RE: Immobile

[Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>]

Talk about "rules twisting dink[s]".  Shame on the adjudicating GM if
they themselves didn't have the common sense to realize that what
should have happened was that the reassemble would not work.  It
doesn't matter what the mage believed; "Magic" knows the truth of
the matter.  Throw the spell; nothing happens.  The mage winds up
sitting there muttering to herself, "Gee, guys, it should have worked."
If the GM was feeling particularly devious, he could have allowed the
mage an intelligence check to put two and 2 together to realize that
her erstwhile friends had deceived her.  After all, "Magic does not lie."

Now, I hope that since we have all joined the mission of trying to get
the little kinks of the system worked out (at least for our somewhat
more sophisticated playing audience) we are no longer doing such
things as this.  Right?  Guys?  No more bending of the rules just to
show that it can be done, right?  We talk them out and then work
together to fix them, right?  Guys?  Is anyone out there?  Did I get
on the wrong boat again?  Or maybe just the wrong soapbox...

Lyle

-----Original Message-----
From:	Jevan Furmanski [SMTP: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:
> 
> 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.