What are the senses of a wolf image or illusion?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JLV

I really just think we are over-analyzing this stuff again.

I don't think so actually. The difference between 'illusions have their own senses' and 'illusions know what their creators know' is pretty significant. It also means that you cannot do something like have an illusion stick its head over a wall and attack someone the wizard can't see.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I don't think so actually. The difference between 'illusions have their own senses' and 'illusions know what their creators know' is pretty significant. It also means that you cannot do something like have an illusion stick its head over a wall and attack someone the wizard can't see.

How did we ever play it back in the day without this discussion? Just rule something and move on. I know that sounds "hostile," but I really don't mean it to be. If you don't feel like giving the wolf any self-motivation or innate ability, then say it doesn't see something (even though something is there). If you think an illusion might still have some self-actuation possible, then let it see normally, and play on.

I think that these discussions sometimes lead to "analysis paralysis" and will put off new gamers; and that would be a real shame.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by JLV

I think that these discussions sometimes lead to "analysis paralysis" and will put off new gamers; and that would be a real shame.

Maybe we need to put a disclaimer on the house rules forum... 'new players enter at your own risk!'
;)

[Sinanju]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I don't think so actually. The difference between 'illusions have their own senses' and 'illusions know what their creators know' is pretty significant. It also means that you cannot do something like have an illusion stick its head over a wall and attack someone the wizard can't see.

I was just rereading the intro to Death Test last night and it explicitly said that wizards could summon creatures *or create illusions* to scout rooms before they enter them (though images could not pass the black "curtains").

So at least when he wrote Death Test, Steve implied that an illusion *can* allow a wizard to see things he can't see himself (in another room, on the other side of a wall, etc).

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Sinanju

So at least when he wrote Death Test, Steve implied that an illusion *can* allow a wizard to see things he can't see himself (in another room, on the other side of a wall, etc).

Yeah, I never cared for that aspect of the illusion rules TBH. I can see why they did it (eliminate the need for a separate 'remote viewing' spell in a game were spells known are already extremely limited), but it breaks the implied 'logic' of how I believe that illusions should work. I am firmly entrenched in the idea that illusions only exist in the mind.

[RobW]

Originally Posted by Sinanju

I was just rereading the intro to Death Test last night and it explicitly said that wizards could summon creatures *or create illusions* to scout rooms before they enter them (though images could not pass the black "curtains").

So at least when he wrote Death Test, Steve implied that an illusion *can* allow a wizard to see things he can't see himself (in another room, on the other side of a wall, etc).

Thanks -- I was wondering why I've long understood that you can see through an illusion's eyes.

It is part of the reason I have thought the belief in the illusion created a "knot of force" with physical rather than just mental effects.

I actually prefer it this way, that the illusion's senses do not give information not already available to the wizard.

[RobW]

Originally Posted by JLV

How did we ever play it back in the day without this discussion?

To answer your question, we played it for about 40 years where you could use the illusion to scout ahead.

But... this discussion has convinced me we should change.

Originally Posted by JLV

Just rule something and move on.

Well that's an approach, just kind of go with snap judgements.

Originally Posted by JLV

I know that sounds "hostile," but I really don't mean it to be.... I think that these discussions sometimes lead to "analysis paralysis" and will put off new gamers; and that would be a real shame.

You're right, it does sound hostile, even though that's unintended. Perceived hostility could put off new gamers more than polite and sincere discussion about little corners of the game rules.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JLV

I think that these discussions sometimes lead to "analysis paralysis" and will put off new gamers; and that would be a real shame.

It's certainly possible to over-analyze things, but I don't see how this an example. There are three reasonably plausible answers to an illusion's senses:

1. The illusion has senses appropriate to what it is
2. The illusion has senses corresponding to the wizard's senses
3. The illusion doesn't have senses at all, it acts based on the wizard's senses

The quote from ITL argues for (3). The intro to Death Test suggests either (1) or (2), though it does not determine which. None of these are particularly difficult to adjudicate in a game, but it's helpful to make a decision about which is the correct answer, because they produce dramatically different outcomes (and meaningfully alter the balance of illusions).

[Sinanju]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It's certainly possible to over-analyze things, but I don't see how this an example. There are three reasonably plausible answers to an illusion's senses:

1. The illusion has senses appropriate to what it is
2. The illusion has senses corresponding to the wizard's senses
3. The illusion doesn't have senses at all, it acts based on the wizard's senses

The quote from ITL argues for (3). The intro to Death Test suggests either (1) or (2), though it does not determine which. None of these are particularly difficult to adjudicate in a game, but it's helpful to make a decision about which is the correct answer, because they produce dramatically different outcomes (and meaningfully alter the balance of illusions).

Yeah. I think any of these is justifiable, and can work in any given game--but it would be wise to choose one and stick with it, to avoid inconsistency (and arguments) down the line.

[FireHorse]

Originally Posted by Anthony

1. The illusion has senses appropriate to what it is
2. The illusion has senses corresponding to the wizard's senses
3. The illusion doesn't have senses at all, it acts based on the wizard's senses

Nice breakdown.

Given that, I think perhaps an Image ought to be like #3 — or in some cases, even independent of any senses at all, but behaving according to a script, like a holographic program.

But by contrast, I think an Illusion ought to be like #1 — because it is (to at least some extent) not just a product of the wizard's spell, but of the observers' own minds. So it seems fair to suggest that nothing about its nature should be limited by the characteristics of its caster.