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"