Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Intrope" data-source="post: 4000315" data-attributes="member: 3591">Actually, there are two assumptions here: that wheels are more effecient in a fantasy universe (not necessarily so--the scaling rules for instance clearly don't follow real-world rules; neither giants or big flyers are physically possible. The relative efficiency of different simple machines is likely different, too) and that you can animate arbitrary forms. Given that nearly everything that gets animated is essentially humanoid (there are counter examples, of course; Animated Object and Juggernauts for instance) a reasonable extrapolation is that the form animated has to be in the image of it's maker (or in the apparently universal humanoid shape). In both cases, a golem palanquin would beat out the wheeled vehicle.At a deeper level, I prefer fantasy worlds to have a fantasy 'physics' rather than a Vancian/Gygaxian magic-on-real-physics scheme. Not that the worlds shouldn't be consistent--just that the rules aren't the rules of physics! The four elements are what things are really made of, not a Aristolean classification scheme; gunpowder is meaningless because chemistry just doesn't happen (Alchemy happens, if you have the mystical talent and training for it!)Having said that, I don't *hate* Eberron's approach; I'd just prefer that it be an alternate scheme and the default scheme be more magical logic rather than real-world counterparts.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Intrope, post: 4000315, member: 3591"] Actually, there are two assumptions here: that wheels are more effecient in a fantasy universe (not necessarily so--the scaling rules for instance clearly don't follow real-world rules; neither giants or big flyers are physically possible. The relative efficiency of different simple machines is likely different, too) and that you can animate arbitrary forms. Given that nearly everything that gets animated is essentially humanoid (there are counter examples, of course; Animated Object and Juggernauts for instance) a reasonable extrapolation is that the form animated has to be in the image of it's maker (or in the apparently universal humanoid shape). In both cases, a golem palanquin would beat out the wheeled vehicle. At a deeper level, I prefer fantasy worlds to have a fantasy 'physics' rather than a Vancian/Gygaxian magic-on-real-physics scheme. Not that the worlds shouldn't be consistent--just that the rules aren't the rules of physics! The four elements are what things are really made of, not a Aristolean classification scheme; gunpowder is meaningless because chemistry just doesn't happen (Alchemy happens, if you have the mystical talent and training for it!) Having said that, I don't *hate* Eberron's approach; I'd just prefer that it be an alternate scheme and the default scheme be more magical logic rather than real-world counterparts. [/QUOTE]

Verification