Re: With Penache (was Re: Move Through)

["Kris Ames" <kris@cioe.com>]

----------
> From: John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>
\ 
> As you deleted from the original post, Steve,
> 
> "I would likely allow it" (I being not you nor Wright)
> 
 John,  I thing Steve was just stating that he feels Wright doesn't
like movement under any circumstances while casting.  I don't think
he was making a judgement call on your post.

> >
> OK, let me clarify:
> There is no impact on the situation of Penache reaction vs No
Penache
> (hereafter P and NP)
> Opening situation:
> 
> Townie in range of Skippy's lightening bolt
> 
> End result:
> 
> 1)Townie smoking from lightening bolt
> 2)Both combatants are in the same location they started in
> 3)No additional information was exchanged to other players (That
big
> Krakka-THOOM and flash of light telltale of a lightening bolt was
likely
> more informative than "I've got something for you")
> 
> P added flavor to the character and the situation without giving
an
> advantage to any involved parties.  It was ROLEplaying.
> 
> Now, had the gesticulating and epithets had any additional weight
or
> tactical advantage or disadvantage given, they would have been
relegated
> to Out of Character comments.
>  
> Example 2
> NP
> Zippy the VUNDERmarine pummels his opponent
> 
> vs
> 
> P
> Grabbing two enormous handfulls of hair, Zippy yanks his hapless
> opponent's forhead forward.  With a resouding WHACK Zippy
headbutts the
> unfortunate soul, dazing him and knocking him to the ground.
> 
> Which one can you guys visualize the easiest?  Which one reflects
> personality? Which one would have hopefully both Steve and Wright
stifling
> chuckles?
> 
> (yes folks, GM ing can be fun too  Bwahahahahahahahaha)
> 
> John Hogg			johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu


John,

I agree yours is much more fun if we are talking just sticking to
the status quo.  Since you haven't been speaking on the list this
summer, I will assume you just got back into town.  One of the
current things going on here is the evaluation of a set up "local
rules" or at least a list of "standard ruling" so that the majority
of GM's rule different situations the same and have some guidelines
for rulings.  Dan has mentioned in the past that AQ is designed
originally for 12 year olds to learn and play.  Its rule set is
nicely stream line and geared towards quick action.  Overall it is a
great set of rules.  On the other hand most of the local players are
experienced role players and are in their 20s.  A few more skills
and refined rules plus some clarifications (since ambiguity leads to
rule bending from players and screws from GMs) are becoming
desirable.  Right now we are discussing allowing players to perform
some movement as well as attack/do another skill.  This came up
because certain creatures have this ability (Drogoons (sp.?) and
players with similar speed capabilities have wanted to do the same. 
As a gm of a game a couple of weeks ago, I had to say no (even
though in my opinion the player had the same capabilities of a
creature that could do this).  This is a form of inconsistency.

Basically Steve's post and Wright's counter posts are a discussion
about 

1.  Allowing a fractional movement and still having a normal action
during a round
2.  Adding a move through subskill to go with the lethal, multi
attack and quick draw skill under weapons which would allow up to
1/2 movement rate and attack (or do some multi attacks as well as
long as dice pool splitting is allowed.  i.e. you make a 4d6 check
against weapon skill 2d6 for the move through and 2d6 for 2 extra
attacks)

Your post was a nice proposition of what GM's should do if the whole
movement thing/ or part of the movement while casting thing is "put
down" by GM vote.


-Kris