Re: Brothers and Sisters ... Ayh have THE ANSWER (Touch the screen with me)

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

John,

Hmmmm...I think the original question was still valid.  They are immobile
by itself is not clear.  Maybe it is to you, but us engineering and
physics types are big into relativity :)

A couple of your statements might have been a little biased and appear to
be your opinion. This is fine, but opinions that haven't been agreed upon
by other GMs I really don't think make an immutable or strong e basis for
an argument for why a ruling should be one way or the other.  For
example, almost none of the elemental spells specifically state that some
of the element in question must be within touch distance of the caster. 
Very few spells have a clause like this the vast majority do not.  Now I
would agree that some fire spells don't work well underwater, but I view
this not because water element opposes fire but because the effect of
these spells (producing flame) are immediately extinguished by the water.
 In real life water will put out a fire no matter how that fire is
produced (oxidizers aside here).  Lack of Earth would not cause a blue
field to not exist other than by made up qualifiers that aren't in the
book.  Now if the GM group voted on and agreed with the idea that the
element of the spell being cast must be present within blah radius in
order for the spell to work, your logic would be valid.  But as of now I
know of no such consensus.

The other statement which was a little questionable was "They are
intended to be immeterial and immobile".  Yes the book right now says
these things but intended is an iffy statement since they were mobile and
material for MANY, MANY years.  They were changed by Dan to prevent some
specific bends.  Mainly the building material use which wasn't really a
bend.

The purpose of this discussion is to believe it or not reach a clear
concrete definition (immobile relative to the nearest earth isn't that
concrete..ie is stone earth, what if earth that is more earthy is moved
within the area of effect, do blue fields move toward the nearest island
if cast over water, etc). 

The following ruling really makes blue fields fairly immobile

> > It moves relative to the largest object within 100' and will transfer
> > its relativity if a larger object enters the 100' sphere.

It is worded this way to stop in most cases the ship snagging thing and
would make it difficult for someone to attach a blue field relative to
themselves for a long enough period of time to be useful.

-Kris
----------
> From: John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>
> To: Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>
> Cc: gmlist@ns1.cioe.com
> Subject: Re: Brothers and Sisters ... Ayh have THE ANSWER (Touch the
screen with me)
> Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 3:48 PM
> 
> 
> On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Steve Ames wrote:
> 
> > > > I step into my
> > > > air pocket (no earth here boys and girls) and do the blue
fielding
> > > > from here. 
> > >
> > > 1)	Wow, sucks to do casting in a pocket dimension opposed to your
> > > 	element.
> > > 	How well do the fire spells that let you light torches and such
work
> > > 	underwater?
> > 
> > *sigh* dodge the question by attacking the details of the example
rather
> > than the actual question. Droll.
> >
> 
> Not really, you were VERY specific in your details.  As such, I was
> pointing out that the first thing I would look at is how, IN ELEMENTAL
AIR
> (which I believe the little pocket dimension is said to be made of ...
> dont have the book on campus) ELEMENTAL EARTH spells will function. 
I'm
> not sure they would.  They're opposed.
>  
> > > 2)	Now you're extradimensional.  i.e. outside the bounds of the
Jearn
> > > 	setting (much like outer space).  Ergo, any ruling applicable to
> > > 	Jaern may or may not be applicable to your new dimension.
> > 
> > Crap. Not PC but thats the way of it. The rules don't change just
because
> > you leave the planet. 
> 
> You didn't just leave the planet, you left the dimension/phase of
reality.
> It's not unheard of for adventureres to end up in a dimension where
> certain divine spells don't function ... why is it so hard to extend
this
> to elemental?
> 
> > And this backup of belief systems points back to a
> > day when we didn't need rules at all because GMs could just make
things up.
> > Unfortunately we are commited to consistency here, right?
> > 
> 
> That's why we're supposed to discuss things civilly here, correct.
> 
> (and yes, I am unfortunately consistently committed ... just ask the
> gentlemen with the big white coats!)
> 
> > > 	In short, let the GM adjudicate ... more to the point, go to DAN.
> > 
> > GMs must adjudicate the same way everytime. A simple rule such as:
> > 
> > It moves relative to the nearest EARTH.
> > 
> > is a simple and consistent ruling and can be applied _EVERYWHERE_.
The
> > bickering now is to find a simple rule like the above that has
affects
> > that everyone can agree upon.
> > 
> > Wright offers a pretty good compromise:
> > 
> > It moves relative to the largest object within 100' and will transfer
> > its relativity if a larger object enters the 100' sphere.
> >
> 
> It ought not be that easy to move a blue field.
> 
> They are intended to be immeterial and immobile.
> 
> Putting as small a radius as 100-300  feet is simply too easy to tweak.
> 
> Ex: mage with a pebble and fly/leap/giant stride, etc.
> 
> If we NEED a mass (of earth) requirement make it PLANETARY.  
> i.e. people can't pick them up and move them.
> 
> If we NEED a distance requirement for the nearest PLANETARY EARTH MASS
> make it BIG.  Millions of mets, parsecs, something.
> i.e. people need to be able to manipulate big, unwieldy objects that
far
> away.
> 
> Yeah, I know it doesn't make it impossible ... once you CAN tweak with
> orbital patterns of planetary bodies, it's downright EASY to play with
> level 12 spells ... it just makes it more difficult.
> 
> > This, I think, makes most people pretty happy. If the water depth is
> > 100' or more you move wiht the boat.. otherwise you move with the
> > planet. I'd go with an even smaller number like 20' or so but you
> > get the picture (you do don't you?).
> 
> Yes, you want blue fields to be mobile.
> 
> > 
> > To state that there does not need to be such a rule when most of us
> > don't even agree on how _SKILL CHECKS_ work is silly and backward.
> > 
> > 						-Steve
> >
> 
> You're absolutely right, Steve.  Once I add about 5-10 caveats and
> conditions to a 2-3 sentence statement, it becomes so much simpler. 
> 
> And here I thought "Blue fields are immobile" was pretty simple.  What
WAS
> I thinking?
>