Glamor

[phiwum]

Sure, Tippets, I don't think anyone here was pushing their interpretation as the necessarily right and proper one. I look for answers here for a couple of reasons.

First, I do like to play RAW to a large extent and I might have missed something in the plain text, so hearing from others matters in figuring out the intended meaning of the rules. In figuring out just what Glamor means, the importance of Disguise+Glamor is easy to overlook and Henry brought that to my attention.

Second, where the rules are vague, it's good to hear about how others play it. I never even considered the possibility that the sound might not match the visual glamor until DeadParrot mentioned it.

But in the end, we'll each play it the way we want---even if that means altering instead of interpreting RAW.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by phiwum

Second, where the rules are vague, it's good to hear about how others play it. I never even considered the possibility that the sound might not match the visual glamor until DeadParrot mentioned it.

But in the end, we'll each play it the way we want---even if that means altering instead of interpreting RAW.

Exactly. The more I look at Glamor's description, the more problematic it seems to me. At best, it is incomplete in such a way as to cause confusion with how it interacts with talents like Mimic and Disguise.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Shostak

Exactly. The more I look at Glamor's description, the more problematic it seems to me. At best, it is incomplete in such a way as to cause confusion with how it interacts with talents like Mimic and Disguise.

Right. That's where I'm spending my thoughts lately. I don't want Glamor to be a better replacement of Mimic and Disguise, partly because in RAW, Glamor only gives an advantage to disguise.

So, if you want to appear like just any ol' orc, you can. Unlike Disguise, where a roll for detection would be necessary, I think you can skip the roll for Glamor. If you speak, however, I'd want a (probably unskilled) saving roll for the listener as in Mimic[1].

If you want to look like a particular orc, others get a saving throw to see through your magical disguise, which is probably unskilled but which involves Glamor, so the net roll seems like it's the same as Disguise to me.

Disguise+Glamor has two advantages. First, the 1d advantage mentioned in text. Second, as I see it, Glamor doesn't have to touch up appearance, but produce the appearance, so no one hour prep time needed. This interpretation is not consistent with the text of Disguise, however.

I think I'll allow that you're changing your appearance in the broad sense, so sounds and smells included. A disguise roll would be needed if a dog is around -- he may detect your identity or race because of his acute smelling ability. Maybe acute hearing would give some advantage, too, if we think such a person can hear idiomatic sounds. Seems a stretch to me.

Your voice isn't hidden by Glamor, because of the unique refraction rate of whatsits that counteracts the whosits and whatnots. Okay, I don't have a good reason. I'd like to say something to the effect that speaking is a willful act using your physical vocalization faculties, so it's really coming from you in the same way that your mannerisms are coming from you and so require a Disguise roll if you're impersonating. I don't really have a full defense of that view.

Maybe you can change the auditory properties of your voice, but not the accent without Mimic. Note that an orc raised in a predominantly human city, fully assimilated, might have no accent at all, though the goblin caster might have an accent to overcome.[2]

[1] I think that an unskilled use of Mimicry gives a two die advantage to the hearer. A one-die advantage is not enough of a penalty, since the save roll is usually 4/IQ.

[2] I'm speaking of "no accent at all" in the usual way: they sound like me.

[TippetsTX]

There's alot about TFT illusions that raise questions for me. For example, can a wizard who has never actually seen a dragon create a believable illusion of one? Similar concerns could apply to GLAMOR as well, though that fact that it can't be disbelieved seems to imply that the quality of that illusion is either perfect somehow or has a psychic effect that makes it seem flawless.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

though that fact that it can't be disbelieved seems to imply that the quality of that illusion is either perfect somehow or has a psychic effect that makes it seem flawless.

I love the phrase "psychic effect" in this context. I like to think that where illusion and glamor are alike is that neither is altering reality outside of the mind of those being fooled. The appearance of the subject under the glamor spell doesn't change one jot, but the perception of the subject is altered within the minds of the beholders. Perhaps the way to look at glamor is that the spell causes the subject to radiate packets of information that go into the heads of the beholders and, acting like a computer virus, forces them to perceive someone or something they know. Their own minds are tricked into filling in the details. For example, the casting wizard may not remember Duke Rodney has a mole on his left cheek, but he doesn't need to. Those that expect to see the mole will see it, and those that never noticed the Duke had one won't, because they don't need to.

Along those lines, yes, I'd expect the person under the glamor to even sound like the person they were supposed to be, even to the extent that they could speak in Goblin, if that's all the glamored one knew, but the listeners would hear it in Elvish if that was what they were expecting. Those that expected the Duke to smell like lavender cologne would smell lavender cologne, even if the wizard actually reeked of garlic from lunch, because that packet of code in their heads would be telling them this is what lavender smells like. But someone who didn't know how the Duke was supposed to smell would actually still smell garlic.

The fun would come if the witnesses compared notes later. "Well of course that was the Duke - you saw the mole on his left cheek, didn't you?" "Don't you mean on the right cheek? That's where I saw it!" "What are you guys talking about? The Duke has a mole? I never saw any mole. I just wish he'd brushed his teeth, that garlic was killing me!" "Are you mad? The Duke's allergic to garlic! You best get your nose checked, all I smelled was that awful lavender cologne he bathes in!"

Of course it is saying or doing things that the subject of the impersonation would never say or do that could give away the ruse in a moment. If Duke Rodney was never rude but you said something rude, or if he was usually rude but you were overly polite, someone would suspect something even though the voice sounded identical to the real Duke. If the Duke was notorious for scratching the side of his nose at military strategy meetings, and the impostor sat through an entire summit without once scratching, someone might well notice. The impostor might even have been told or coached about these things in advance, but under the pressure of the moment forgot. Here is where talents like disguise, mimic, or acting could make all the difference.

Similar packets of "psychic effects" can also be used to explain the mechanics of illusions. The wizard may only need a rough idea of what a dragon looks like to create the illusion of a dragon. The brains of everyone else are just getting the instruction to "see" their own version of a dragon. That could get very complicated though. For game purposes, the illusion best be a collective hallucination where everyone, wizard included, perceives an "average" of what they as a group think a dragon is. Although someone in the group with a very clear idea of what that should be might bias the results to be closer to the real thing, and that someone might be the wizard himself.

And with glamor as with illusions, low IQ figures like animals should not be affected. Perhaps an unusually smart horse or dog might be more vulnerable to deception, but their acute senses could be considered to offset this to varying degrees. The warhorse might perceive the illusion of the dragon his master wishes to battle, but if that's not really Duke Rodney climbing on his back he'll know it and throw a fit.

These intricacies are much fun to contemplate.

[Kieddicus]

It just dawned on me that glamor is an illusion not an image, and in TFT illusions act real to people who believe them. This to me implies that even though you don't get the abilities of your disguise it will still hold up to physical inspections.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Kieddicus

It just dawned on me that glamor is an illusion not an image, and in TFT illusions act real to people who believe them.

They are, and they aren't. There is a sentence stating that Glamor is a special kind of illusion, but then there are several indicators that suggest that it is more like an illusion-emulating enchantment: Glamor is a Thrown spell, whereas illusions are Creation spells; illusions can be disbelieved, but Glamors can't; illusions have a limited range and duration, Glamors don't; and some hold that Glamor is purely visual, whereas illusions have olfactory and auditory components, as well. There may be more. Glamor is an example of This those areas where I wish a bit more attention had been paid to stating the rules in such a way as to avoid contradictions or to fully explain them.

[phiwum]

Shostak seems too shy to advertise his addled musings, so let me do it. He wrote a good piece on his website about illusions and glamor. He hasn't changed the way I think of them, but it's a viable alternative view.

I hope, Shostak, that you don't mind the plug. I think what you wrote is relevant and interesting.

The best line in the piece: "And it [the concept of illusions] gets weirder and less consistent; although an illusion of just a dagger could actually sever a cord, the sword of an illusory soldier can’t, despite the fact that it can kill. Huh?" Perhaps that point has been discussed here, but I haven't come across it and so it was new to me.

[hcobb]

Using an illusion knife to cut somebody's bindings will appear to work, but they'll still be stuck somehow. (Unless they were bound by a magic rope, in which case it will work)

[phiwum]

Tain't what the rules say, Henry. Illusory hand weapons behave like the real thing and real knives don't have the limitation you say that illusory knives have.

You can play it however you want, but what you described is inconsistent with RAW (ITL 139).

Illusions of Inanimate Objects: An illusion of fire,
wall, or shadow will behave just like the real thing until it
vanishes or is disbelieved. The same is true for an illusion of
a hand-held weapon or a Magic Rope.

I don't think the text is ambiguous here.