Re: Immobile

[Jevan Furmanski <furmansj@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

I recall an occurence from the days of reassemble in its glory days...

A quite lacking mage in the area of common sense was convinced that a pair
of binoculars was a single object, not made of components (or that the
components were made all at once).  She was decieved by people who knew
better just so that they could get around the whole perspective thing.
Thus, they proved that the previously impossible was possible, not by
craft, but by stupidity.  Magic doesn't work like that, and lets keep it
that way.

Jevan

On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, Sean L. McLane wrote:

> > From johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu Fri Nov  6 16:50:31 1998
> > Subject: Re: Immobile
> >
> > You get the gist, though.  Set the field for the person holding stuff to
> > effect them, but make sure you are the frame of reference that's not
> > moving.  (or that ring on the table, or that small pebble, or that
> > otherwise conveniently portable object over there ...)
> >
> > John 
> >
> 
> Then the GM bodily strikes the player for being a rules twisting dink.
> 
> I refer you back to my post about people pretzeling the rules.
> 
> It's going to happen, but it is going to take a huge a mount of effort.
> What's more, I severely doubt that anyone with some degree of intelligence
> is going to be able to convince themselves that an object that a 'conveniently
> portable object' is immobile. Either it's immobile, or conveniently portable.
> 
> Pick one.
> 
> Sean L. McLane    |     I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed,
> zodo@laf.cioe.com |         briefed, debriefed, or numbered.
>                                 My life is my own!
>                                         -The Prisoner
>