Can you teleport onto a ship?

[chilibean]

So the wizards in Forgotten Realms (back in the Netherese days) couldn't teleport to their flying cities unless they scryed them first or wanted to risk teleporting into the place in the sky it used to occupy? That's just plain silly. Too much science. Teleporting into a boat should be perfectly legal. Same with teleporting into the back of a wagon.

As for teleporting to the back of a flying dragon, that's a clever idea but really risky for reasons other than landing in the wrong place. Landing in the right place could be much worse ...

As for scrying the boat before teleporting, that might be a good idea. If the boat sank, then you would end up in the crows nest sitting 1000 ft underwater. Oops. If the boat was destroyed, then you would probably end up on some similiar boat in the region somewhere. Maybe thats an out of the frying pan into the fire situation.

As for preserving velocity vectors, that is also too much science. It should be perfectly valid to teleport to the ground if you fell off a 10000 foot tall cliff without hitting the ground at whatever velocity you were travelling when you teleported. Just ignore the science stuff and let people teleport where they want. Otherwise all the implications of even simple teleports need to be addressed too or else you have crazy inconsistencies. It's not worth the hassle, it adds nothing to the game, and doesn't significantly help game balance any. IMO.

 

[kreynolds]

If the boat was destroyed, then you would probably end up on some similiar boat in the region somewhere. Maybe thats an out of the frying pan into the fire situation.

Not with Teleport without Error. If the boat is destroyed, then the location no longer exists at all. So the casting simply fails.

 

[General Starlight]

Realism in Teleporting.

First, I have to say I think very little of Hong's Third Law of Fantasy. Granted, one may not appreciate such considerations, but another may, and in fact, consider them a great part of the fun. Furthermore, ignoring certain obvious considerations may even ruin the fun for them, but I admit this is a highly subjective area of preference. Still, I equate Hong's 3rd law with those who say "It doesn't have to make any sense, it's fantasy." It would be different, I suppose, if one were actually suggesting it was necessary for a player to make minute calculations and measurements in order for their PC to even use the spell, but no one is being asked to do that in actual practice. Naturally, one can go too far, but IMHO, most don't go far enough. Still, the level of realism you wish to include in your game is highly subjective. I just think it's wrong to berate those more inclined to deeper thinking, if that's what you were doing, or ignore such thought once given. If you didn't care about it in the first place, why even ask the question? Heck, many players won't even like dealing with different time zones if they teleport a significant percentage of the globe away, but it's darn realistic, and I'd rather take such things into consideration. And simplifications like rendering all fantasy worlds to 'Flat Earth constructs', though they may be true for your world, hardly should be the norm, IMHO.

Now I confess to an oversight on my part insofar as I should have said you are EITHER off 1d% miles, OR a percentage of total distance traveled, whichever is less. Thanks, CRGreathouse. It is better that way.

True, I know many games will likely confine themselves to one planet (and the planes above or below it) and many may think interplanetary considerations a stupid endeavor for most fantasy games, but I have always found them worthwhile. If you really wish not to allow such things, I think the spell should clearly say so and not suggest distance isn't really a factor since it clearly would be.

Yet, due to the visualization aspects of the spell, if you allow this sort of 'similar area' sort of thing, a caster should be able to visualize either a location or a unique object. Naturally, they should fixate on things that are harder to alter, like huge rocks, large trees, or bulkheads or things affixed to them in permanent ways, rather than more mobile aspects of a cabin, like items resting on a table. The idea of carving a rune or something on such a bulkhead is a great way to help visualize a unique location to make it more familiar, and though not required to get there, I think it would help upgrade your target classification if you did such a thing.

Anyway, if a ship at dock moved and the caster didn't know this, they would only end up in the drink if they visualized the target as the previous location of the ship. If they imagined instead some interior feature, this spell must take them there no matter where the ship may currently be located. Of course, the ship may have blown up in the interim and no such place will still exist and thus 'false destination' must be used. All of this simply makes teleporting to 'locations' safer and less risky than teleporting to some object or mobile platform.

Honestly, a bigger concern should be appearing where some object now rest which wasn't there before. Fortunately, this is easily handled as Mishap damage, so instead of just those teleporting with you, you may damage items or creatures standing where you want to go (which is why teleporting into a locked closed room is often a good idea). This will mean, however, such a person at the target location may also suffer some Mishap damage. After the spell concludes, such items trying to exist in the same locations will be bounced apart, perhaps forcefully, which may be what the mishap damage represents.

Finally, though I enjoy this level of thought and more realistic consideration, and often feel fantasy settings should not mean normal laws of physics mean nothing and may thus be freely ignored, I do appreciate the fact not everyone enjoys this sort of detail. That is why though it's a good idea to include these considerations into what the rule should be, it is not as wise to insist on it or try to make them a necessary part of what the player or character must consider during actual play. Clearly, this is for the DM to take or leave, and hopefully, if it makes more sense, any logical consequences of this line of thought to mesh well and more consistently with other aspects of game world reality.

Jim

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Realism in Teleporting.

First, I have to say I think...<snip>

Damn, son! Breathe!

 

[Vaxalon]

Has anyone considered that this is an ASTRAL-based spell? You move into the astral, zip to your destination in an eyeblink, and zap back into the material plane. No relative motion, no potential energy, because it all happens in the astral.

Put that in your reality-pipe.

 

[General Starlight]

Well, sure.

I'd just rather post more complete thoughts rather than many little less complete ones

http://Villa.lakes.com/JamesStarlight/index.html

Jim

 

[General Starlight]

I already have. This is why astral travel, like teleportation, can freely ignore the limiting factors of the speed of light and avoid relativistic effects. It is also why energy can probably be dumped into the system or drawn out of the system and thus why relative motion, though important, is being taken care of, even if we don't exactly consider how magic works in too great a detail. After all, we are not wizards, but I would imagine they are extremely clever and knowledgeable and must take these mattes into consideration, even if players need not.

Puff, puff, puff

Jim

 

[kreynolds]

I already have. This is why astral travel, like teleportation, can freely ignore the limiting factors of the speed of light and avoid relativistic effects. It is also why energy can probably be dumped into the system or drawn out of the system and thus why relative motion, though important, is being taken care of, even if we don't exactly consider how magic works in to great a detail. After all, we are not wizards, but I would imagine they are extremely clever and knowledgeable and must take these mattes into consideration, even if players need not.

Puff, puff, puff

Jim

Ummm....rrrrriiiiggghhht. Are you sure you wouldn't be happier playing GURPS?

 

[IceBear]

Re: Realism in Teleporting.

First, I have to say I think very little of Hong's Third Law of Fantasy. <snip>

I think all Hong is trying to say is that it's only a game. If you start to think too deeply about the rules you'll only drive yourself insane trying to cover "everything". Trust me, 12 years ago I was trying everything to make the game more "realistic" and ended up with so many rule clarifications / house rules it was just plain insane

So, the KISS principle is in full effect in my games now. It's much more fun that way (for me at least, I'm sure it's a lot of fun for some people to fully flesh out the rules to the point that it jives with their sense of reality, but it's not for me).

IceBear

 

[General Starlight]

Actually, I'm quite certain I wouldn't be happier playing GURPS. There's a system that goes too far while striving for realism and still seriously misses it, IMHO. Besides, realism isn't the do all and tell all of fantasy gaming, nor the ultimate point of roleplaying. It's just some extra realism is often better than none, and when a GM must adjudicate a rule, such as the question that started this thread, these consideration often lead to better, more self-consistent worlds, and give the players a greater opportunity to use logic to figure things out. Now, if you don't care your DM is tossing stuff at your group that makes absolutely NO sense, that's your business.

As for Hong, the fact it is ONLY a game or only make believe in no way should be used as an excuse for poor thinking, or perhaps even an encouragement of it or a reason to ignore more considered opinions should they be offered.

And honestly, I'm not driving myself crazy or insane by thinking of such things. In fact, I enjoy it, and I find if I put this level of thought into my rulings, the players appreciate my world better, as long as they aren't the ones force to deal with the reasoning behind it. They just use the rules and get to play on what is, hopefully, a more consistent world.

As for the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid), even simplicity is relative. Some one with a high aptitude at mathematics or physics, for example, might find such consideration painfully simple, while others may run, cringing in fear as the evil mathematicians attack. Talk about divide and conquer

Anyway, I find this level of thought fun, I find AD&D to be fun, and, perhaps unfortunately for me, I find those who blatantly ignore certain things while making their world too often have produced a realm with such inconsistencies that it makes playing there the real chore, and frequently less than enjoyable for ME.

Let's face it. If your world has realism without adding lots of extra work to get it, as I feel GURPS does, even if a player doesn't care too much about it or think about the extra levels of thought that went into it, they'll be fine. But if the world is lacking this realism and a player looks for it, they won't be fine. Realism, therefore, hurts less than unrealistic, ill-considered, inconsistent rulings. But we all have our preferences, and as long as you enjoy your game, no one should claim you are doing it 'wrong.'

So Icebear, thanks for your concerns as to my sanity, but I've been doing this for over 20 years and I seem relatively fine (of course that's debatable). In the meantime, my POV is expressed nicely here for those who aren't already sufficiently tired of my ranting.

http://Villa.lakes.com/JamesStarlight/WorldRealism.html

Jim.