah. Or you could go the other way, like Hero, where a .44 magnum
    >>cannot, under any circumstances, instantly kill someone, even with the
    >>barrel pressed to the base of the victim's skull. (Without variants,
    >>that is.)
    >
    > Do tell? Lemme see now. 44 mag does 2d6 killing.

    Ah. I recalled it as 1d6+1. Has it changed? Or has it just been too long.

    (Nevertheless, it's not nearly enough damage.)

    > Doubled for a Head
    > shot, that's a maximum damage of 24. Typical person has 8 to 10 body.
    >
    > Instant death. Or do you think of hit location as a "variant"?.

    Technically, it is optional, but I was assuming its use. Just had the
    damage wrong.

    >But
    > if you have no hit locations, how can you press a gun to the base of
    > someone skull except by GM fiat? (In which case you can also declare
    > them dead by GM fiat.)
    >
    Only if the GM doesn't worship the rules to excess.

    But let's face it, Hero isn't *supposed* to be realistic.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:53:37 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

    >rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    >news:423080f7.144288849@news.telusplanet.net:
    >
    >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:41:39 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    >> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> ...which is of course where the "guns=magic wands of instant death"
    >>>> thing came from.
    >>>>
    >>>Yeah. Or you could go the other way, like Hero, where a .44 magnum
    >>>cannot, under any circumstances, instantly kill someone, even with the
    >>>barrel pressed to the base of the victim's skull. (Without variants,
    >>>that is.)
    >>
    >> Do tell? Lemme see now. 44 mag does 2d6 killing.
    >
    >Ah. I recalled it as 1d6+1. Has it changed? Or has it just been too long.

    No, 1d+1 was the damage for a more typically sized gun like a 9mm, or
    a .38 special.

    >>But
    >> if you have no hit locations, how can you press a gun to the base of
    >> someone skull except by GM fiat? (In which case you can also declare
    >> them dead by GM fiat.)
    >>
    >Only if the GM doesn't worship the rules to excess.
    >
    >But let's face it, Hero isn't *supposed* to be realistic.

    Realism is supposed to be an optional add-on to Hero.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kevin Lowe wrote:

    > Imagine a 100kg chain made up of 10000 10g links. it will fall as
    fast
    > as a single 10g link alone would fall. It falls much more slowly
    than a
    > single 100kg mass would do.
    >
    > Drop a 100kg block of metal and a 100kg pile of chain simultaneously.

    > The 100kg block lands with more oomph than the 100kg pile of chain.
    > Because it weighs the same, and it is moving faster.

    Why do you assume KE=1/2*M*V^2 in this world? It is EXPLICITLY
    non-newtonian. There IS no such thing as momentum or inertia.

    The lots of little masses hit with the exact same force, you
    KNOW they are the same mass because they have the same force
    on a balance after all.

    The little things move slower because the force is SPREAD OVER
    MORE OBJECTS, not because they are getting less energy.

    But combined they hit with the same omph, because omph in a
    fall is a function of mass.

    > That's the basis for a free energy/perpetual motion machine right
    there.

    Since Kinetic energy does not exist in the aristolealean world I
    beg to differ.

    > Arrange a ferris wheel of weights. Each weight is made up of
    multiple
    > pieces. As each weight passes the top of the wheel the mechanism
    locks
    > the pieces together rigidly. As each weight passes the bottom of the

    > wheel the mechanism allows the linkage to become flexible. Hey
    presto,
    > the machine gains energy with each revolution because it takes less
    > energy to hoist the flexibly linked weights up than you get when you
    let
    > them down again.

    Same presure on both sides so it doesn't move. Really this is simple.
    The perpetual motion machine uses leverage and wieghts moving in and
    out from the axis of rotation as the go arround, we'll have the bugs
    out any day now.

    DougL
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rock-Viper wrote:
    > I always assumed in my games that it levitated slightly above what ever
    > surface it was near. And that only matter actually touching it would get
    > annihilated. It would actually float above the water if controlled by a
    > character and only submerge if forced to do so by the controller.

    I felt is was similar to abjurations that folks spelled to repel something. In
    their descriptions, if you have one that blocks evil, but you set one up to be
    within the area of influence, it stops pushing on that person. You can't force
    an abjuration on someone already within the area of influence.
    Whatever works to stop the abjuration spell in those cases, also works to stop
    the air or water from rushing in.
    --
    "... to satisfy the honours and place, I had to leave her in silence ..."
    --till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
    consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:06:52 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > (And, BTW, one of my favorite hobbies is to screw with the basic physics of
    > the world, to make things work the way the ancients thought they did. Had a
    > blast with a guy who was running himself - a modern, educated professional
    > engineer - who wanted his character to be a military engineer. Imagine his
    > confusion when he figured out that a big rock really did fall faster than a
    > small rock. So don't make assumptions about other people's worlds.)

    Obviously the air was more viscous than here, so there was more
    friction and thus drag. As this will affect the small rock more than
    the large one, you'd get the effect you noted. Of course other tests
    of this hypothesis will likely not support it - arrows won't slow
    faster than you'd expect, and so on.

    BTW, did you have it that arrows continue their forward motion because
    the air displaced from in front of them pushs them forward as it move
    in behind them? IIRC that was Aristotle's reasoning, the concept of
    momentum not existing at that time.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    news:hui131hp8vd74qliraub4aul8pdg19ppro@4ax.com:

    > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:06:52 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    > <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> (And, BTW, one of my favorite hobbies is to screw with the basic
    >> physics of the world, to make things work the way the ancients
    >> thought they did. Had a blast with a guy who was running himself - a
    >> modern, educated professional engineer - who wanted his character to
    >> be a military engineer. Imagine his confusion when he figured out
    >> that a big rock really did fall faster than a small rock. So don't
    >> make assumptions about other people's worlds.)
    >
    > Obviously the air was more viscous than here, so there was more
    > friction and thus drag.

    Obviously, you don't really grasp how gravity works. No, it wasn't air more
    viscous. It was that gravity worked the way Aristotle said.

    >As this will affect the small rock more than
    > the large one, you'd get the effect you noted. Of course other tests
    > of this hypothesis will likely not support it - arrows won't slow
    > faster than you'd expect, and so on.
    >
    > BTW, did you have it that arrows continue their forward motion because
    > the air displaced from in front of them pushs them forward as it move
    > in behind them? IIRC that was Aristotle's reasoning, the concept of
    > momentum not existing at that time.
    >
    Never came up. Which is, perhaps, a bit surprising.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:04:04 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:

    > Why would that be the case? Assuming you're talking about dropping the
    > combined rock structure, I would imagine the little rock would simply trail
    > behind at the length of the rope.
    >
    > And since it was my world, my imagining would be the most important.

    Hmm. That would imply that [small rock] + [big rock] falls more slowly
    than [very big rock], where [very big rock] weighs the same as [small
    rock] + [big rock]. This probably ties in with various thoeries about
    contigous objects, and changes to something's nature when it's divided
    into parts, and so on.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    news:27j1315a9kkir9b1ujdak0nlp87nlsee7d@4ax.com:

    > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:04:04 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    > <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> Why would that be the case? Assuming you're talking about dropping
    >> the combined rock structure, I would imagine the little rock would
    >> simply trail behind at the length of the rope.
    >>
    >> And since it was my world, my imagining would be the most important.
    >
    > Hmm. That would imply that [small rock] + [big rock] falls more slowly
    > than [very big rock], where [very big rock] weighs the same as [small
    > rock] + [big rock].

    Why? Quite the opposite, in fact, especially if you assume (and I do, and
    I'm correct, by definition) that [small rock] + [big rock] is still two
    objects. The rope is just along for the ride.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    No 33 Secretary wrote:
    > "DougL" <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote in
    > news:1110560576.349746.87040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

    > > Same presure on both sides so it doesn't move. Really this is
    simple.
    > > The perpetual motion machine uses leverage and wieghts moving in
    and
    > > out from the axis of rotation as the go arround, we'll have the
    bugs
    > > out any day now.
    > >
    > I can show you patents.

    Patents or aplications? (A real question, I know there have been
    aplications, I'm not sure if they were accepted.)

    But I'm pretty sure that one goes back to the Greeks, and the
    thing is it might well work in an Aristilian physics world.

    If I try to construct a mathematical model of what is happening
    in such a world I get it working for a fairly straightforward
    design, which makes building one a worthwhile experiment.

    Now, if I can just find someone able to build good bearings and a
    cam shaft in your gameworld (plus a bunch of gameworld money) we
    can get started, after that the only question will be can it
    produce enough energy to be useful prior to breaking down.

    DougL
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <Xns96155CB7FDD90taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

    > (And, BTW, one of my favorite hobbies is to screw with the basic physics of
    > the world, to make things work the way the ancients thought they did. Had a
    > blast with a guy who was running himself - a modern, educated professional
    > engineer - who wanted his character to be a military engineer. Imagine his
    > confusion when he figured out that a big rock really did fall faster than a
    > small rock. So don't make assumptions about other people's worlds.)

    You drop a small rock and a big rock at the same time. The big rock
    hits the ground first.

    So what happens when you chain the big rock to the small rock and drop
    them both at the same time?

    Does the small rock act as a drag on the big rock, or does the combined
    mass drop as one really big rock? If it acts as a drag, how can
    anything fall at all, since everything is made up of smaller things? If
    it acts as a combined mass, how does it know to do so given that there
    is no actual unbroken line of continuity between the two masses?

    Kevin Lowe,
    Tasmania.
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote in
    news:me-8E3C40.12125911032005@individual.net:

    > In article <Xns96155CB7FDD90taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    > No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >
    >> (And, BTW, one of my favorite hobbies is to screw with the basic
    >> physics of the world, to make things work the way the ancients
    >> thought they did. Had a blast with a guy who was running himself - a
    >> modern, educated professional engineer - who wanted his character to
    >> be a military engineer. Imagine his confusion when he figured out
    >> that a big rock really did fall faster than a small rock. So don't
    >> make assumptions about other people's worlds.)
    >
    > You drop a small rock and a big rock at the same time. The big rock
    > hits the ground first.
    >
    > So what happens when you chain the big rock to the small rock and drop
    > them both at the same time?

    The big rock falls faster, until the chain is fully extended, then the
    little rock is drug down at the same speed.
    >
    > Does the small rock act as a drag on the big rock, or does the
    > combined mass drop as one really big rock?

    That's a very good question. Obviously requires extensive experimentation
    to determine.

    > If it acts as a drag, how
    > can anything fall at all, since everything is made up of smaller
    > things?

    Bah. Everything is made of fire, water, earth and air. You know nothing of
    alchemy.

    > If it acts as a combined mass, how does it know to do so
    > given that there is no actual unbroken line of continuity between the
    > two masses?
    >
    Rocks are flexible. Chains are.

    --
    Terry Austin
    http://www.hyperbooks.com/
    Campaign Cartographer Now Available
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:13:00 +1000, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:

    >In article <Xns96155CB7FDD90taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    > No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >
    >> (And, BTW, one of my favorite hobbies is to screw with the basic physics of
    >> the world, to make things work the way the ancients thought they did. Had a
    >> blast with a guy who was running himself - a modern, educated professional
    >> engineer - who wanted his character to be a military engineer. Imagine his
    >> confusion when he figured out that a big rock really did fall faster than a
    >> small rock. So don't make assumptions about other people's worlds.)
    >
    >You drop a small rock and a big rock at the same time. The big rock
    >hits the ground first.
    >
    >So what happens when you chain the big rock to the small rock and drop
    >them both at the same time?
    >
    >Does the small rock act as a drag on the big rock, or does the combined
    >mass drop as one really big rock?

    Neither. Apparently the small rock is merely pulled along at the
    speed of the big rock.
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    news:4230abc2.155245548@news.telusplanet.net:

    > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:13:00 +1000, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <Xns96155CB7FDD90taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    >> No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> (And, BTW, one of my favorite hobbies is to screw with the basic
    >>> physics of the world, to make things work the way the ancients
    >>> thought they did. Had a blast with a guy who was running himself - a
    >>> modern, educated professional engineer - who wanted his character to
    >>> be a military engineer. Imagine his confusion when he figured out
    >>> that a big rock really did fall faster than a small rock. So don't
    >>> make assumptions about other people's worlds.)
    >>
    >>You drop a small rock and a big rock at the same time. The big rock
    >>hits the ground first.
    >>
    >>So what happens when you chain the big rock to the small rock and drop
    >>them both at the same time?
    >>
    >>Does the small rock act as a drag on the big rock, or does the
    >>combined mass drop as one really big rock?
    >
    > Neither. Apparently the small rock is merely pulled along at the
    > speed of the big rock.
    >
    One of the best things about fantasy physics is that you get to make it up
    as you go.

    And it doesn't even necessarily have to be consistent.

    --
    Terry Austin
    http://www.hyperbooks.com/
    Campaign Cartographer Now Available
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <Xns9615BB4B967EAtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    Terry Austin <taustin@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

    > Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote in
    > news:me-8E3C40.12125911032005@individual.net:
    >
    > > In article <Xns96155CB7FDD90taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    > > No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

    > > So what happens when you chain the big rock to the small rock and drop
    > > them both at the same time?
    >
    > The big rock falls faster, until the chain is fully extended, then the
    > little rock is drug down at the same speed.

    So I could have, like, a million small rocks chained together and the
    whole arrangement would fall at the speed of the single heaviest object
    in the tangle? Hmm.

    > > If it acts as a combined mass, how does it know to do so
    > > given that there is no actual unbroken line of continuity between the
    > > two masses?
    > >
    > Rocks are flexible. Chains are.

    Gotcha.

    Imagine a 100kg chain made up of 10000 10g links. it will fall as fast
    as a single 10g link alone would fall. It falls much more slowly than a
    single 100kg mass would do.

    Drop a 100kg block of metal and a 100kg pile of chain simultaneously.
    The 100kg block lands with more oomph than the 100kg pile of chain.
    Because it weighs the same, and it is moving faster.

    That's the basis for a free energy/perpetual motion machine right there.

    Arrange a ferris wheel of weights. Each weight is made up of multiple
    pieces. As each weight passes the top of the wheel the mechanism locks
    the pieces together rigidly. As each weight passes the bottom of the
    wheel the mechanism allows the linkage to become flexible. Hey presto,
    the machine gains energy with each revolution because it takes less
    energy to hoist the flexibly linked weights up than you get when you let
    them down again.

    Kevin Lowe,
    Tasmania.
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kevin Lowe wrote:
    > In article <Xns9615BB4B967EAtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    > Terry Austin <taustin@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote in
    >> news:me-8E3C40.12125911032005@individual.net:
    >>
    >>> In article <Xns96155CB7FDD90taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    >>> No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >
    >>> So what happens when you chain the big rock to the small rock and
    >>> drop them both at the same time?
    >>
    >> The big rock falls faster, until the chain is fully extended, then
    >> the little rock is drug down at the same speed.
    >
    > So I could have, like, a million small rocks chained together and the
    > whole arrangement would fall at the speed of the single heaviest
    > object in the tangle? Hmm.
    >
    >>> If it acts as a combined mass, how does it know to do so
    >>> given that there is no actual unbroken line of continuity between
    >>> the two masses?
    >>>
    >> Rocks are flexible. Chains are.
    >
    > Gotcha.
    >
    > Imagine a 100kg chain made up of 10000 10g links. it will fall as
    > fast as a single 10g link alone would fall. It falls much more
    > slowly than a single 100kg mass would do.
    >
    > Drop a 100kg block of metal and a 100kg pile of chain simultaneously.
    > The 100kg block lands with more oomph than the 100kg pile of chain.
    > Because it weighs the same, and it is moving faster.
    >
    > That's the basis for a free energy/perpetual motion machine right
    > there.
    >
    > Arrange a ferris wheel of weights. Each weight is made up of multiple
    > pieces. As each weight passes the top of the wheel the mechanism
    > locks the pieces together rigidly. As each weight passes the bottom
    > of the wheel the mechanism allows the linkage to become flexible.
    > Hey presto, the machine gains energy with each revolution because it
    > takes less energy to hoist the flexibly linked weights up than you
    > get when you let them down again.

    You fool! That isn't free energy - you're expending the planet's limited
    supply of gravity with each revolution, faster than it can replenish. Do it
    too quickly and soon there'll be none left.

    --
    Mark.
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote in news:me-
    191230.17321211032005@individual.net:

    > In article <Xns9615BB4B967EAtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    > Terry Austin <taustin@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote in
    >> news:me-8E3C40.12125911032005@individual.net:
    >>
    >> > In article <Xns96155CB7FDD90taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    >> > No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >
    >> > So what happens when you chain the big rock to the small rock and drop
    >> > them both at the same time?
    >>
    >> The big rock falls faster, until the chain is fully extended, then the
    >> little rock is drug down at the same speed.
    >
    > So I could have, like, a million small rocks chained together and the
    > whole arrangement would fall at the speed of the single heaviest object
    > in the tangle? Hmm.

    Sure, that sounds good.
    >
    >> > If it acts as a combined mass, how does it know to do so
    >> > given that there is no actual unbroken line of continuity between the
    >> > two masses?
    >> >
    >> Rocks are flexible. Chains are.
    >
    > Gotcha.

    Perhaps that should be "Rocks aren't flexible."
    >
    > Imagine a 100kg chain made up of 10000 10g links. it will fall as fast
    > as a single 10g link alone would fall. It falls much more slowly than a
    > single 100kg mass would do.

    That sounds good, sure.
    >
    > Drop a 100kg block of metal and a 100kg pile of chain simultaneously.
    > The 100kg block lands with more oomph than the 100kg pile of chain.

    Well, that doesn't necessarily follow. It lands with more speed, but if
    we're changing gravity, why can't we change momentum, too?

    > Because it weighs the same, and it is moving faster.
    >
    > That's the basis for a free energy/perpetual motion machine right there.

    It *is* a fantasy world, after all.
    >
    > Arrange a ferris wheel of weights. Each weight is made up of multiple
    > pieces. As each weight passes the top of the wheel the mechanism locks
    > the pieces together rigidly. As each weight passes the bottom of the
    > wheel the mechanism allows the linkage to become flexible. Hey presto,
    > the machine gains energy with each revolution because it takes less
    > energy to hoist the flexibly linked weights up than you get when you let
    > them down again.
    >
    See above, on momentum. You don't really think you'll get anything *useful*
    out of all this, do you?

    (Though I do recall, back in the "three little digest size books" D&D days,
    a paladin powered castle design, involving holy swords with anti-magic
    fields, repulsion fields, and ten ton blocks. I had a wizard working on a
    V-8 design at one point.)

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
    news:39dk5fF5v2p1qU1@individual.net:

    > Kevin Lowe wrote:
    >> In article <Xns9615BB4B967EAtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    >> Terry Austin <taustin@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> wrote in
    >>> news:me-8E3C40.12125911032005@individual.net:
    >>>
    >>>> In article <Xns96155CB7FDD90taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
    >>>> No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> So what happens when you chain the big rock to the small rock and
    >>>> drop them both at the same time?
    >>>
    >>> The big rock falls faster, until the chain is fully extended, then
    >>> the little rock is drug down at the same speed.
    >>
    >> So I could have, like, a million small rocks chained together and the
    >> whole arrangement would fall at the speed of the single heaviest
    >> object in the tangle? Hmm.
    >>
    >>>> If it acts as a combined mass, how does it know to do so
    >>>> given that there is no actual unbroken line of continuity between
    >>>> the two masses?
    >>>>
    >>> Rocks are flexible. Chains are.
    >>
    >> Gotcha.
    >>
    >> Imagine a 100kg chain made up of 10000 10g links. it will fall as
    >> fast as a single 10g link alone would fall. It falls much more
    >> slowly than a single 100kg mass would do.
    >>
    >> Drop a 100kg block of metal and a 100kg pile of chain simultaneously.
    >> The 100kg block lands with more oomph than the 100kg pile of chain.
    >> Because it weighs the same, and it is moving faster.
    >>
    >> That's the basis for a free energy/perpetual motion machine right
    >> there.
    >>
    >> Arrange a ferris wheel of weights. Each weight is made up of
    >> multiple pieces. As each weight passes the top of the wheel the
    >> mechanism locks the pieces together rigidly. As each weight passes
    >> the bottom of the wheel the mechanism allows the linkage to become
    >> flexible. Hey presto, the machine gains energy with each revolution
    >> because it takes less energy to hoist the flexibly linked weights up
    >> than you get when you let them down again.
    >
    > You fool! That isn't free energy - you're expending the planet's
    > limited supply of gravity with each revolution, faster than it can
    > replenish. Do it too quickly and soon there'll be none left.
    >
    Ooooh, I *like* that. And some wizard will figure out what you're up to,
    and send a band of adventures to put an end to your nefarious scheme.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "DougL" <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote in
    news:1110560576.349746.87040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

    > Kevin Lowe wrote:
    >
    >> Imagine a 100kg chain made up of 10000 10g links. it will fall as
    > fast
    >> as a single 10g link alone would fall. It falls much more slowly
    > than a
    >> single 100kg mass would do.
    >>
    >> Drop a 100kg block of metal and a 100kg pile of chain simultaneously.
    >
    >> The 100kg block lands with more oomph than the 100kg pile of chain.
    >> Because it weighs the same, and it is moving faster.
    >
    > Why do you assume KE=1/2*M*V^2 in this world? It is EXPLICITLY
    > non-newtonian. There IS no such thing as momentum or inertia.

    Oh, there probably is. It just doesn't work quite the same. It's just
    different enough to keep a character from the modern world from being able
    to screw up the whole game with his high school physics.
    >
    > The lots of little masses hit with the exact same force, you
    > KNOW they are the same mass because they have the same force
    > on a balance after all.
    >
    > The little things move slower because the force is SPREAD OVER
    > MORE OBJECTS, not because they are getting less energy.
    >
    > But combined they hit with the same omph, because omph in a
    > fall is a function of mass.

    What's the standard mathematical symbol for "oomph"?
    >
    >> That's the basis for a free energy/perpetual motion machine right
    > there.
    >
    > Since Kinetic energy does not exist in the aristolealean world I
    > beg to differ.

    Beg all you want. It'll do you no good. (Even though you're right.)
    >
    >> Arrange a ferris wheel of weights. Each weight is made up of
    > multiple
    >> pieces. As each weight passes the top of the wheel the mechanism
    > locks
    >> the pieces together rigidly. As each weight passes the bottom of the
    >
    >> wheel the mechanism allows the linkage to become flexible. Hey
    > presto,
    >> the machine gains energy with each revolution because it takes less
    >> energy to hoist the flexibly linked weights up than you get when you
    > let
    >> them down again.
    >
    > Same presure on both sides so it doesn't move. Really this is simple.
    > The perpetual motion machine uses leverage and wieghts moving in and
    > out from the axis of rotation as the go arround, we'll have the bugs
    > out any day now.
    >
    I can show you patents.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    news:4230aa89.154931803@news.telusplanet.net:

    > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:53:37 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    > <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >
    >>rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    >>news:423080f7.144288849@news.telusplanet.net:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:41:39 -0000, No 33 Secretary
    >>> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> ...which is of course where the "guns=magic wands of instant death"
    >>>>> thing came from.
    >>>>>
    >>>>Yeah. Or you could go the other way, like Hero, where a .44 magnum
    >>>>cannot, under any circumstances, instantly kill someone, even with the
    >>>>barrel pressed to the base of the victim's skull. (Without variants,
    >>>>that is.)
    >>>
    >>> Do tell? Lemme see now. 44 mag does 2d6 killing.
    >>
    >>Ah. I recalled it as 1d6+1. Has it changed? Or has it just been too long.
    >
    > No, 1d+1 was the damage for a more typically sized gun like a 9mm, or
    > a .38 special.

    I stand corrected.
    >
    >>>But
    >>> if you have no hit locations, how can you press a gun to the base of
    >>> someone skull except by GM fiat? (In which case you can also declare
    >>> them dead by GM fiat.)
    >>>
    >>Only if the GM doesn't worship the rules to excess.
    >>
    >>But let's face it, Hero isn't *supposed* to be realistic.
    >
    > Realism is supposed to be an optional add-on to Hero.
    >
    There are optional rules that make combat realistically deadly. Which is
    not the same as saying they make *combat* realistic, of course, but that's
    not the point.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:13:00 +1000, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > Does the small rock act as a drag on the big rock, or does the combined
    > mass drop as one really big rock? If it acts as a drag, how can
    > anything fall at all, since everything is made up of smaller things? If
    > it acts as a combined mass, how does it know to do so given that there
    > is no actual unbroken line of continuity between the two masses?

    That's why I said this has interesting implications on the nature of
    objects, what makes something a contigous object, and so on. I'm sure
    the philosophers of that world have found this a way of whiling away
    those long winter evenings.


    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    news:cia23154f3v7cots8gcvkact91tnla72pi@4ax.com:

    > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:13:00 +1000, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> carved
    > upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> Does the small rock act as a drag on the big rock, or does the
    >> combined mass drop as one really big rock? If it acts as a drag, how
    >> can anything fall at all, since everything is made up of smaller
    >> things? If it acts as a combined mass, how does it know to do so
    >> given that there is no actual unbroken line of continuity between the
    >> two masses?
    >
    > That's why I said this has interesting implications on the nature of
    > objects, what makes something a contigous object, and so on. I'm sure
    > the philosophers of that world have found this a way of whiling away
    > those long winter evenings.
    >
    Without a doubt. I'm sure wars were fought over the subject.

    --
    Terry Austin
    http://www.hyperbooks.com/
    Campaign Cartographer Now Available
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Rupert Boleyn just said...
    > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:13:00 +1000, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> carved
    > upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    > > Does the small rock act as a drag on the big rock, or does the combined
    > > mass drop as one really big rock? If it acts as a drag, how can
    > > anything fall at all, since everything is made up of smaller things? If
    > > it acts as a combined mass, how does it know to do so given that there
    > > is no actual unbroken line of continuity between the two masses?
    >
    > That's why I said this has interesting implications on the nature of
    > objects, what makes something a contigous object, and so on. I'm sure
    > the philosophers of that world have found this a way of whiling away
    > those long winter evenings.

    It's a surprisingly hard question in *this* world (says the guy taking a
    graduate-level seminar in mereology, the philosophical study of part-
    whole relations, particularly as it relates to set theory - it turns out
    to be a remarkably complex and difficult subject). That it has more
    obvious practical implications in the (pre?-)Aristotelian world Terry
    posits, if anything, makes it *easier* in that setting.
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 06:37:05 GMT, Jeff Heikkinen <no.way@jose.org>
    wrote:

    >Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Rupert Boleyn just said...
    >> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 12:13:00 +1000, Kevin Lowe <me@private.net> carved
    >> upon a tablet of ether:
    >>
    >> > Does the small rock act as a drag on the big rock, or does the combined
    >> > mass drop as one really big rock? If it acts as a drag, how can
    >> > anything fall at all, since everything is made up of smaller things? If
    >> > it acts as a combined mass, how does it know to do so given that there
    >> > is no actual unbroken line of continuity between the two masses?
    >>
    >> That's why I said this has interesting implications on the nature of
    >> objects, what makes something a contigous object, and so on. I'm sure
    >> the philosophers of that world have found this a way of whiling away
    >> those long winter evenings.
    >
    >It's a surprisingly hard question in *this* world (says the guy taking a
    >graduate-level seminar in mereology, the philosophical study of part-
    >whole relations, particularly as it relates to set theory - it turns out
    >to be a remarkably complex and difficult subject). That it has more
    >obvious practical implications in the (pre?-)Aristotelian world Terry
    >posits, if anything, makes it *easier* in that setting.

    I once had a universe that was actually created i 6,000 years
    previous. So it looked like you were at the center of a sphere 12,000
    light years across, and every year new stars would appear in the sky.

    It made being an astrologer very interesting.
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <cL6dnVQzoP1zVq3fRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
    Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >...which is of course where the "guns=magic wands of instant death" thing
    >came from.

    AAAAAAAH!

    There ought to be a law that there can only be one gun thread at a time.
    --
    "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
    http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "DougL" <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote in
    news:1110571413.752204.55650@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

    > No 33 Secretary wrote:
    >> "DougL" <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote in
    >> news:1110560576.349746.87040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
    >
    >> > Same presure on both sides so it doesn't move. Really this is
    > simple.
    >> > The perpetual motion machine uses leverage and wieghts moving in
    > and
    >> > out from the axis of rotation as the go arround, we'll have the
    > bugs
    >> > out any day now.
    >> >
    >> I can show you patents.
    >
    > Patents or aplications? (A real question, I know there have been
    > aplications, I'm not sure if they were accepted.)

    Patents. They slipe through, from time to time. Always have.
    >
    > But I'm pretty sure that one goes back to the Greeks, and the
    > thing is it might well work in an Aristilian physics world.

    It probably would, unless you tried to do something with it.
    >
    > If I try to construct a mathematical model of what is happening
    > in such a world I get it working for a fairly straightforward
    > design, which makes building one a worthwhile experiment.
    >
    > Now, if I can just find someone able to build good bearings and a
    > cam shaft in your gameworld (plus a bunch of gameworld money) we
    > can get started, after that the only question will be can it
    > produce enough energy to be useful prior to breaking down.
    >
    In the end, you'd likely find that you'd need magical components, and they
    would be most costly, and more trouble to make, than simply building a
    magic widgey to do what your machine would do.

    --
    Terry Austin
    www.hyperbooks.com
    Campaign Cartographer now available
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <39dk5fF5v2p1qU1@individual.net>,
    "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote:

    > Kevin Lowe wrote:
    > > In article <Xns9615BB4B967EAtaustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,

    > > That's the basis for a free energy/perpetual motion machine right
    > > there.
    > >
    > > Arrange a ferris wheel of weights. Each weight is made up of multiple
    > > pieces. As each weight passes the top of the wheel the mechanism
    > > locks the pieces together rigidly. As each weight passes the bottom
    > > of the wheel the mechanism allows the linkage to become flexible.
    > > Hey presto, the machine gains energy with each revolution because it
    > > takes less energy to hoist the flexibly linked weights up than you
    > > get when you let them down again.
    >
    > You fool! That isn't free energy - you're expending the planet's limited
    > supply of gravity with each revolution, faster than it can replenish. Do it
    > too quickly and soon there'll be none left.

    Don't worry. There are probably an equal and opposite number of portals
    to the Plane of Gravity hidden at the bottom of lakes and stuff. If we
    didn't burn some of it off we'd all weigh a ton and have, like, 10'
    movement rate.

    Kevin Lowe,
    Tasmania.
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <1110560576.349746.87040@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
    "DougL" <doug.lampert@tdytsi.com> wrote:

    > Kevin Lowe wrote:
    >
    > > Imagine a 100kg chain made up of 10000 10g links. it will fall as
    > fast
    > > as a single 10g link alone would fall. It falls much more slowly
    > than a
    > > single 100kg mass would do.
    > >
    > > Drop a 100kg block of metal and a 100kg pile of chain simultaneously.
    >
    > > The 100kg block lands with more oomph than the 100kg pile of chain.
    > > Because it weighs the same, and it is moving faster.
    >
    > Why do you assume KE=1/2*M*V^2 in this world? It is EXPLICITLY
    > non-newtonian. There IS no such thing as momentum or inertia.

    If things moving faster hit with more oomph (and I assume that there is
    oomph in this fantasy world), it follows. If things moving faster do
    not hit with more oomph, crossbows would be kind of useless.

    > > That's the basis for a free energy/perpetual motion machine right
    > there.
    >
    > Since Kinetic energy does not exist in the aristolealean world I
    > beg to differ.

    That's why I said perpetual motion, since energy as such might not be
    part of this fantasy world but I'm pretty damn sure motion is.

    > Same presure on both sides so it doesn't move.

    Can't be right. There has to be more downward pressure on the solid
    blocks than the flexibly linked blocks, or else the solid blocks could
    not fall faster. Unless pushing harder doesn't make things go faster in
    this world, in which case crossbows and running wouldn't work.

    Kevin Lowe,
    Tasmania.
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games