mr-frog@sdcsvax.UUCP (Dave Pare) (06/21/84)
<> I'm really interested in that parenthetical remark in a recent article by Ken Dalka. He was talking about the wish "I wish that the next spell I throw on myself would be permanent." Then he followed with " Yes, I'm aware that any DM worth his salt could distort what I just said; you don't have to point that out too." What I want to know is -- did Ken mean that a good DM SHOULD distort such an attempt by a player to use a wish as if it were a permanent, or that a DM could find some way to twist the wording around. Ken, what would you do if you were the DM? Personally, I think that's a perfectly reasonable wish -- after all, folks, wish IS a higher level spell than permanent. I don't see any problem with having a wish at MINIMUM be able to duplicate any other 1-9th level spell. Unless the wording was really flaky, I can't see an reason to shaft a player on a wish that asks for something so reasonable. Dave Pare [ucbvax | dcdwest]!sdcsvax!mr-frog
jab@uokvax.UUCP (06/25/84)
#R:sdcsvax:-91500:uokvax:2400049:000:798 uokvax!jab Jun 25 11:45:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.games.frp / sdcsvax!mr-frog / 7:38 pm Jun 22, 1984 */ <> I'm really interested in that parenthetical remark in a recent article by Ken Dalka. He was talking about the wish "I wish that the next spell I throw on myself would be permanent." Then he followed with " Yes, I'm aware that any DM worth his salt could distort what I just said; you don't have to point that out too." /* ---------- */ Yeah, contrary to popular beliefs, a wish is NOT a license to screw a player-character. Particularly greedy players should get what they ask for, letter-by-letter, but that's about it. I've even seen a god (the one granting the wish) appear once, pissed at a player's greed, and ask "Are you trying to break me?" The character promptly withdrew the wish. Jeff Bowles Lisle, IL
hutch@shark.UUCP (06/25/84)
<When you wish upon a star. . .> Actually, any DM worth her salt WILL distort a wish phrased "I wish the very next spell I cast upon myself will be permanent" since the attempt to invoke the wish is an attempt to cast a spell upon oneself. It would probably only mean that the player permanently detects of high-level magic. It might be the case that any spells the player casts upon itself become permanent, but invoke the 10 years lifespan reduction clause as a side-effect. The careful player WOULD phrase it differently, maybe even paying to have an Augury or similar predictive spell performed in order to prevent such disaster. Hutch
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (06/25/84)
> Personally, I think that's a perfectly reasonable wish -- after all, folks, > wish IS a higher level spell than permanent. I don't see any problem > with having a wish at MINIMUM be able to duplicate any other 1-9th level spell > Unless the wording was really flaky, I can't see an reason to shaft a player > on a wish that asks for something so reasonable. > Dave Pare Its the standard (A)D&D bullsh*t again, dave. In the system wishes are the ultimate spells, able to accomplish anything. Because this is the case, a Wish can be terribly misused. How did good old Gary (ripoff) Gygax decide to "play balance" this spell? Instead of something reasonable, like aging, or a power limit, he demands people play word games. What cr*p! If I wanted to be a lawyer, I'd go to court. There is no reason in the world, that once a 18th level Wizard has invested all his power and technique into casting such a spell, that something like a players "bad wording" could screw up a spells effects. "I wish that joe dies" is NOT "Please put me in suspended animation until a time when joe is dead", no matter how much that BS artist says it is. Try RQ's or EPT's "Divine Intervention" for a more reasonable discription of a "wish spell". Steven Maurer
mr-frog@sdcsvax.UUCP (Dave Pare) (06/29/84)
: >Its the standard (A)D&D bullsh*t again, dave. In the system >wishes are the ultimate spells, able to accomplish anything. Come come, Mr. Maurer. Where did I say that? How did you get that from anything I've ever said? Of course wishes have limits -- it's just that they are certainly able to duplicate any spell of 9th or less quite easily since the mage is taken out for 1d8 days after casting it (or putting it in a ring as part of an enchantment). How come you just don't come out and cuss? I mean, "bullshit" is so much more refreshing than your tame "bullsh*t". It's a bit less hypocritical too. Anyhow, I wander off the subject. Do you really think that a Full Wish (in AD&D, or D&D) shouldn't be able to duplicate the effects of other spells if the wording is right? >"I wish that joe dies" is NOT "Please put me in suspended animation >until a time when joe is dead", no matter how much that BS artist >says it is. I'll certainly agree with you there. As a DM, I handle wishes by using a "path of least resistance" method. That is, if the interpretation of the wish can be done by a lesser powered magic, then that is the way it happens. For instance, "I wish joe dies" would probably kill joe, unless placing the mage into suspended animation proves easier (such a chance usually approaches nil). After all, "kill-w-no-save" uses (in the general case) less power than a "conditional-suspended-animation-for-many-years". Unfortunately, Mr. Gygax (who has made some pretty bad rulings) is essentially saying "I'll crock the wish if I don't like it's effects". Something silly, or something that had screwy effects can have almost an unlimited source of "power" in his world. Of course, any attempt to research a spell to duplicate this effect would be laughed out of any reasonable game. That kind of stuff gives D&D a real bad name. This doesn't mean everybody who plays D&D has to dogmatically follow Mr. Gygax. I don't appreciate that implication, Mr. Maurer! Dave Pare [ucbvax | dcdwest]!sdcsvax!mr-frog
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (07/03/84)
[This Message Rated PG13] >> How come you just don't come out and cuss? I mean, "bullshit" is >> so much more refreshing than your tame "bullsh*t". It's a bit less >> hypocritical too. Once upon a time in netland, there was a wise, but foolish young prince, who accidently wrote down the F-word, and sent it to net.general. He had actually meant to write the F*-word, but somehow the keyboard slipped, and that is not what was sent. Because of this, many dragons visited the poor unfortunate prince, and flamed him royally, again and again. So now he makes sure not to offend anybody anywhere, since no one likes to get 20 flame-mails a day. >> Unfortunately, Mr. Gygax (who has made some pretty bad rulings) >> is essentially saying "I'll crock the wish if I don't like >> it's effects". Something silly, or something that had screwy >> effects can have almost an unlimited source of "power" in his >> world. Of course, any attempt to research a spell to duplicate >> this effect would be laughed out of any reasonable game. That >> kind of stuff gives D&D a real bad name. >> >> This doesn't mean everybody who plays D&D has to dogmatically >> follow Mr. Gygax. I don't appreciate that implication, Mr. Maurer! True, but then again, if you don't, you are not playing AD&D. This is not according to me, this is according to Gary ("the plagerist") Gygax himself. While I appreciate the fact that you (a presumably good referee) can make AD&D a good game with heavy modifications, I don't appreciate the fact that it is not a good game to begin with. When D&D first came out this was all right, since there was no other system around. Now, however, you have a large number of options, of which almost all (excluding T&T) are better in the basic system. So why is it better to have a good basic system? For the same reason that an OS should work well when you first buy it: First, I don't like having to make extensive modifications to the rules, and Second, as a player, I enjoy having my characters be portable between different referees (DMs). If one referee plays a rule, or spell, completely differently than the way I am used to playing it, it totally ruins my sense of disbelief and can proove fatal to my character. This is why I dislike AD&D, as a system. Steven Maurer sun!qubix!steven
yba@mit-athena.ARPA (Mark H Levine) (07/03/84)
<Absolute money corrupts absolutely> Remember the old days of soft-cover $5 rule books. How about Blackmoor, in which E. Gary Gygax wrote: "... All of it is, of course, optional, for the premise of the whole game system is flexibility and personalization within the broad framework of the rules." Fie on those who read rules and feel bound by them in a fantasy wargame! You lawful goody-goodies! If everyone had to follow the written dictum never to vary the rules, we could use computers instead of people for dungeon masters! In my dungeon worshippers of the shoe salesman cult are sacrificed on the altar of mediocrity; my gods are whimsical. And yet this man and his C & C society have provided me with a much loved hobby. If the game system is wrong and the players are right, then the game system will follow the players and become right; if the game system is right and the players are boring, then again the game will follow the players and be blah (with apologies to Zen masters living and dead). What a silly reason to like or dislike a game! -- yba%mit-heracles@mit-mc.ARPA UUCP: decvax!mit-athena!yba
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (07/06/84)
<ablation shield>
I don't consider poorly-written and overcomplex rules a
silly reason not to like a game. Sure, I know that they are
designed to be a guideline only, and flexible, but as a guide-
line, they should make enough internal sense to make the game
playable. I finally stopped playing AD&D when I started faking
combat, as the rules were too unwieldy to use. If I were to
alter the rules as I thought were necessary, I would have had
to write a whole new system. I play Traveller now, which is
far simpler to use, and yet in many ways is more realistic
than D&D. (An aside: it also requires more thought and imag-
ination to come up with a Traveller adventure, as opposed to
just "whipping up a dungeon", which happens all to often. One
of Traveller's greatest attractions to me is the interaction
with other people, and not just for hack&slash purposes.)
Still waiting for my own account,
Human: Jamie Green @ Gordon's Account
UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
ARPA: gordon@uw-june
Gordon hates flames, so send 'em in!