"Forcefields" Needs Definition

[FinePoint]

I was alerted to this via this thread where I was evaluating whether summoning a rubber ball around someone was Forcefield Creation.
My first thought was "Probably not, but let me check the page to see how we define it." Turns out we don't, at all.

This is how we define Forcefield Creation:

The ability to make forcefields (also known as barriers) to protect the user and/or their allies from physical, energy, and incorporeal attacks.

The rest of the page references their applications, limitations, how they might be possible, but nowhere is it said what a forcefield even is.

Borrowing from Oxford we have: "(chiefly in science fiction) an invisible barrier of exerted strength or impetus."
Merriam-Webster's definition is cyclical, so is of no help.

Oxford's definition is pretty good, except that tons of things we (rightly I think) consider force fields do not fit this definition because they are either not invisible or not made of pure 'force'.

So, since we don't list a definition, and we clearly don't agree with the dictionary, we need to define what we actually consider a forcefield to be and add it to the page.

In addition, the wording implies a forcefield MUST protect against all three of those types of attacks, which is blatantly contradicted in the limitations section and by common sense. It also doesn't allow the possibility of protecting something which isn't the user or an ally.

I really want to hear from you guys what you consider the criteria of a forcefield to be before considering what to put down.

Current proposals:
FinePoint version:

The ability to create shields made of non-standard materials such as energy or magic, often called forcefields or barriers.

DontTalkDT version:

Forcefield Creation is the ability to generate protective barriers using energy, magic, force, or other non-physical sources, rather than by shaping physical matter.

Nierre version:

A forcefield is an area or surface of resistance, usually generated through supernatural or technological means, that serves as a defensive barrier against physical or energy attacks. Forcefields are usually characterized by being non-standard in material form (as in, not made of conventional matter like stone, wood, or rubber for example) and often (but not always) partially or fully invisible.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Yeah, it should be "or incorporeal attacks" not "and incorporeal attacks".

Not sure about "non-standard material". It seems on one hand too vague (does neutron star matter qualify?) and too specific (hard to call pure telekinetic force a material in any sense).
My alternative suggestion would be:

Forcefield Creation is the ability to generate protective barriers using energy, magic, force, or other non-physical sources, rather than by shaping physical matter.

Or maybe there is a better word than "sources" I can't think of right now.

 

[FinePoint]

Not sure about "non-standard material". It seems on one hand too vague (does neutron star matter qualify?) and too specific (hard to call pure telekinetic force a material in any sense).
My alternative suggestion would be:
Forcefield Creation is the ability to generate protective barriers using energy, magic, force, or other non-physical sources, rather than by shaping physical matter.

I do like your suggestion.

Or maybe there is a better word than "sources" I can't think of right now.

A concern to consider: they often ACT like physical matter once created (literally shattering like glass and those shards being completely tangible once formed).

Atom-Eve, for example, canonically manipulates existing matter. Therefore, presumably, the magic pink glass-like forcefields she makes that then vanish when she's not using them are presumably made of matter which was there and has just been altered to be more like magic pink glass then de-altered. Still, it passes every vibe check for what I imagine as a forcefield.

Green Lantern makes constructs/forcefields that act functionally identically to hers, so does hers stop being a forcefield despite being functionally identical because it's technically physical?

So I was hesitant to say it had to be "non-physical", but I also don't know a better way to phrase it that would include examples like that while excluding what are obviously not forcefields: barriers made of completely mundane materials, like rising a wall of dirt or metal.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I think calling it Barrier Creation rather than Forcefield Creation is the more simple/accurate description. I also agree with DontTalkDT's description that there are case by case examples and/or levels of it and it does not have to be exact.

 

[FinePoint]

I think calling it Barrier Creation rather than Forcefield Creation is the more simple/accurate description. I also agree with DontTalkDT's description that there are case by case examples and/or levels of it and it does not have to be exact.

I don't see where DontTalkDT said anything like that. It's not really possible to define something "case by case". There's only one case, and it's whatever we have written on the page.

Whether someone qualifies could be case by case. I'm guessing you mean you want the wording to reflect that? Do you have any specific suggestions?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I don't see where DontTalkDT said anything like that. It's not really possible to define something "case by case". There's only one case, and it's whatever we have written on the page.

Whether someone qualifies could be case by case. I'm guessing you mean you want the wording to reflect that? Do you have any specific suggestions?

I meant, case by case on what at "Forcefield" protects you from. Some only protect against conventional attacks, some only protect against psychic attacks. and there are some that protect against both. And I was just giving a proposal for things like Gaara using Sand Barriers and what not would still be Barrier creation even if not a "Forcefield" per say. Same with Earthbenders from Avatar forming Earthern barriers.

 

[FinePoint]

I meant, case by case on what at "Forcefield" protects you from. Some only protect against conventional attacks, some only protect against psychic attacks. and there are some that protect against both. And I was just giving a proposal for things like Gaara using Sand Barriers and what not would still be Barrier creation even if not a "Forcefield" per say. Same with Earthbenders from Avatar forming Earthern barriers.

I see, thank you for clarifying.

I personally feel as if making it that open would completely remove the need for it to be its own power anyway.

Which I suppose would be a valid opinion too, but forcefields feel very iconic to me.
It's one of those powers you can instantly picture just from the name, and it sort of loses that effect as "Barrier Creation."

When I think of barrier creation I imagine a normal person literally building a brick wall, or setting down sandbags for a flood.
That might just be a me thing, though.

 

[Nierre]

When I think of barrier creation I imagine a normal person literally building a brick wall, or setting down sandbags for a flood.
That might just be a me thing, though.

Yeah I share the same opinion as you do here.

When I think of forcefields (or rather, something I think must be true to be considered a forcefield) these are the key components that come to mind:

• Non-ordinary material (Energy, Magic, Psychic power, etc. It can't just be regular matter)
• Obviously used for defensive purposes (Can't just contain or trap things it must actually block/resist or absorb "stuff")
• Not sure how to word this but it can't be generated mechanically or built (So it can't be built like a wall or a box, but rather maybe summoned, or projected)
• They should have tangible resistance but it shouldn't behave like a traditional object like a wall or a rubber ball like you said. It should be generated but NOT constructed

How's this?:

"A forcefield is an area or surface of resistance, usually generated through supernatural or technological means, that serves as a defensive barrier against physical or energy attacks. Forcefields are usually characterized by being non-standard in material form (as in, not made of conventional matter like stone, wood, or rubber for example) and often (but not always) partially or fully invisible."

Can probably be rewritten to flow better.

 

[FinePoint]

Spoiler: Snip

Yeah I share the same opinion as you do here.

When I think of forcefields (or rather, something I think must be true to be considered a forcefield) these are the key components that come to mind:

• Non-ordinary material (Energy, Magic, Psychic power, etc. It can't just be regular matter)
• Obviously used for defensive purposes (Can't just contain or trap things it must actually block/resist or absorb "stuff")
• Not sure how to word this but it can't be generated mechanically or built (So it can't be built like a wall or a box, but rather maybe summoned, or projected)
• They should have tangible resistance but it shouldn't behave like a traditional object like a wall or a rubber ball like you said. It should be generated but NOT constructed

How's this?:

"A forcefield is an area or surface of resistance, usually generated through supernatural or technological means, that serves as a defensive barrier against physical or energy attacks. Forcefields are usually characterized by being non-standard in material form (as in, not made of conventional matter like stone, wood, or rubber for example) and often (but not always) partially or fully invisible."

Can probably be rewritten to flow better.

That's probably too wordy, but I did think about that third bullet point.
The wording I was originally playing with was that they're almost always "spontaneously generated", most of the time manifesting instantly out of thin air.

I honestly can't think of an exception which feels like a case of a Forcefield Creation, so perhaps that is the silver bullet for differentiating it from other forms of manipulation?

 

[Nierre]

That's probably too wordy, but I did think about that third bullet point.
The wording I was originally playing with was that they're almost always "spontaneously generated", most of the time manifesting instantly out of thin air.

I honestly can't think of an exception which feels like a case of a Forcefield Creation, so perhaps that is the silver bullet for differentiating it from other forms of manipulation?

Yeah.

For example, I'd say something like an earthbender forming a rock dome to surround themselves wouldn't count as Forcefield creation, but rather just Earth manipulation.
A psychic forming a shield using metal plates would just be telekinesis and not forcefield creation.
A wizard casts a shield mid air to block attacks would be forcefield creation.
A tech suit projecting an energy field around the wearer would be forcefield creation.

It being spontaneous seems to work pretty well as a litmus test for forcefield creation

 

[Theglassman12]

I guess this is fine? I didn't think we need to elaborate on what forcefield creation is but if we have to given the vague ambiguity of it with some abilities then so be it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I would also prefer to keep it to immaterial things. Otherwise, any character with "x manipulation" will have it for being able to use x to block some attack, making it overly general.

On the other hand, I see no reason for it to be spontaneously created. Extended rituals or creating a forcefield from hard-light blocks is fine in my book.

 

[FinePoint]

On the other hand, I see no reason for it to be spontaneously created. Extended rituals or creating a forcefield from hard-light blocks is fine in my book.

You're right, there are actually a lot of examples of that which I now remember. Brain fart on my part I suppose.

I would also prefer to keep it to immaterial things. Otherwise, any character with "x manipulation" will have it for being able to use x to block some attack, making it overly general.

To be fair, there are only very specific cases where this might lead to a weird categorization (like what I mentioned with Atom-Eve not qualifying).

So all things considered I'm still very on board with your initial suggestion for the wording.

 

[FinePoint]

Bump.

I've added the proposals thus far to the OP so we can begin voting if we'd like.

 

[Catzlaflame]

Yea I agree, and also:

To be totally honest, the minute differences in wording between “Non-physical sources” and “Non-standard materials” will hardly make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

If there ends up being 3 admins all in support of the threads premise, but supporting 3 extremely minor differences in the wording exclusive to the overarching point, well… this ain’t Big Law, me thinks it’s not worth holding off applying the thread because of said minor difference. I feel like many a staff thread gets stalled because of this :/

@LephyrTheRevanchist

Lephyy, a pretty straightforward thread, mind inputting?

 

[FinePoint]

To be totally honest, the minute differences in wording between “Non-physical sources” and “Non-standard materials” will hardly make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

Indeed, and either is definitely better than the current definition (none).

I think both have their own problems.
Mine lends itself to some vagueness on materials that are simply uncommon, while Donttalk's lends itself to being unopen to exception.

However, ultimately, I think that even if there's some debate on the extremes, either definition will let us agree on what is definitely not a forcefield, such as normal rubber as spawned this thread.

 

[FinePoint]

This still needs attention.
@Antvasima perhaps you could help?

 

[Antvasima]

I think that DontTalk's definition text seems good to apply.

Thank you all for helping out.

 

[FinePoint]

I think that DontTalk's definition text seems good to apply.

Thank you all for helping out.

Do you think there's enough support to go ahead and apply this?

It's relatively minor, and this isn't getting much attention otherwise.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that it can be applied now, yes.

 

[FinePoint]

I think that it can be applied now, yes.

@LephyrTheRevanchist @Catzlaflame

If you could.

 

[Antvasima]

Is this acceptable, or are further modifications to the relevant text required?

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Forcefield_Creation?diff=9039835&oldid=7741996

 

[FinePoint]

Is this acceptable, or are further modifications to the relevant text required?

https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Forcefield_Creation?diff=9039835&oldid=7741996

Yes, that looks good. This thread was only about changing that part to include an actual definition. Minor but important.

 

[FinePoint]

Given it was already applied a while ago, and nobody has objected since, I will close this now.

Thank you so much to everyone who helped out.