Talk:Story : The road to Hockstow Forest

From Ars Magica

BTW, I kind of figured I was out of action for too long to change this, but Longinus' stated plan was to travel along the Mynd - 'I too would prefer to traverse the Mynd. I would head to the North, and if possible scout at least the outskirts of Hockstow wood.' I had expected that we would probably be travelling with the other Mynd party to the top ('I too') and then split with one party heading north and one south. I was under the impression there was some sort of track or road more or less along the top? If there are sensible reasons why we appear to be travelling along the vale road (or are my impressions mistaken here?) - things that the characters might know or guess but I don't, then that's ok. I guess its also a bit late anyway. :-) --Corbon 05:00, 6 April 2006 (PDT)

You have the furthest to travel, and the biggest area to explore for signs of a vague rumour. I thought in-character it would be expedient for you to take the road, and out-of-character, I didn't want you to get distracted by all the ruins and interesting things to be seen atop the mound and I wanted this thread to be running in tandem with the other thread for the sake of speeding the game up. Anyway, hurry on inside, there's interesting stuff to be found within, and there's not much I can do with the thread until someone acts. --James\\^Talk 13:39, 16 April 2006 (PDT)

Contents 1 Characters 2 Flying around 3 Owl Eyesight 4 Ummm...whoops!

Characters

• Eirlys to be played by Sally.
• Longinus to be played by Corbon.
• Sandor, Eirlys' shield grog, to be played by Rencheple
• Llewelyn, Longinus' Shield grog --Corbon 05:05, 6 April 2006 (PDT)

Erk... I completely missed that grog listing somehow. Erm... if you'd like to establish Lleweyln then that's fine, but ordinarily, I'd prefer it if players played either Magi or Companions or Grogs if possible. The more people involved in a thread, the better. --James\\^Talk 13:43, 16 April 2006 (PDT)

Note, I didn't type 'to be played by Corbon'. I don't think he needs much establishing, other than the fact he is probably from Mercantus' covenant originally, but preparing to move with blessing to a fresh covenant. (Originally I had intended Geraldous for this 'post' but, first in first served. ;-) )--Corbon 10:53, 21 April 2006 (PDT)

Flying around

If Eirlys is very close to a boundary, with a significant amount of luck, she could percieve a regio. I'm not sure why it wouldn't work while she is in animal form when her gift evidently does. Remember that she is as graceful at flying as she is at walking, so I'd be careful around trees, and the like. :) --James\\^Talk 01:32, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

Skinchangers take on the physical characteristics of an average specimen of the animal they change into (p. 49). This Muto Corpus spell works identically to the cloak conferred by the virtue. At the end of the day though, I'm tired of arguing, and I shouldn't have to. --Eirlys 18:34, 17 April 2006 (PDT)

I looked up Shapeshifter, which said nothing about it, despite being the first such power, and the greater of the two. It didn't occur to me to check Skinchanger. Thankyou for the information. --James\\^Talk 22:12, 18 April 2006 (PDT)

The Skinchanger virtue, from what I can tell, is the *only* part of AM5 that gives any specifics about shapeshifting. In AM4 there was a section specifically for shapeshifting; in 4th ed, those who took on another form retained their Intelligence, Presence, and Communication; all other characteristics were that of an average specimen of whatever they changed to, modified by a plus or minus of half their original characteristic, rounded towards zero. I always thought that was unnecessarily complex, and I rather like the Skinchanger take on it. I imagine Mystery Cults will have something on it in the Bjornaer section, but I won't know anything about it until some time Friday :( --Eirlys 00:12, 20 April 2006 (PDT)

Owl Eyesight

Her owl form can see better than a human, but only in black and white. She has to move her entire head in order to look at something, as the eyes cannot move independantly of the skull. She can turn her head through 270 degrees, and nearly upside down, too. :) She is long-sighted, and therefore has trouble looking at objects in close proximity. --James\\^Talk 01:44, 5 April 2006 (PDT)

Really... "Black and white," eh? So why would this owl be different from average snowy owls? There are some who believe owls are color blind because they hunt primarily at night and would not need to have color vision; however, their eyes do contain cone cells, just in a lower overall percentage than the human eye. The presence of cones indicates the ability to perceive color; whether or not their color vision is [inferior|superior|comparable] to that of, say, humans, is still a matter of scientific debate.

I must say that your eagerness to arbitrarily impose penalties unsupported by either game mechanics or real-world fact, certainly puts a damper on one's enthusiasm for participation. Once or twice I could have chalked up to coincidence or being careful, but it certainly appears to be a trend now. At this point, I doubt whether I'll return to either this thread, or the game at all. --Eirlys 18:34, 17 April 2006 (PDT)

I don't simply make decisions off the top of my head; whenever you have asked me something, I have hit the books/net. In this case, I read a source which declared owl's to be colour blind and looked fairly reliable. If you have a better informed source, then that is always fine. I am happy to be wrong. If you like I shall post references for your edification in future.

I have tried to run the rules of the game strictly by the Ars Magica 5 books. I also adhere to the standard rules common to pretty much all roleplaying games regarding [min-maxing], [powergaming], [metagaming], and[munchkinism]. As I make mistakes, and I will continue to make them as I'm only human, I am always happy to recieve feedback on anything I post.

Limit or define? Any definition is also a limitation. Rather than rely on me to come up with a good reference in order to make a decision regarding your character, you can always provide a link or two to some relevent information with your question, thus making it quicker for me to respond, and greatly reducing the likelihood of an appeal being necessary.

This thread will continue to remain open and updateable until the other exploration threads have reached a conclusion, at which point I would like to see it wrapped up. --James\\^Talk 23:08, 18 April 2006 (PDT)

Sigh. I suppose it's "give it another shot" then, eh. I must say I'd been at least hoping for some kind of response to my last email addressing my concerns, but in the immortal words of Westley: "Get used to disappointment" yeah?

It appears that one of our mails went astray. I was wondering why you hadn't replied, too. :D Not to worry, these sorts of things happen. --James\\^Talk 08:52, 20 April 2006 (PDT)

I would have provided you information about owl eyesight had I known you were going to make false assumptions and base rulings upon them. Not everything you read on the internet is true. (Hard to believe, I know.) For many, many centuries, "scientists" believed that if an animal didn't need to be able to do something, they must be incapable of it. Some critical assumptions here have been: "All owls are nocturnal" and "All owls, being nocturnal, are color blind." From my freshman bio text: "Rods are more sensitive to light but do not distinguish colors; they enable us to see at night, but only in black and white. Because it takes more light to stimulate cones, these receptors contribute very little to night vision. Cones can distinguish colors in daylight." (Campbell & Reece, Biology, 6th edition.) Therefore we conclude that animals which have cone cells have the capability to perceive color. From "Cone Pigment of the Great Horned Owl" Jacobs Crognale and Fenwick, UCSB: "Owls are among the most resolutely nocturnal of the birds, yet they too have cones. Throughout the retina of the Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus), for instance, about 7 to 8% of all photoreceptors are cones and over the expanse of this retina, thus, there are many thousands of such receptors." Note that the Great Horned Owl is primarily nocturnal, but occasionally hunts during the day. The Snowy owl is primarily diurnal, but occasionally hunts at night. A paper published by one Jack P. Hailman on the research of J. K. Bowmaker and G. R. Martin: "Owl retinas are about 90% rods, but do contain cone receptors with three types of visual pigments: 21 of 24 cones absorbed maximally at 555 nm and contained a pale yellow oildroplet filter. Two cones were found with a 503-nm pigment and dark yellow oildroplet. One cone's pigment had peak absorption at 463 nm and a pale yellow oildroplet. Red oil droplets also occur in the Tawny Owl's retina but no intact cones could be measured, so the visual pigment is unknown. The cone equipment is not extensive, but Martin has shown in a different study that this owl does possess color vision." The research in question was conducted upon Tawny Owls, also a nocturnal species. Here we've seen demonstrated that two prominent nocturnal Strigiformes possess the capability to perceive color. It is as yet unknown how well they do so, however. I recall from an A&P course that owl eyesight is believed to be superior to that of primates on the neurotransmitter level, not on the photoreceptor level. So I can see why there'd be debate regarding how well they use what they've got. Does a species adapt to its habits, or does it modify its habits based on its adaptations? I would infer that an animal would hunt primarily during the day if its day vision is better than its night vision, and vice versa. Owls all have an enormous amount of rod cells, but the amount of cones varies quite a bit from species to species; one would assume that the diurnal ones would have more than the nocturnal ones. Remember also that non-mammalian vertebrates may have double cones, which we do not. Double cones are color receptors which require less bright light than regular cones. I found nothing specific on Snowy's eyes, unfortunately, and I don't intend to find out on my own. I've already poked through more than my share of cow's eyes and I don't intend to repeat that rather unpleasant experience. All in all, it probably would have been simpler for her alternate form to have been a falcon-- they fly faster and they see better... but it wouldn't have fit, and I didn't want to have Kuari getting fresh with my character, either. HTH. --Eirlys 00:12, 20 April 2006 (PDT)

Hah, ha! The Joke is on all of you! Every reference you see that talks about owls seeing everything in black and white is a reference to thier moral worldview! Bwhahahahahahah! --Rencheple 04:51, 20 April 2006 (PDT)

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion

All I would add - "The owls are not what they seem" ;-) --OldNick\\^Talk 05:04, 20 April 2006 (PDT)

Ummm...whoops!

Sorry about that - I had no idea that a fairie forest could possess sentient plant life without there being clear indications of it.

Sandor hasn't studied much Muto or Herbam, so he probably wouldn't know :) --Eirlys 13:21, 22 April 2006 (PDT)

Longinus hasn't either, nor Faerie Lore, so he still doesn't know. :-) --Corbon 10:01, 24 April 2006 (PDT)

Also, another question, when Eirlys changes shape back to human, doesn't she have the same problem as lycanthropes and skinchanges, i.e. her clothing does not transform with her?--Rencheple 12:59, 22 April 2006 (PDT)

All of Eirlys' clothing is Animal: Silk, wool, and furs. Today she's wearing a silk dress and the feather cloak that's the focus of the enchantment, so the Animal requisite *should* cover the clothes. If not, it's not a terribly big deal-- it's not like Eirlys has a problem with nudity. It's rather unnatural for satyrs to be wearing clothes anyhow. --Eirlys 13:21, 22 April 2006 (PDT)