Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Item question regarding Bags of Holding
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 6225638" data-attributes="member: 6669384"><p>So, to be clear, you're in favor of using physics in the game world?</p><p></p><p>Sorry if I'm misreading, but that sounds like your conclusion.</p><p></p><p>Stepping back a point, I'll argue that we <strong>do</strong> know exactly how a Bag of Holding works: The rules say exactly what it does, and how to use it.</p><p></p><p>Speculation of special, unmentioned properties may be entertaining, but ultimately speculation is all it is.</p><p></p><p>My "spandex lining" interpretation? Pure speculation, an attempt to rationalize why the air supply is fixed, and why even the largest capacity bag can be accessed as a move action, if there isn't too much stuff in it.</p><p></p><p>Arguments over gravity inside? Pure speculation, also as a way of explaining how someone could access what's inside easily.</p><p></p><p>Special dimensional thresholds to keep water from entering? 100% speculation. But this speculation isn't being done to explain a documented feature. It seems to be embraced to explain a feature that the Bag isn't listed as having.</p><p></p><p>So, leaving the physics out of it for the moment, the "why wouldn't it protect itself" argument sounds very weak to me simply because there's nothing to even hint that it can or does protect itself. In fact, the rules say exactly what we have to look out for because it doesn't protect itself. </p><p></p><p>You see the difference? Rationalizing a documented feature is one thing. Rationalizing a feature into existence is something else, and has nothing to do with physics v magic. This is poorly defined (i.e. game world) physics v undefined and undocumented magical properties.</p><p></p><p>If you want to include real world physics in the game, then that becomes "well defined fluid dynamics v undefined and undocumented (i.e. made up on the fly) magical properties."</p><p></p><p>In physics v magic, magic should win. In physics v "there might be something magical involved", physics wins. Until "might be" somehow changes into "is", physics wins. Otherwise even common sense, gut level physics gets suspended arbitrarily any time someone says, "There might be some magic involved, somehow." Stuff happens "just because".</p><p></p><p>You argue that having bags burst from air pressure adds nothing to the game? I'll argue that "just because" adds even less.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Greenfield, post: 6225638, member: 6669384"] So, to be clear, you're in favor of using physics in the game world? Sorry if I'm misreading, but that sounds like your conclusion. Stepping back a point, I'll argue that we [B]do[/B] know exactly how a Bag of Holding works: The rules say exactly what it does, and how to use it. Speculation of special, unmentioned properties may be entertaining, but ultimately speculation is all it is. My "spandex lining" interpretation? Pure speculation, an attempt to rationalize why the air supply is fixed, and why even the largest capacity bag can be accessed as a move action, if there isn't too much stuff in it. Arguments over gravity inside? Pure speculation, also as a way of explaining how someone could access what's inside easily. Special dimensional thresholds to keep water from entering? 100% speculation. But this speculation isn't being done to explain a documented feature. It seems to be embraced to explain a feature that the Bag isn't listed as having. So, leaving the physics out of it for the moment, the "why wouldn't it protect itself" argument sounds very weak to me simply because there's nothing to even hint that it can or does protect itself. In fact, the rules say exactly what we have to look out for because it doesn't protect itself. You see the difference? Rationalizing a documented feature is one thing. Rationalizing a feature into existence is something else, and has nothing to do with physics v magic. This is poorly defined (i.e. game world) physics v undefined and undocumented magical properties. If you want to include real world physics in the game, then that becomes "well defined fluid dynamics v undefined and undocumented (i.e. made up on the fly) magical properties." In physics v magic, magic should win. In physics v "there might be something magical involved", physics wins. Until "might be" somehow changes into "is", physics wins. Otherwise even common sense, gut level physics gets suspended arbitrarily any time someone says, "There might be some magic involved, somehow." Stuff happens "just because". You argue that having bags burst from air pressure adds nothing to the game? I'll argue that "just because" adds even less. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Item question regarding Bags of Holding
Top