Post "gotchas" here

[torchwolf]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Lazily, I spoke of the hole-on-hole illusion before actually looking it up in the Rules - so I was just wrong. My hat off.

 

I would make the Images exactly as obscuring as the PER roll penalty. If you can tell it's an illusion' date=' you need to make another PER roll at the purchased penalty to actually see what it's hiding. Otherwise, you can tell it's fake but you can't see "through" it.[/quote']

 

That's apparently not exactly RAW as pointed out by ghost-angel and Hyper-Man:

 

If the character makes his PER Roll' date=' he knows the Image is not real, and it doesn’t block his LOS, even if the Image doesn’t just “fade away.”[/quote']

 

However (as already posted by ghost-angel), this next sentence indicates a semi-transparency, which could be "creatively re-interpreted" (house ruled) to use your suggestion of a second PER Roll - after all, was the first PER Roll to perceive something is wrong, or to see through the illusion? Possibly it all requires just one roll in the RAW to simplify matters.

 

The GM could require him to make a PER Roll each Phase' date=' using the Image’s PER Roll modifier (if any), to maintain LOS, the same way he would if any other obstruction was interfering with the character’s effort to maintain LOS.[/quote']

 

In any case, these excerpts from the rules (and the others up-thread) illustrate that Images work similarly to Change Environment, since CE also allows for creating negative modifiers to PER.

 

Personally, I like the 2nd PER Roll to see through - "Look again!". Possibly these could both be Zero Phase Actions. Cool solution.

 

EDIT: You must spread rep around yadda yadda, otherwise, kudos to alert Hyper-Man and ghost-angel, and creative prestidigitator and Chris Goodwin.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I would make the Images exactly as obscuring as the PER roll penalty. If you can tell it's an illusion' date=' you need to make another PER roll at the purchased penalty to actually see what it's hiding. Otherwise, you can tell it's fake but you can't see "through" it.[/quote']

 

That seems like a good compromise for most SFX. My objection isn't really that it is a possibility that the power doesn't block LOS when detected, but that that particular aspect was set in stone in the rules.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Otherwise - why make a Perception Roll against the Images?

 

To notice that you're being deceived, of course. To notice whatever little flaw is in it that gives it away as "well, this isn't right. It must be an illusion of some sort."

 

 

But knowing that it's fake doesn't necessarily remove it from existence, and unless something has substantially changed about the nature of the image itself, it will look just like it always did. The difference now is that you know it's a fake.

 

Unfortunately, with so few real-world examples specifically of Images, it's really difficult to point to a specific hologram or similar thing.

 

All I can really come up with are those weird bowls that reflect their contents up above them. Even when you figure out how it's being done, the image doesn't disappear. It doesn't even become grainy or translucent. It's still there, every time you look at it, save that it's now less spectacular, as you've figured out the fakery.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

To notice that you're being deceived, of course. To notice whatever little flaw is in it that gives it away as "well, this isn't right. It must be an illusion of some sort."

 

 

But knowing that it's fake doesn't necessarily remove it from existence, and unless something has substantially changed about the nature of the image itself, it will look just like it always did. The difference now is that you know it's a fake.

 

Unfortunately, with so few real-world examples specifically of Images, it's really difficult to point to a specific hologram or similar thing.

 

All I can really come up with are those weird bowls that reflect their contents up above them. Even when you figure out how it's being done, the image doesn't disappear. It doesn't even become grainy or translucent. It's still there, every time you look at it, save that it's now less spectacular, as you've figured out the fakery.

 

I've never advocated the image disappear. Not once.

[torchwolf]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

To notice that you're being deceived, of course. To notice whatever little flaw is in it that gives it away as "well, this isn't right. It must be an illusion of some sort."

 

But knowing that it's fake doesn't necessarily remove it from existence, and unless something has substantially changed about the nature of the image itself, it will look just like it always did. The difference now is that you know it's a fake.

 

Unfortunately, with so few real-world examples specifically of Images, it's really difficult to point to a specific hologram or similar thing.

 

All I can really come up with are those weird bowls that reflect their contents up above them. Even when you figure out how it's being done, the image doesn't disappear. It doesn't even become grainy or translucent. It's still there, every time you look at it, save that it's now less spectacular, as you've figured out the fakery.

 

A Shape Shift vs Sight or a Linked Darkness might fulfill the Images illusion that is non-transparent, but I just thought of the suggestion for an Adder to Images.

 

+5 Opaque to a single Sense

+10 Opaque to a Sense Group

 

These are listed under Barrier, but they also happen to be the same costs as Darkness, so they might be applicable to a more opaque Images as well. Hmm.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

A Shape Shift vs Sight or a Linked Darkness might fulfill the Images illusion that is non-transparent, but I just thought of the suggestion for an Adder to Images.

 

+5 Opaque to a single Sense

+10 Opaque to a Sense Group

 

These are listed under Barrier, but they also happen to be the same costs as Darkness, so they might be applicable to a more opaque Images as well. Hmm.

 

Like this?

 

How about using an adder called Opaque that' date=' even when the Image is detected as a non-real non-object, it still blocks LoS for the Sense Group it is bought for?[/quote']

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I've never advocated the image disappear. Not once.

 

Nor have I suggested such a thing anywhere in the post you quoted.

 

The point that we have been discussing is that you believe Images, once discovered, should become --- translucent? I don't know, but that the character should be able to see through them.

 

It's my belief that this would require the detection of the Image-- the fact that it has been _detected_ and found a fake-- to fundamentally change the nature of the Image.

 

As I mentioned, it's hampering not having a great deal of genuine images from thin air to point to, but the only way a light-based Image would work in the first place is if it appeared solid and tangible. Certainly that suggests that the Image wouldn't be looked through.

 

However, I can't accept that in all cases realizing it's a fake suddenly makes it thin / fuzzy / diaphanous, de-rezed, grainy or makes any other change to the appearance of it so drastic as to go from "real, solid-looking Army tank" to "multi-hued tinted window."

 

I certainly accept that a bad or unsuccessful Image can be transparent in some way, and I have no problem that actually affecting the Images power itself-- damaging the scroll from which the Image is cast; bopping Mind Master in the nose; etc-- can have that affect, I can't accept that noticing something is not real automatically entitles you to see what is real, as the qualities of the Image itself have not changed.

 

Sometimes, yes. Always, no. I just don't see it.

[torchwolf]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Like this?

 

Yup, what I meant when I wrote "I just thought of the suggestion for an Adder to Images" but I should have credited you more explicitly.

 

I lean towards your suggestion for a solution.

 

"rep must be spread yadda yadda"

 

EDIT: No, I can now rep again!

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

A Shape Shift vs Sight or a Linked Darkness might fulfill the Images illusion that is non-transparent, but I just thought of the suggestion for an Adder to Images.

 

+5 Opaque to a single Sense

+10 Opaque to a Sense Group

 

These are listed under Barrier, but they also happen to be the same costs as Darkness, so they might be applicable to a more opaque Images as well. Hmm.

 

The idea of Adders is interesting as a way to deal with the possible discrepancies in interpretation,

 

but after reading them a couple of time before replying to it, I noticed that the idea here is on paying additional points to "improve" an Image to the point that they are no transparent.

 

Which raises the question:

 

Under this concept (Opacity Adders), is the base assumption that Images default as being transparent in some way?

 

And if so, what is the effectiveness of a see-through illusion, or what is the mechanism or going from an "I almost fell for that" illusion to one that is easily looked right through?

[torchwolf]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

The idea of Adders is interesting as a way to deal with the possible discrepancies in interpretation,

 

but after reading them a couple of time before replying to it, I noticed that the idea here is on paying additional points to "improve" an Image to the point that they are no transparent.

 

Which raises the question:

 

Under this concept (Opacity Adders), is the base assumption that Images default as being transparent in some way?

 

And if so, what is the effectiveness of a see-through illusion, or what is the mechanism or going from an "I almost fell for that" illusion to one that is easily looked right through?

 

As Change Environment works on the premise that it can (for instance) force a CHAR Roll or PER Roll to avoid some negative effect, the negative effect in that case is usually that LOS among other things cannot be achieved with Sense(s) that are blocked.

 

If Images and Change Environment functions similarly in that respect, it would mean Images is opaque unless you make the PER Roll with the modifiers, and if you do, you can also achieve LOS and see through it.

 

Conditionally transparent by default, I'd say. Opaque unless PER Rolls is made.

 

I'm thinking that buying an absolutely opaque Images might have disproportionately effective results even with modifiers and go beyond the Power... one way would be to buy Darkness linked to Images to make it opaque, and compare the resulting costs, which would equate to more like an Advantage than an Adder (since the Linked Darkness would also have to get larger if you increase Images size).

 

A way to make an Image require two separate PER Rolls (one to detect it as an illusion and a second one to see through it) would be to add a second Linked Images, only for that purpose (though I'm not sure how much that would be worth as a limitation - maybe -1/2?).

 

Would this work?

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Interesting ideas; I think I'll ponder on them a bit.

 

My sticking point remains, though, that allowing a PER roll to establish a clean LOS _through_ the image indicates that the mere act of observing the image causes a fundamental change to the nature of the image, and I just tend to choke on that.

[Ice9]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Agreed - it can sort of work for magical illusions, but for something like a hologram or a bubble-thin shaped polymer balloon, it's still there whether you believe in it or not.

 

I think Linked Darkness may be the right way to do it, however, as giving it for free makes Images pretty much superior to Darkness all around.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Agreed - it can sort of work for magical illusions, but for something like a hologram or a bubble-thin shaped polymer balloon, it's still there whether you believe in it or not.

 

I think Linked Darkness may be the right way to do it, however, as giving it for free makes Images pretty much superior to Darkness all around.

 

Exactly - model what you want using the rules.

 

I'm actually against creating a new rule that mimics a Power or Rule already in the system.

 

If the thing being created with Images can't be seen around or past in some fashion, then Images is either not the Power you want, or only part of the Power you want.

 

The point of the matter is Images has a built in mechanism (Perception Roll) to make them essentially null and void. If you perceive past the Image by making a Perception Roll then no amount arguing your SFX is going to fix the actual Rules. If you didn't want a Perception Roll to be able to do this, don't buy Images.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

I think Linked Darkness may be the right way to do it' date=' however, as giving it for free makes Images pretty much superior to Darkness all around.[/quote']

 

Honestly, the more I read this discussion, the more I think that there might be some merit in making Darkness a sub-set of Images.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Oops--

 

meant to add:

 

Seeing as how constructions using Images to represent light are already common, it really sort of follows. Darkness is limited Images.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Except that Darkness is an absolute, and definitely blocks LoS. An Image of Darkness only gives a PER penalty that, given enough Enhanced Perception, can be detected as false and so wouldn't block LoS.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Oops--

 

meant to add:

 

Seeing as how constructions using Images to represent light are already common, it really sort of follows. Darkness is limited Images.

 

Almost the other way around. As Stevezilla points out - Images has an "out" or "foil" built into it. Darkness does not.

 

There is no reason that the SFX of Darkness can't be "A fake brick wall"

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Thanks, guys. Lots to ponder.

[Duke Bushido]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Quick question for those of you who accepted the "flashlight as Images" build (I always preferred Change Environment, but Images seemed to become canon):

 

 

Did you handwave away the "successful PER roll makes it dark again" thing? Seems reasonable, since I can't imagine anyone wanting to turn on a flashlight and not see it, but I'm just curious. This discussion has me considering trying something in the structuring of all three powers....

 

Thanks!

[ideasmith]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Quick question for those of you who accepted the "flashlight as Images" build (I always preferred Change Environment, but Images seemed to become canon):

 

 

Did you handwave away the "successful PER roll makes it dark again" thing? Seems reasonable, since I can't imagine anyone wanting to turn on a flashlight and not see it, but I'm just curious. This discussion has me considering trying something in the structuring of all three powers....

 

Thanks!

 

The answer for 5ER is: Since Easily-Perceived Images (5ER page 191) don't have any chance of fooling viewers, the PER roll is presumably treated as automatically successful (since the base effect of succeeding at the PER roll automatically occurs).

[bigbywolfe]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Quick question for those of you who accepted the "flashlight as Images" build (I always preferred Change Environment, but Images seemed to become canon):

Did you handwave away the "successful PER roll makes it dark again" thing? Seems reasonable, since I can't imagine anyone wanting to turn on a flashlight and not see it, but I'm just curious. This discussion has me considering trying something in the structuring of all three powers....

 

Thanks!

Now you're just trying to nit-pick. It wouldn't "make it dark again". Making your PER roll means you can tell that an Image is an Image and not a whatever it is supposed to look at and stops it from blocking your LoS. A flashlight doesn't block LoS anyway, and it isn't trying to look like anything else so there is no deception to "see through" figuratively or literally.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Quick question for those of you who accepted the "flashlight as Images" build (I always preferred Change Environment, but Images seemed to become canon):

 

 

Did you handwave away the "successful PER roll makes it dark again" thing? Seems reasonable, since I can't imagine anyone wanting to turn on a flashlight and not see it, but I'm just curious. This discussion has me considering trying something in the structuring of all three powers....

 

Thanks!

 

Flashlights give you a PER Bonus, not Penalty - which is also in the purview of Images - to make something easier to detect. Not only does it not block LOS normally under this mode, it actively provides it.

 

With that, if you're trying to "see through" the Flashlight I'd rule it the same way I'd rule Images as I've been advocating: by SFX, in this case you would easily perceive the mechanism generating the light.

 

Just like with that reflecting bowl example, you determine the mechanism and can see around/through/past the image in a way to gain LOS past it should that be your desire.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Flashlights give you a PER Bonus' date=' not Penalty - which is also in the purview of Images - to make something easier to detect. Not only does it not block LOS normally under this mode, it actively provides it.[/quote']

 

Hmm. Actually I think you've stumbled upon the answer. No, light generated by Images doesn't provide you Line of Sight. It merely provides you with the light necessary to actually see someone who happens to be in your Line of Sight. As we've known for Mental Powers for some time, Line of Sight doesn't necessary correlate one-to-one with actually seeing the target.

 

So I'd postulate that that clause in the rules actually means you can obtain Line of Sight to a target you know is there even if you can't actually see them, except that then I'd be somewhat uncomfortable with Images being able to block LOS even if you missed your Per roll and believed the illusion was real. But maybe that could be a mental trick to keep yourself from targeting something you know is beyond your reach, just like you might psychologically convince yourself to "lean against" an Image that includes the Touch Group. Hmm.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

The "flashlight" issue brings up a further question, however. Let's assume there is an Image between Attacker and Target. Attacker has a power which does not work if he cannot make eye contact (requiring LoS) between himself and Target.

 

Attacker makes his PER roll, so the image does not block his LoS. Target fails his PER roll. Can Attacker use the attack that requires making eye contact? He can see Target's eyes.

 

What if Target makes his PER roll, so the image does not block his LoS, but Attacker fails his PER roll. Can Attacker use the attack that requires making eye contact? Target can see his eyes, even if he can't see Target's eyes.

 

Can I use my own Images to block LoS, but only one way? I know it's an image, so it doesn't block my LoS, right? At a minimum, my knowledge it is an image should grant a significant PER bonus, right?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Post "gotchas" here

 

Now you're just trying to nit-pick. It wouldn't "make it dark again". Making your PER roll means you can tell that an Image is an Image and not a whatever it is supposed to look at and stops it from blocking your LoS. A flashlight doesn't block LoS anyway' date=' and it isn't trying to look like anything else so there is no deception to "see through" figuratively or literally.[/quote']

 

So, no matter how bright the flashlight, if I make my PER roll (which apparently is automatic or nearly so), it will not impact my night vision, right? Normally, a brighter light makes it tougher to see through areas of darkness, but if I make my PER roll, the flashlight isn't supposed to interrupt my LoS, right?

 

Seems to me the easiest answer is to provide Change Environment with the ability to change illumination, and remove "create light" from the purview of Images. Since Images (light only) is a limitation, Images without limitations should be able to produce light. How a mentally projected hologram illuminates an area, and makes it possible for everyone to see what would otherwise be shrouded in darkness when the hologram projector doesn't actually know what's out there in the dark, becomes a good question. Maybe he should have taken "not to create light, -1/4".