No Horses For You

[Midas]

Re: No Horses For You

 

Originally Posted by Curufea

I'm all for fantasy elements, but if you as a GM, don't have some valid reasons for things, or a bit knowledge on how it could work - sooner or later your PCs will pull you up on it. Most likely by exploiting a plot hole, or continuity error you hadn't thought of yet. So it's best to make the continuity whole before introducing PCs to it (in my opinion).

 

Yeah' date=' but if its fantasy, isn't there a point where its legitimate to just say "Magic!" and let it go?[/quote']

 

As an ardent simulationist, my answer is, whenever I can't come up with an answer to "How does that work?"

 

For ex: Say you're designing a world where the elves are truly *fey.* Not pointy eared woods runners -but spirits clothed in flesh, for the moment. And as such, they are vulnerable to "cold iron." Why? Maybe it's psychosomatic. Maybe it's an allergic reaction that their chosen form must bear. Maybe they can feel the heat from the earth's core, through the iron. OK, go with the allergy. "Why can't they make a body that doesn't react to iron?" "Donno. Magic, I guess."

 

Actually, I'd skull on it a while and go to or three levels deeper before shrugging it off to magic, but the example should work.

 

Midas

[Ragnarok]

Re: No Horses For You

 

Yeah' date=' but if its fantasy, isn't there a point where its legitimate to just say "Magic!" and let it go?[/quote']

 

 

Well.......In my mind, not really.

 

Even though you may not be able to logically explain how a huge dragon can support its weight in the air, you should always at least try to strive to attain some sort of realism in your fantasy world.

 

After all, who wants to live in a glittery world full of fantastic flying manbearpigs who teleport all over the place? Not me...

[Captain Obvious]

Re: No Horses For You

 

I kind of have it both ways. Some things need to be rationally (at least cinematically rationally) explained, and other things just are. Fey and iron is a "they just are" sort of thing, while feeding a mount is a rational thing, IMO.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: No Horses For You

 

Okay, my mind is whirling at the concept of "realism" in a fantasy setting. But I'll take it on faith. I guess what you mean is more "internal consistency" than "realism".

 

But still... there has to be some point at which you no longer try to explain every little detail and just assume that magic is the cause. As Captain Obvious said, some things just are.

 

But... if you really need a rational explanation for dragons not bankrupting the kingdom and so on, just say they only eat once a month or so on, and that they get by on a single cow or something. I mean, there's realism and then there's realism, and if you must have a reason behind things, there's no... well, reason why the reason has to be the same thing in this world.

 

It is fantasy after all.

[DusterBoy]

Re: No Horses For You

 

About Elvish/fey vulnerability to cold iron, in "Lords and ladies", Terry Pratchett says that amongst other things, it disrupts their ability to sense a magical variant of magnetic fields described as lines of glittering silver, an ability which explains how they can never get lost.

[Shadowsoul]

Re: No Horses For You

 

You don't need modern scientific logic for this sort of thing. You need the logic of myth.

 

One could use the ideas associated with classical philosophy and renaissance magic. Everything corresponds to particular celestial influences and is thus connected. In this case Iron is linked to Earth which is opposed to the celestial influence which Elves or Faeries are linked to or made from.

 

Or one could say that an ancient creator god or other powerful being granted the Elves mastery over many mystical elements of the spirit, (which is why they can perform magic), but reserved the mastery of iron for humankind and with this mastery the humans crafted many fine and useful things. Seeing this the Elves grew discontented with their portion and rose up to wrest the secrets of blacksmithing from the hands of men. The God grew angry, (in fact since he was a creator god he probably grew wroth), and he cursed the Elves.

 

"You would take that which is not rightly yours. But iron knows those who should be its masters and it knows you not. From this day forth the spirits of iron shall strike down any who shall lay hands upon them unless they be of the race of men whom iron knows as its rightful lords."

 

Less dramatically, if iron is 'human magic' then it cancels out 'Elven Magic' which is less tied to the material world and thus weaker in some ways although it is less limited.

[Vulcan]

Re: No Horses For You

 

I always thought the cold-forged iron vs. fay thing came out of European folk tales. In general, the fay could not be injured by normal steel, but something about cold-forged iron screwed with them.

 

Of course, this came out of the same cultures that determined the best way to prove a woman was a witch was to tie her up and thow her in a pond. If she survived, she must have used magic and was a witch. If she drowned, well, I guess she wasn't a witch after all...

[Curufea]

Re: No Horses For You

 

Yeah' date=' but if its fantasy, isn't there a point where its legitimate to just say "Magic!" and let it go?[/quote']

 

That doesn't work for all players though. And they will pull you up on consistency - you need to remember what you allow and what you don't allow when a PC proposes it. Either you take notes and remember to check them - or you understand how the world works so you can give consistent answers.

 

I don't view this as realism - realism is a separate issue. This is internal consistency so the players can still remain in the moment as much as possible.

[Curufea]

Re: No Horses For You

 

I always thought the cold-forged iron vs. fay thing came out of European folk tales. In general, the fay could not be injured by normal steel, but something about cold-forged iron screwed with them.

 

Of course, this came out of the same cultures that determined the best way to prove a woman was a witch was to tie her up and thow her in a pond. If she survived, she must have used magic and was a witch. If she drowned, well, I guess she wasn't a witch after all...

 

I've always thought it was a throwback to the picts who tended to use bronze weapons versus the roman iron.

[Zeropoint]

Re: No Horses For You

 

I always thought the cold-forged iron vs. fay thing came out of European folk tales. In general, the fay could not be injured by normal steel, but something about cold-forged iron screwed with them.

 

I've always assumed that the "cold" in "cold iron" was simply descriptive . . . room-temperature iron feels cold when you touch it. We sometimes use the term "cold steel" to describe knives and swords today (in fact, there is a knife company NAMED Cold Steel).

 

The Wikipedia article for Cold Iron confirms that the idea of "cold iron" as a special kind of iron is a modern invention, mainly of roleplaying games. Historically, "cold iron" just meant . . . iron and steel.

[Vulcan]

Re: No Horses For You

 

That could be it. Bronze wasn't enough, you needed iron...

[DusterBoy]

Re: No Horses For You

 

According to wikipedia (so place what faith in this you will) bronze is stronger (harder) than wrought iron. Archeologists suspect that migrations around 1200 BCE to 1100 BCE disrupted the trade in tin and precipitated the Iron Age. Then ironworking techniques improved, with better quality iron and then, of course humans learned to make steel, which holds a sharper edge longer, than bronze.

[Markdoc]

Re: No Horses For You

 

According to wikipedia (so place what faith in this you will) bronze is stronger (harder) than wrought iron.

 

I never write off wiki "just because" but in this case, it's dead wrong.

 

First off "hardness" can be measured lots of ways, but regardless of whether you use Brinell, Knoop, or Rockwell hardness values, iron is 2-3 times harder than Bronze - for example Brinell values of 183 - 234 for cast iron or around 150 for wrought iron versus 60-80 for Bronze.

 

If you want to do your own comparisons, go here: http://www.matweb.com

 

cheers, Mark

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: No Horses For You

 

I never write off wiki "just because" but in this case, it's dead wrong.

 

First off "hardness" can be measured lots of ways, but regardless of whether you use Brinell, Knoop, or Rockwell hardness values, iron is 2-3 times harder than Bronze - for example Brinell values of 183 - 234 for cast iron or around 150 for wrought iron versus 60-80 for Bronze.

 

If you want to do your own comparisons, go here: http://www.matweb.com

 

cheers, Mark

Things can get a little complicated with composition and treatment details. I remember a description (Journal of Metallurgical History, for those who want to geek out at length) of a shot-peened bronze helmet deposited as a votive offering sometime in the 400s BC. Clearly this laborious hardening treatment gave it a much higher surface hardness than a typical bronze piece. Was it it harder than a typical Early Iron Age wrought iron piece? I do not know. But then, wrought iron's advantages lie in its toughness, not hardness.

Certainly Drew, Early Riders, builds his case for the contemporary development of horseriding with iron-making on the advantages of iron bits. Here we are probably talking about cemented pieces, though.

In short, better to go long: many questions about how iron works are hard to answer briefly. Take a look at your local technical library's copy of Making, Shaping and Treatment of Iron and Steel, the definitive textbook by the Iron and Steel Institute of America. If you need to go the Wiki route, I'm sure that the "Iron and Steel" article in the 11th Edition of the Encyclopaedica Britannica is available through Wikisource.

[Old Man]

Re: No Horses For You

 

But then' date=' wrought iron's advantages lie in its toughness, not hardness.[/quote']

 

Well, maybe. But bronze just won't hold an edge no matter how you treat it. Iron is... better.

[Markdoc]

Re: No Horses For You

 

Well' date=' maybe. But bronze just won't hold an edge no matter how you treat it. Iron is... better.[/quote']

 

Actually, it holds and edge better .... because it's harder. It's really not that complicated.

 

You can, as Lawnmower boy mentioned, treat bronze to make it slightly harder - but of course you can treat iron to make it harder still. "Hardness" can be measured differently (resistance to penetration, flexibility to impact, reistance to scratching, ability to scratch, etc). Depending on which of those methods you choose ..... iron is harder.

 

Bronze is more ductile - meaning it deforms better under stress (Ductility is measured in percent deformation before breaking, and Bronze has a score of around 30% compared to 6% for iron). But deforming under stress is exactly what you don't want in weapons or armour - Marshmallow has great ductility, after all.

 

Last of all, there's "toughness" (Tensile Strength) - which is the ability to distribute sudden stress (meaning how likely the material is to break under sudden impact, say). For this measurement, Iron is slightly tougher than bronze.

 

All round, Iron replaced bronze in most places because it's easier to obtain (there's lots of iron ore about once you know how to extract it) and it makes better weapon/tool making material. Bronze was retained when a little deformation is good (cannons, for example: bronze was preferred over iron for precisely its "error tolerance").

 

cheers, Mark

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: No Horses For You

 

That doesn't work for all players though. And they will pull you up on consistency - you need to remember what you allow and what you don't allow when a PC proposes it. Either you take notes and remember to check them - or you understand how the world works so you can give consistent answers.

 

I don't view this as realism - realism is a separate issue. This is internal consistency so the players can still remain in the moment as much as possible.

 

 

I never said don't strive for internal consistency... I just think that, seeing as this is fantasy, then "magic" is just as logical a reason for something to happen as any other reason. Why are fairies allergic to cold iron? Magic. Why does sunlight kill vampires and silver kill werewolves? Magic. Sure, its a bit of a band-aid answer, but its still a legitimate answer.

 

Unless you're running a game with no magic, that is.

[Ragnarok]

Re: No Horses For You

 

I never said don't strive for internal consistency... I just think that, seeing as this is fantasy, then "magic" is just as logical a reason for something to happen as any other reason. Why are fairies allergic to cold iron? Magic. Why does sunlight kill vampires and silver kill werewolves? Magic. Sure, its a bit of a band-aid answer, but its still a legitimate answer.

 

Unless you're running a game with no magic, that is.

 

I see what you're saying here, and I agree. I think a big part of fantasy is....things happen which cannot be explained logically (at least by our standards now.) I think that's part of the appeal. Of course, you don't want to go over the edge and overindulge, but as long as you keep it within that boundary, I agree.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: No Horses For You

 

Actually, it holds and edge better .... because it's harder. It's really not that complicated.

 

All round, Iron replaced bronze in most places because it's easier to obtain (there's lots of iron ore about once you know how to extract it) and it makes better weapon/tool making material. Bronze was retained when a little deformation is good (cannons, for example: bronze was preferred over iron for precisely its "error tolerance").

 

cheers, Mark

The first part hits the (cheap, iron) nail on the head. The second part is an area where it is complicated. I'm skeptical about the ductility claim because bronze guns have been dissected, and they are rarely homogenously bronze all the way through. The mix of tin and copper, never mind other alloys, varies greatly depending on the location in the gun. They may have been optimised for ductility where it mattered by casting practice, but that isn't clear.

The main reason that bronze guns persisted (and I've had to argue this a great deal with an expert) is that large pieces of cast iron were, for a long time, crap. I started to give the reasons below (as I understand them) why that is the case, but old time ironfounders can't discuss the chemistry without getting into the methods, and the discussion quickly becomes tedious and arcane. There's issues of slag and carbon monoxide inclusions ("sponginess"), of carburisation and of neutralising the ore.

Again, I think I'm on secure grounds in calling the question complicated.

[Curufea]

Re: No Horses For You

 

I see what you're saying here' date=' and I agree. I think a big part of fantasy is....things happen which cannot be explained logically (at least by our standards now.) I think that's part of the appeal. Of course, you don't want to go over the edge and overindulge, but as long as you keep it within that boundary, I agree.[/quote']

 

Ditto.

 

The problem is that magic is "a magic answer" (it's a bit like "Intelligent Design" in that regard) - it's an answer to questions without actually being an answer or explaining anything. If you, as a GM, answer the reasons behind something as magic too often, then the generalisations can lead to problems in problem solving for the PCs. If magic is the answer to everything, the PCs will always assume magic will also solve all their problems.

 

For example - why does cold iron work against fairies, but not elves, or not dragons, or not demons? Surely they are also magical beings? Or against ghosts. Can a magic user carry any cold iron on them?

 

You can still have magic, but it shouldn't be the final answer - just the initial gloss. Again, you, as a GM, should know the details of things for consistency.

You can quote "it's magic" but you should know "the fae, as creatures of organic plant life, magically personified are elementally against things of the earth - cold iron is the embodiment of the earth element" or similar (think up any reason why cold iron should affect fairies in your world, but stick to that reason). That way, as a GM, the magic answer works for fairies, but not other magical creatures.

[Maur]

Re: No Horses For You

 

Answer... You, as Players, don't know why they are, just common knowledge that they are...

[Ragnarok]

Re: No Horses For You

 

Ditto.

 

The problem is that magic is "a magic answer" (it's a bit like "Intelligent Design" in that regard) - it's an answer to questions without actually being an answer or explaining anything. If you, as a GM, answer the reasons behind something as magic too often, then the generalisations can lead to problems in problem solving for the PCs. If magic is the answer to everything, the PCs will always assume magic will also solve all their problems.

 

For example - why does cold iron work against fairies, but not elves, or not dragons, or not demons? Surely they are also magical beings? Or against ghosts. Can a magic user carry any cold iron on them?

 

You can still have magic, but it shouldn't be the final answer - just the initial gloss. Again, you, as a GM, should know the details of things for consistency.

You can quote "it's magic" but you should know "the fae, as creatures of organic plant life, magically personified are elementally against things of the earth - cold iron is the embodiment of the earth element" or similar (think up any reason why cold iron should affect fairies in your world, but stick to that reason). That way, as a GM, the magic answer works for fairies, but not other magical creatures.

 

Right. I don't think Gregg or I are advocating the automatic "just because it's magic" style. I think what we both realize the need for logical explanations of things, just that fantasy, as a rule, lies outside "normal" human logical reasoning, and as a result, more things are explained by magic. Of course it helps to integrate reasoning into magical things, and to try to have a story behind as much as you can, but at some point some things are impossible to explain by science.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: No Horses For You

 

As far as laymen are concerned, some things in science can't be explained by science.

[Zeropoint]

Re: No Horses For You

 

As far as laymen are concerned, some things in science can't be explained by science.

 

Like, "why do things have mass?"

[lemming]

Re: No Horses For You

 

Like' date=' "why do things have mass?"[/quote']

 

Twinkies