How to prevent spell abuse?

[Glistam]

As much as I like the magic in Palladium, I'm worried as a GM that some of the spells can be difficult to overcome if a player uses them. An example that comes readily to mind is Carpet of Adhesion - it seems to be able to completely immobilize a foe or render a group of foes (especially melee ones) a little too easy to pick off. So I was wondering if you all could give me some advice here: What spells seem to be "problematic" in that a player would be tempted to use them a lot to derail my plans, and how as a GM can I creatively (but unobtrusively) limit the occasions where such spells would be usable like that?

[J. Lionheart]

That's an excellent question, with a difficult and variable answer. The shortest and easiest version is that is depends entirely on which spell you have in mind, with the situation changing for each spell.

For general advice, I'd give the same suggestion I give for over-use of called head-shots - have the NPC's do the same in return. If the players are always using Carpet of Adhesion immediately in combat, next time have them get CoA'd from ambush, so they're the ones that can't move. If they're always using Blinding Flash and Cloud of Slumber, let the NPC's do the same to them. It's not necessarily "creative" so much as it quietly makes the point to the players that they aren't the only ones with all these nifty powers, and perhaps some variance is called for.

The key thing, and it looks like you have this well in mind, is not to punish the players for using their powers. If something works every time, why the heck wouldn't they use it? They'd be stupid not to! What is needed is a couple of occasions where it doesn't work, or ends up in a stand-off, and you'll be amazed how fast they'll start trying some back-up plans.

As for how to ensure it doesn't work, that's up to you, and is handled spell by spell. For Carpet of Adhesion, perhaps the enemy flies, or can cast negate magic, or even has your own version of "Boots of Free Action" to get them through. Perhaps they happen to carry a crossbow and be an excellent shot, so not moving their feet doesn't cripple their ability to fight, or maybe they can cast magic right back, use psionics (hyp. sug.: remove the Carpet of Adhesion!), or have a natural ability like a fire breath that will keep the players at bay.

Don't use the same trick twice in a row, because that's how these patterns of repetitive action you're trying to avoid get started. Make sure the players never know what's going to hit them (unless they've done some excellent intel work), and that way, they'll plan and be ready for anything.

[demos606]

I personally answer abuse of spells with nastier use of spells. CoA gets answered with Magic Net, Biomanipulation or psi-nullifiers in every CS/FQ patrol. I also find that using technology to mimic the effects of said spells works nicely - net guns, stun grenades, artillery and/or close air support and whatever else the situation calls for until the players get the hint. If they don't get the hint, don't be afraid of ghosting a few of them, or a lot of them for that matter.

[Killer Cyborg]

Carpet of Adhesion makes your feet stick to the ground.
There's nothing about the spell that keeps you from firing a weapon at the caster (unless you get your hands CoAed to the wall or something).

[drewkitty ~..~]

None of the Cannon magic should be modified. though any custom magic spells that the player has made up should be scrutinized by the GM.

It's not like many GMs out there let their mage players get any spells in-between level ups.

[G]

I think the above advise is worth repeating, so...

Carpet of adhesion only stops movement. Its possible that some enemies won't even notice they have been carpeted until they try to move after combat has ended..and the PC is dead. For example some bots have upper bodies that turn or even weapons on turrets (egads, thats unusual)...Some enemies are airbourne and a carpet won't effect them (even more unusual, millions of samas, which incidentally have a much further range than carpet of adhesion does).

So..don't worry about it. If it becomes a problem, have the enemies use it on the PCs in one combat, in the second combat have aibourne foes, and the next with enemies who don't need to move. The fourth combat after the abuse, you can see what the PC does.

[asajosh]

Need an easy way to stymie the use of CoA? Set your players against flying power armor. My player dragon thought he was king of the hill until the squadron of SAMASs came down on im hehe! humility at the end of a rail gun

[Lukterran]

Remember it isn't the GM vs. the Players. Its the GM creating the enviroment for the players. Don't punish players for coming up with good ideas or using their skills or powers. If players defeat your villians don't take it personally.

CoA isn't an all unstoppable God spell. There has already been alot of good suggestions so far, how to work around CoA.

[demos606]

I don't punish my players, I let their actions set the tone for my NPC actions toward them. CS/FQ/Tolkien/etc patrols always start out willing to capture rather than kill; that changes very quickly if the players aren't willing to show the same mercy. The only groups that never capture are bugs, mechanoids and most NEXUS forces in Splicers games. All the other intelligent groups will take prisoners when possible, though more than a few are simply destined to become sacrifices but that's a plot driver as much as anything else.

[Damian Magecraft]

CoA uses terrain. So what's the actual terrain like where it was cast? If a mage casts CoA in an uber-dense forrest in the middle of fall, he's likely just made a huge patch of leaves very sticky. Sure, the leaves will stick to the attackers, and if an attacker falls he'll likely be covered in leaves and debris before he can get up, but he's not immobilized. Ditto for sand and beach areas, or loose silt, snow, etc. ~Semi

please cite your source for this reasoning....
as an avowed mage fan I do tend to read the spell descriptions carefully and cannot find a reference to CoA being affected by terrain...

[Damian Magecraft]

Um, my source would be...physics and observing how the world works? CoA essentially coats a person OR a surface area with "super flypaper". That description is in the spell write-up in RUE or BoM.

It stands to reason that, if the surface area is loose, it will only "glue" the loose debris to characters or vehicles that tread upon it. Similarly, if cast on water, you're not going to be unbreakably bound to the surface of the waves or some such nonsense, you'll simply find some of the water molecules "glued" to you for the duration (a similar phenomenon to having scales, btw).

Um, if you need proof of such a concept, you could probably demonstrate it to yourself with some products from Home Depot, but it should be pretty obvious, as far as I'm concerned.

~Semi

you are applying real world physics to a fantasy role-playing game? so you cannot support your statement with a quote from the books?i see so since the rules do not support your statement you apply a GM fiat... gotcha...sorry no...as one of the self proclaimed magic masters here on the board i call foul...presenting a personal ruling as cannon...for shame...no where in the spell does it state it is affected by the type of terrain to assume otherwise is an application of personal bias...to present said personal bias as canonical is poor debating and shows a certain lack of respect towards others abilities to read said books.

[Library Ogre]

Um, my source would be...physics and observing how the world works? CoA essentially coats a person OR a surface area with "super flypaper". That description is in the spell write-up in RUE or BoM.

And, as is frequently the point of contention, what is the consistency of the flypaper?

[Goliath Strongarm]

OK, so, I fall, I get stuck to CoA. The carpet doesn't move once it's down, so Im stuck. The carpet would be on TOP of the leaves, (theoretically smashing them flat to the ground, but, since I don't know anyone IRL that can cast said spell, we can't test that. If you can, we need to do more than just talk....) I'm still stuck flat. No, I'm not going to get up and run around covered in leaves. I'm stuck to the carpet. So that whole "it will only "glue" the loose debris to characters or vehicles that tread upon it. " argument doesn't work. Sorry.

Second of all, some of us don't play RIFTs. Personally, I HATE that game, and wouldn't play it if my life depended on it. To me, it's the bane of all that is ROLE playing, and rewards ROLL playing. So, you using a RIFTs rule for your argument doesn't convert 100%. How about pulling from PF? Is your description the same? Is your PPE cost (or heck, even spell level!) the same?

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, REAL world doesn't always apply to GAME. How many people do you know that can go down the street and throw a fireball? Come on, dude, think about what you're saying!

[Glistam]

So there we were, fighting two fierce rhino-buffalo, when our mage decides to cast paralysis: lesser at one of them. To keep the flow of the game we allowed it to work. Upon further thought after the game we wondered if the wrong call was made. The paralysis: lesser spell seems to be geared towards affecting only humans or humanoids, but does not specifically state that it wouldn't work on a 3 story tall four-legged beast.

After two successful castings, the beast was signifagantly easier to defeat than the first one was. It just seemed wrong.

[Lukterran]

So there we were, fighting two fierce rhino-buffalo, when our mage decides to cast paralysis: lesser at one of them. To keep the flow of the game we allowed it to work. Upon further thought after the game we wondered if the wrong call was made. The paralysis: lesser spell seems to be geared towards affecting only humans or humanoids, but does not specifically state that it wouldn't work on a 3 story tall four-legged beast.

After two successful castings, the beast was signifagantly easier to defeat than the first one was. It just seemed wrong.

Speaking of Paralysis: Lesser...where the heck is Paralysis: Greater?

[Library Ogre]

"Carpet of Adhesion, please show me just where the wizard touched you..."

[drewkitty ~..~]

To some it is spell abuse. To others its that SMART mage using their brain to THINK.

[demos606]

In the event of leaf covered ground, unless the leaves were thick enough to completely prevent contact with the ground below (foot+ normally) your CoA would still end up on the ground below. As fas as casting it on something like a tank and expecting to stop it dead, not gonna happen in my game. Tanks, robots and most giant vehicles (ie, death's head) justy have too much mass to be stopped, or even slowed, by a CoA. The affected patch of ground would be torn up and stuck to the vehicle in question but there's just no reasonable expectation for that minor an effect to stop that much mechanical strength (equivalent to 300+ PS in many cases). Now, if you want to get creative with stopping vehicles, expose some motivators or gears and cast CoA on the exposed parts - that would reasonably cripple at least that portion of the monstrosity and reduce its combat effectiveness.

[Glistam]

So then there was no issue with what happened with the Paralysis: Lesser spell? Thank you.

[shiiv-a]

hmmm ...

i think it would be interesting if mage-types had to create the actual wording for the spells.

then to prevent the abuse, make it so that they can't use the same wording, well word for word. after all, how often can you come up with original little limericks or something similar for the spell on the spot?
i know I can't do that easily.

it would give a bit of depth to the game, wouldn't it?

[JTwig]

hmmm ...

i think it would be interesting if mage-types had to create the actual wording for the spells.

then to prevent the abuse, make it so that they can't use the same wording, well word for word. after all, how often can you come up with original little limericks or something similar for the spell on the spot?
i know I can't do that easily.

it would give a bit of depth to the game, wouldn't it?

It would kind of gimp the mage players, but I'd be for it if Operators had to fix an actual engine when trying to fix an engine in game and so on.

[shiiv-a]

i think my point was simpler than that.

mages state 'i caste this spell and that spell and another 3 spells because they're all level one and i'm unlimited in the number i can cast in a melee round and i have the points to cover all of the castings'

no .. i think it would make the game more interesting IF they decided to type up an incantation to go with it. a spurr of the moment thing .. the more indepth you go into the casting the better exp points would be given.

but hey ... thats for the more adventurous players i guess. the ones that understand some of hte thoughts i had.

[Nexus]

Klatu Verta Niktu!

[shiiv-a]

cool ... much better than the kind of stuff i was thinking of

afterall .. i had a caninus ballchaseus .. a dog totally ball crazy and would nearly kill himself to play chase the ball ...

[Glistam]

But what about the spell Sustain? Shouldn't there be some kind of drawback to a mage who keeps himself under the effects of that spell at all times? It seems like it's all good and no bad, forever.

[Crazy Lou]

hm... You argue that "Real World Physics" can't be applied to the "Game" Well.... how 'bout gravity? Hmm? Yeah. I didn't think you'd suggest getting rid of that. So same goes with other physics too. Stuff like, say capacity for stresses and/or impacts to a physical structure? (if you missed that, I'm saying that stuff like missiles or bullets actually do damage to a wall, or armor, etc). Thus if I have a say... Hundred-Handed W/ SN PS of... 100, and he walks onto carpet of adhesion cast on a concrete sidewalk, then the sidewalk sticks to the bottom of his foot as he keeps walking, taking the sidewalk with him, still on his foot. His PS is far more than sufficient to allow him to lift that piece of concrete (especially since he doesn't have to get a grip on it) and thus the carpet doesn't stop him. The reason that carpet is ordinarially so effective is b/c it's assumed that a being can't normally be able to take portions of the earth he's standing on with him wherever he goes. Thus it'd work the same way on sand. The top particles of sand (maybe even an inch deep of sand) become sticky (nowhere does it even suggest that the carpet goes down forever into the depths of the earth or in any other way mention thickness of the carpet...) and the person steps on them. the sand stick to him and he continues to walk the same way the Hundred Handed could keep walking w/ the sidewalk attached to him. The ratio of weight of sand to strength of the ordinary human affected is roughtly comparable to the weight of the sidewalk to the strength of the Hundred Handed.

If you deny such basic laws of math and physics as inherently undestood as parts of the game, then you'd have to re-write everything to clarify the differences, which of those still applied (ie gravity, I'd hope...) and which don't. Rifts Earth before the cataclysm is generally accepted to have exactly the same physics as real life, and so unless you argue that the upsurge of magic changed the nature of reality.... you have to admit you're wrong on this one.

CoA is by no even slightly remote means nerfed by this interpretation, afterall, what are the odds of fighting in sand or on a carpet of leaves/pine needles absolutely everywhere during your adventures. It just means that CoA is no longer utterly infallible in hopelessly incapacitating your foes (wind rush + befuddle or cloud of slumber would be really unfair in those instances if CoA was perfect). I realize that you can save vs. it, but still, accept that the magic doesn't change the nature of the surface upon which it's cast. Changing the very nature of something would be much higher lvl magic, and also, if it made the surface unable to be broken, then what if it's cast on something smaller, like say... armor. The person's stuck in armor, but at the same time, the armor can't be destroyed until the spell elapses! And if you allowed that, then I just can't reason w/ you.

So that's well over my $.02, but I think everything's understood now.

[JTwig]

.....

mages state 'i caste this spell and that spell and another 3 spells because they're all level one and i'm unlimited in the number i can cast in a melee round and i have the points to cover all of the castings'

.....

Since when can they cast an unlimited number of spells per melee as long as they have the PPE to cover the cost. Last I check the rule was two spells per melee, and I've heard that as of RUE it was changed to 1-5 one action, 6-10 two actions, and 11-15 three action. If you're letting mage cast unlimited spells per melee, then your asking for a world of hurt as the GM.

Whether I'm "adventurous" or not has nothing to do with it if I think players of mages should come up with fake chants that they must repeat before their character can cast a spell, especially when no other character class has the same rule applied to them. Now if you had similar rules for the other O.C.C.s I'd be all for it.

[Glistam]

But what about the spell Sustain? Shouldn't there be some kind of drawback to a mage who keeps himself under the effects of that spell at all times? It seems like it's all good and no bad, forever.

Mmmm. That's the whole purpose of the spell, to sustain life and allow a mage to explore the wilderness or alternate dimensions without having to hunt or carry too much crap around with him. Of all the magic spells in Rifts, this is kind of a silly one to have a beef with, imo. "Yeah, I can see a spell that rips a tear in the fabric of space-time and allows you to cross dimensions, but a spell that allows you to go without eating or breathing for days on end? Pure rubbish!"

Sure, I may draw a limit at some time, as a GM. Maybe 2 casts in a row, I suppose, and then I'd start requiring additional nutrients or start imposing penalties. But then, I've never once had an instance where a player character went 2 weeks of playing time without food, water, or air. What the hell kind of mean-ass GMs are you playing with, anyways?

~Semi

I'm just trying to anticipate possible issues, as both a GM and a player. The spell Sustain caught my eye because, besides allowing a mage to go without eating or breathing for days on end, it also allows them to go with only 2 hours of sleep a night. With a player mentality, I started thinking how cool it might be to have a mage who keeps this spell on themselves allt he time. Never needs to eat, Never needs to breathe, needs minimal sleep, etcetera. It's not too expensive of a spell either. Then I wondered if the abilities this spell gives could be abused. That's why I asked.

[Damian Magecraft]

hm... You argue that "Real World Physics" can't be applied to the "Game" Well.... how 'bout gravity? Hmm? Yeah. I didn't think you'd suggest getting rid of that. So same goes with other physics too. Stuff like, say capacity for stresses and/or impacts to a physical structure? (if you missed that, I'm saying that stuff like missiles or bullets actually do damage to a wall, or armor, etc). Thus if I have a say... Hundred-Handed W/ SN PS of... 100, and he walks onto carpet of adhesion cast on a concrete sidewalk, then the sidewalk sticks to the bottom of his foot as he keeps walking, taking the sidewalk with him, still on his foot. His PS is far more than sufficient to allow him to lift that piece of concrete (especially since he doesn't have to get a grip on it) and thus the carpet doesn't stop him. The reason that carpet is ordinarially so effective is b/c it's assumed that a being can't normally be able to take portions of the earth he's standing on with him wherever he goes. Thus it'd work the same way on sand. The top particles of sand (maybe even an inch deep of sand) become sticky (nowhere does it even suggest that the carpet goes down forever into the depths of the earth or in any other way mention thickness of the carpet...) and the person steps on them. the sand stick to him and he continues to walk the same way the Hundred Handed could keep walking w/ the sidewalk attached to him. The ratio of weight of sand to strength of the ordinary human affected is roughtly comparable to the weight of the sidewalk to the strength of the Hundred Handed.

If you deny such basic laws of math and physics as inherently undestood as parts of the game, then you'd have to re-write everything to clarify the differences, which of those still applied (ie gravity, I'd hope...) and which don't. Rifts Earth before the cataclysm is generally accepted to have exactly the same physics as real life, and so unless you argue that the upsurge of magic changed the nature of reality.... you have to admit you're wrong on this one.

CoA is by no even slightly remote means nerfed by this interpretation, afterall, what are the odds of fighting in sand or on a carpet of leaves/pine needles absolutely everywhere during your adventures. It just means that CoA is no longer utterly infallible in hopelessly incapacitating your foes (wind rush + befuddle or cloud of slumber would be really unfair in those instances if CoA was perfect). I realize that you can save vs. it, but still, accept that the magic doesn't change the nature of the surface upon which it's cast. Changing the very nature of something would be much higher lvl magic, and also, if it made the surface unable to be broken, then what if it's cast on something smaller, like say... armor. The person's stuck in armor, but at the same time, the armor can't be destroyed until the spell elapses! And if you allowed that, then I just can't reason w/ you.

So that's well over my $.02, but I think everything's understood now.

the error everyone is making in interpreting the spell CoA is they assume both sides are sticky...its a fly paper like subtance...is flypaper sticky on bothsides? not unless its one of those no pest strips...ever use true flypaper? i have seen that stuff trap large rodents...plus the spell specifically states it effects even SNPS and giant robots that means said biengs are stuck to it too...

now to the other part of your argument....real world physics? gravity? hmm i guess that means the spell fly (which defies the laws of physics and gravity) dosent exist in your world either? Magic is called that for a reason...cause it allows you to fold, spindle, mutilate and yes even break the laws of physics as we know them with no obvious logical explination hence the name "magic".

and not nerfed? what are the odds of fightinf on loose earth, sand, leaves, etc...? never had a lazy GM huh? every freaking battle...had one do that to nerf the GB in the party, funny how every attack centered on damaging his recoil suppression....human nature states that a gm will do this at every opertunity...

a better way to prevent the abuse is to make the spell more obscure, or as others have stated add negate magic or anti-magic effects to items...house ruling the spell so it doesnt "work perfectly" is cheap...items that allow you to by pass thye spell altogether are more effective...

[shiiv-a]

.....

mages state 'i caste this spell and that spell and another 3 spells because they're all level one and i'm unlimited in the number i can cast in a melee round and i have the points to cover all of the castings'

.....

Since when can they cast an unlimited number of spells per melee as long as they have the PPE to cover the cost. Last I check the rule was two spells per melee, and I've heard that as of RUE it was changed to 1-5 one action, 6-10 two actions, and 11-15 three action. If you're letting mage cast unlimited spells per melee, then your asking for a world of hurt as the GM.

Whether I'm "adventurous" or not has nothing to do with it if I think players of mages should come up with fake chants that they must repeat before their character can cast a spell, especially when no other character class has the same rule applied to them. Now if you had similar rules for the other O.C.C.s I'd be all for it.

dude ...

i had more than one person pull that on me.

kinda soured my attitude to 'mages' in particular

i was dense enought to not know it couldn't happen .. so go figure.
i'm just now starting to work in to the mage genre.

[Stone Gargoyle]

Mages are a tricky lot. Going conservative with how much they can cast and keeping an eye on the PPE costs is critical for me. I am all for limiting the spells cast per round to a minimum.

[shiiv-a]

simpler solution for me ...

i DON'T GM anymore.

i had a low level game going ... and some bloke decides to run his shifter ... he informs me later after railroading ME into the ground to the point that i had to import a deity ... and HE decides to try to instruct me on how god's are run.

at that point, he informs me that his 11th level shifter is 'low powered' .. but powerful enough to try to kill off a whole village of elves.

low leveled my aunt's potato patch.

[Damian Magecraft]

simpler solution for me ...

i DON'T GM anymore.

i had a low level game going ... and some bloke decides to run his shifter ... he informs me later after railroading ME into the ground to the point that i had to import a deity ... and HE decides to try to instruct me on how god's are run.

at that point, he informs me that his 11th level shifter is 'low powered' .. but powerful enough to try to kill off a whole village of elves.

low leveled my aunt's potato patch.

different definitions of low power

[Stone Gargoyle]

Still, there is a difference between having a difference of opinion on the game and pushing a new GM to have your way.

[Noon]

So I was wondering if you all could give me some advice here: What spells seem to be "problematic" in that a player would be tempted to use them a lot to derail my plans, and how as a GM can I creatively (but unobtrusively) limit the occasions where such spells would be usable like that?

If your players like being on the rails with your plan, just whisper to them "Watch out, your derailing this" and they will stop.

If they aren't interested in being stuck on your rails, what your asking would seem dishonest.

[shiiv-a]

so glad someone else agrees with me.

as is, i choose not to game with a larger growing group of people. the stories i could tell, but that wouldn't be polite.

lets just say, that i'm REALLY picky now who i game with. i choose real RP over most of the stuff you see on the chatrooms now.
but hey. its me and how i play i guess.

so is it any wonder why i didn't have any real drive to run a 'by the book' mage type. maybe its a carry over from when i was playing 2nd edition back a few years ago.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I'm just trying to anticipate possible issues, as both a GM and a player. The spell Sustain caught my eye because, besides allowing a mage to go without eating or breathing for days on end, it also allows them to go with only 2 hours of sleep a night. With a player mentality, I started thinking how cool it might be to have a mage who keeps this spell on themselves allt he time. Never needs to eat, Never needs to breathe, needs minimal sleep, etcetera. It's not too expensive of a spell either. Then I wondered if the abilities this spell gives could be abused. That's why I asked.

One peniltiy I can see imposing is in the mental health area. Due to the not sleeping much they start to get unstable, drifting towards crazy if they contnue using the spell for long times.

[drewkitty ~..~]

You ppl are not getting the "spirit" of the CoA spell.

If you want to use real world physics to discribe it then do things "In Scale". Remember how Light flys are, and how heave and stiff the paper is In Relation to the Fly.



If you are going to compaire two things then be shure you are compairing apples to apples, not apples to oranges.


And another thing to remember........"It's Magic!!!!!!!!"

[Damian Magecraft]

Ah jeez, here we go again!

if it bothers you so much don't bother to respond...

and not nerfed? what are the odds of fightinf on loose earth, sand, leaves, etc...? never had a lazy GM huh? every freaking battle...had one do that to nerf the GB in the party, funny how every attack centered on damaging his recoil suppression....human nature states that a gm will do this at every opertunity...

Sounds like you have bad GMs. Talk about irrelevant. That's neither our problems or the fault of the Palladium system. If your GM is being a bone-head, you need to stand up to him. Nothing else will help your game experience, trust me.

after 30 years in the hobby I have the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in the way of GMs thats why i took over as GM...At least then the group got consistently Good games...

a better way to prevent the abuse is to make the spell more obscure, or as others have stated add negate magic or anti-magic effects to items...house ruling the spell so it doesnt "work perfectly" is cheap...items that allow you to by pass thye spell altogether are more effective...

So...you have a problem with a GM using terrain against your glitter boy or a spell, but you want the GM to mystically wave his hands and make a level 4 spell hard to find and learn, or give every shmoe in the universe negate magic or anti-magic effects, but you have a problem with a common sense interpretation of a spell's abilities? So he shouldn't ever vary terrain or have NPCs use strategy against you, but he should completely re-order the Rifts multiverse so that your munchy-a** interpretation of the spell isn't challenged? And you think our approach is the thing that's out of line here?

I have an issue anytime someone uses the "common sense says" argument for changing a rule...if it were common why is your uncommon @$$ the one coming up with it? And where in my post did I say never vary the terrain? dont put words in my mouth...

Oh and about the munchy comment...you have no room to call anyone here munchy Mr. lets-add-up-the-DPA-of-spells...been playing too many MMO's?

How can you be against GMs using their power one way and still think it's cool that they totally mess with the game environment in other ways just to counter-act your goofy-a** interpretation of the spell?

working around the spell requires thought and imagination...altering how a spell works(house ruling) is lazy...a house rule should be the last step taken to correct a perceived flaw not the first as you so clearly advocate...

What you do in your own games is one thing, but I think a more common sense view of the spell is both easier to play with and more logical. You've given your thoughts, I've given mine, I think people can make up their own minds. You certainly haven't convinced me.
~Semi

you know i think thats most civil thing you have had to say in this conversation....

[Noon]

How can you be against GMs using their power one way and still think it's cool that they totally mess with the game environment in other ways just to counter-act your goofy-a** interpretation of the spell?

working around the spell requires thought and imagination...altering how a spell works(house ruling) is lazy...a house rule should be the last step taken to correct a perceived flaw not the first as you so clearly advocate...

I'd go with this. Basically because when the GM starts 'common sensing' rules/spells, he's essentially deciding how things turn out. Here's the real deal - if you could have asked the GM how things will turn out, then you can't play it. You can only play it out if there's uncertainty on all sides. There is NO PLAY if someone knows the result in advance.

Yup, it's better to mess with the game environment than do something that eliminates the ability to play at all.

[Noon]

Yup, it's better to mess with the game environment than do something that eliminates the ability to play at all.

That presumes what the spell does is clearly indicated and commonly understood, which is not the case. Nowhere does the book specify either way, leaving it open to interpretation.

You mean interpretation that includes non play? Where the GM knows the outcome of the conflict (the conflict of CoA against targets) - and of course you can't play it in that case, you can only be told the ending.

Your not adding any limits on 'interpretation', which leaves it a pretty dysfunctional option to take as it removes the possibility of actual play.

My interpretations are a common sense approach to what it doesn't say, while Damian's approach clings to a munchy interpretation that lacks imagination, proof, or even a vague attempt at reality. At least my interpretations can be backed up by real life physics.

It's currently supporting play, as in there's uncertainty around the table as to what result will happen.

I mean, the guy just eats it whole and never questions anything. Rifts is only a game, there are going to be errors and omissions and you're going to have to make up your own mind about crap. If a palladium book might have indicated the sky was purple, sure enough, all his games would apparently have purple sky from here on in. I can here it now: "Well, that's what they (may) have said!"
*snipping rude crap*

I think if you spend more time making up your mind about crap than playing, it's a poor position. I'd rather play for two hours with purple skies than spend two minutes making up my mind about it. Making up my mind isn't play. In fact it's basically just work.

[shiiv-a]

*wonders how much of this discussion is about to flip and become an attack on me with the following comment?*

the books said it best with ALL stats and range and durations and the such with the simple statement of

to be used as a guideline only

means that some GM's can adjust the monsters and such to suit their game. this prevents some donkey-brained-smarty's from quoting the book and rule to them.

[Noon]

I'd rather play for two hours with purple skies than spend two minutes making up my mind about it...snip it's basically just work.

Yes. I can see how making up your mind on this kind of thing would tax your abilities. Better to go the easy route and not think at all.

~Semi

PS- Are you really sure that's the argument you want to make here?

Pretty much. Why? Is it amazing to think about what colour the sky should be?

[Damian Magecraft]

Out of curiousity, do you know why the sky is blue? Without Googling it, I mean?

~Semi

now, i am beginning to smell butter....

[shiiv-a]

Yeah, Shiiv-a, you're right, as far as I'm concerned.

~Semi

WOW ... i'm impressed.

finally got validation for a good point. i'm usually ignored as being too .. vague or off the wall. thanks Semi

[Damian Magecraft]

*wonders how much of this discussion is about to flip and become an attack on me with the following comment?*

the books said it best with ALL stats and range and durations and the such with the simple statement of

to be used as a guideline only

means that some GM's can adjust the monsters and such to suit their game. this prevents some donkey-brained-smarty's from quoting the book and rule to them.

this is the reason i stopped arguing the case....besides the fact that semi compleatly missed my original point....Dont present house rules as canon...the rest is him trolling for a fight....and me taking bait wouldnt ya know it

[Damian Magecraft]

That's an interesting way to re-write history. So you lose an argument you never should have been in, then just get creative with the results? Add that to your struggles with the English language, you remind me of a certain politician whose approval rating is in the toilet right about now. He, too, has a knack for ignoring reality and living by his own "fantasy" rules.

And maybe you should spare me the penny-ante debate tactics and stop being a sore loser. Do you have any idea how childish it is to lose an argument but still hang around trying to get the last word in? Get over yourself, dude.

this is the reason i stopped arguing the case....besides the fact that semi compleatly missed my original point....Dont present house rules as canon...the rest is him trolling for a fight....and me taking bait wouldnt ya know it

Wow. You have no idea how to properly use ellipses, do you?

~Semi

(Hint: Try a comma or a period instead, from time to time. )

did you bother to read my response to your original post? or did you just come out swinging with the insults?

it called a pregnant pause yah (self censored).

[Damian Magecraft]

As to the argument of physics aplies to magic.
I direct you to an article in rifter #2 (by kevin) wherein he states magic defies the laws of Physics as we understand them (paraphrased as I don't have the book in front of me at the moment).

and semi your right i di lose the argument the moment I let you distract me from my original complaint...
more the fool I for it...

however I am willing to bet my games are far more entertaining because my players don't have to worry about their GM nerfing something because he cannot come up with an imaginitive way around their favorite move/spell/power etc...

[Noon]

Ever in search of material, I have created a strip in honour of this thread...

http://rolluproleup.stripgenerator.com/ ... ation.html

[Damian Magecraft]

Ever in search of material, I have created a strip in honour of this thread...

http://rolluproleup.stripgenerator.com/ ... ation.html

humorous...and to the point.