Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews
From: andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Re: Invisibility and scrolls
Message-ID: <81@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Nov-85 13:50:56 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.81
Posted: Fri Nov  1 13:50:56 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 22:28:21 EST
References: <892@plus5> <9300058@uiucdcs>
Reply-To: andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews)
Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 17
Summary: 


     Um, ah, I think I agree with R.Ekblaw's point of view, but I don't think I
would express it quite so... forcefully.
     The main problem with defining the effects of a spell non-scientifically
is that there are always going to be game situations which aren't covered by
the description.  (Sue's example of invisibility and scrolls is a good one.)
The DM is going to have to resort to physics, logic, psychology, or some other
scientific or pseudo-scientific "rules" in order to resolve it, sooner or
later.  And the vaguer the rules are, the more arguments there are going to be.
     You can define the spells' effects to be as complicated as you want, but
eventually there has to be a grounding in the physical laws that everyone
agrees on.  The simpler the descriptions, the less trouble there will be in
interpreting them.

--Jamie.
...!ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews                 ,
"Viens, voir les musiciens, voir les magiciens, voir les comediens"