Can you teleport onto a ship?

[kreynolds]

Actually, I'm quite certain I wouldn't be happier playing GURPS. There's a system that goes too far while striving for realism and still seriously misses it, IMHO. Besides, realism isn't the do all and tell all of fantasy gaming, nor the ultimate point of roleplaying. It's just some extra realism is often better than none, and when a GM must adjudicate a rule, such as the question that started this thread, these consideration often lead to better, more self-consistent worlds, and give the players a greater opportunity to use logic to figure things out. Now, if you don't care your DM is tossing stuff at your group that makes absolutely NO sense, that's your business.

As for Hong, the fact it is ONLY a game or only make believe in no way should be used as an excuse for poor thinking, or perhaps even an encouragement of it or a reason to ignore more considered opinions should they be offered.

And honestly, I'm not driving myself crazy or insane by thinking of such things. In fact, I enjoy it, and I find if I put this level of thought into my rulings, the players appreciate my world better, as long as they aren't the ones force to deal with the reasoning behind it. They just use the rules and get to play on what is, hopefully, a more consistent world.

As for the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid), even simplicity is relative. Some one with a high aptitude at mathematics or physics, for example, might find such consideration painfully simple, while others may run, cringing in fear as the evil mathematicians attack. Talk about divide and conquer

Anyway, I find this level of thought fun, I find AD&D to be fun, and, perhaps unfortunately for me, I find those who blatantly ignore certain things while making their world too often have produced a realm with such inconsistencies that it makes playing there the real chore, and frequently less than enjoyable for me.

Let's face it. If your world has realism without adding lots of extra work to get, as I feel GURPS does, even if a player doesn't care too much about it or think about the extra levels of thought that went into it, they'll be fine. But if the world is lacking this realism and a player looks for it, they won't be fine. Realism, therefore, hurts less than unrealistic, ill-considered, inconsistent rulings. But we all have our preferences, and as long as you enjoy your game, no one should claim you are doing it 'wrong.'

So Icebear, thanks for your concerns as to my sanity, but I've been doing this for over 20 years and I seem relatively fine (of course that's debatable). In the meantime, my POV is expressed nicely here for those who aren't already sufficiently tired of my ranting.

http://Villa.lakes.com/JamesStarlight/WorldRealism.html

Jim.

You can't possibly tell me that this babble gets you the chicks... anyways, I've only been on these boards for a little while, and one thing that is glaringly obvious is that players such as yourself, are a very rare breed indeed. So! With that in mind, how about leaving the physics out of the fantasy discussion that involves dragons and faeries and trolls and demons and devils, cause honestly, it doesn't really belong. What makes a game a good one all comes down to consistency. My games are consistent as hell, even though I don't use metaphysics or quantum mechanics in them. Just my opinion of course.

 

[Psifon]

I'm gonna punt on this one, and say that the answer is up to the DM. I can see both sides: my rendition and the "like attracts like" rendition. I think both sides have merit, and so long as the DM is consistant, it doesn't really matter which one you use.

 

[IceBear]

So Icebear, thanks for your concerns as to my sanity, but I've been doing this for over 20 years and I seem relatively fine (of course that's debatable). In the meantime, my POV is expressed nicely here for those who aren't already sufficiently tired of my ranting.

I wasn't implying that YOU were insane, I meant that I would go insane if I had to think that much about the game I did say in my post that I'm sure many people find this level of detail fun in their games. I'm cool with that, it just isn't for me. After all the long years to get a degree in electrical engineering and my job, I, personally, don't want that. But, as I'm fond of saying - Different strokes for different folks.

I was just stating that after 20+ years of gaming too, I'm more in the mood for keeping it reasonably realistic and, at the same time, simple as opposed to thinking too hard about my hobby. I do enough thinking about work, wife, finances, etc to want to find a reason to find one more thing to think too much about (That and my players really like things simple - too many rules and they stop having fun and no longer want to play).

I guess my players and I have reached the conclusion that if you have to put too much work into playing the game it stops being fun and becomes work. We also have found that if you look too hard at a rule you start to lose the intent of the rule to the detail of the rule. But, that's just us - we probably have lower IQs than the norm

As for this topic, I think it's a DM's call and as long as the DM is consistent then it's fair.

IceBear

 

[hong]

WANGER, I'm quite WANGER I wouldn't be WANGER playing WANGER. There's a WANGER that WANGER too far while striving for WANGER and WANGER seriously misses WANGER, IMWANGERO. Besides, realism isn't the WANGER WANGER and WANGER WANGER of fantasy WANGER, nor the WANGER point of WANGER. It's just some WANGER realism is often WANGER than none, and WANGER a GM must WANGER a rule, such as the WANGER that started this WANGER, these WANGER often lead to WANGER, more self-WANGER WANGER, and give the players a WANGER opportunity to use WANGER to WANGER things out. Now, if you don't WANGER your WANGER is tossing WANGER at your WANGER that makes absolutely WANGER sense, that's your WANGER.

As for Hong, the WANGER it is ONLY a WANGER or only make WANGER in no way should be WANGER as an excuse for poor WANGER, or perhaps even an WANGER of it or a WANGER to WANGER more considered WANGER should they be WANGER.

And WANGER, I'm not driving myself WANGER or WANGER by thinking of such WANGER. In fact, I WANGER it, and I WANGER if I put this WANGER of thought into my WANGER, the WANGER appreciate my WANGER better, as WANGER as they aren't the WANGER force to WANGER with the WANGER behind it. They just WANGER the WANGER and get to WANGER on what WANGER, hopefully, a more WANGER world.

As for the WANGER principle (WANGER WANGER WANGER, WANGER), even WANGER is WANGER. Some one with a high WANGER at WANGER or WANGER, for example, might find such WANGER painfully WANGER, while others may WANGER, cringing in WANGER as the WANGER mathematicians WANGER. Talk about WANGER and WANGER

Anyway, I WANGER this level of WANGER fun, I find WANGER to be WANGER, and, perhaps WANGER for WANGER, I WANGER those who WANGER ignore certain WANGER while making their WANGER too WANGER have WANGER a WANGER with such WANGER that it makes WANGER there WANGER real WANGER, and frequently WANGER than WANGER for C00TER.

Let's WANGER it. If your WANGER has WANGER without adding lots of WANGER work to WANGER, as I WANGER GURPS does, even if a WANGER doesn't WANGER too much about WANGER or WANGER about the extra levels of WANGER that went into WANGER, they'll be WANGER. But if the WANGER is lacking this WANGER and a WANGER looks for it, they won't be WANGER. WANGER, therefore, WANGERS less than WANGER, ill-WANGERed, inWANGER rulings. But we all WANGER our preferences, and as WANGER as you WANGER your WANGER, no one should claim you are doing it 'WANGER.'

So Icebear, WANGER for your WANGER as to my WANGER, but I've been doing WANGER for over 20 years and I WANGER relatively fine (of WANGER that's debatable). In WANGER meantime, my WANGER is expressed nicely here for those WANGER aren't already sufficiently WANGER of my C00TER.

http://VWANGER.lWANGER.cWANGER/JWANGERSWANGER/WWANGERRWANGER.hWANGER

WANGER.

D00d, this will make you go blind, you realise.

 

[Sir Hawkeye]

On behalf of my fellow mathematician/science-type person, I would like to say that that is one of the most juvenile posts I have ever seen on these boards.

I mean, I'm a sophomore, and I still don't often see something this sophomoric.

 

[hong]

On behalf of my fellow mathematician/science-type person, I would like to say that that is one of the most juvenile posts I have ever seen on these boards.

As a fellow mathematician/science-type person, I would like to say that one good WANGER deserves another.

 

[kreynolds]

D00d, this will make you go blind, you realise.

ROTFLMAO OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!! THAT HAS TO BE THE FUNNIEST CRAP I'VE EVER SEEN HERE!!!!!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL

 

[General Starlight]

Alas, it seems this thread has seriously degraded into something it really shouldn't have. WANGER? I'll say. And some think this incredible waste of space is funny? I can only remind others its origins come from the guy who exposes laws of fantasy which seem to say it's better if you don't think about it too much. Oh well.

Yet, I'll try to keep a bit of the thread alive, even if I do feel it is running far afield of teleporting. I simply have to object when someone says "Such things do not belong in fantasy." Nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever you want belongs.

Now clerics, of course, don't need to know how the magic god gives them works, but does anyone really feel wizards are somehow similarly in the dark? Isn't it more or less accepted that wizards achieve their power through their understanding of how the universe works and the control they may exercise over it? As odd as it may sound, I seriously doubt magic is merely wishful thinking come true, and whether you find it fun to consider such detail or not, I think it's more or less a given wizards do think about such things, even though their players need not.

Still, I am a little surprised at you, Icebear. With such a background, I would have thought such thinking was not complex at all - more like light reading rather than thinking hard - yet you act like I was tossing around actual partial differential equations at you or something incredibly tedious to work with and you are forced to deal with it. I don't think I'm all that rare in thinking it's probably more tedious to put up with an idiotic or ill considered ruling, no matter how consistent the DM may be with it, than it is to do a little thinking first.

And why is anyone suggesting players are somehow going to tire of this level of thought in their rules when this level of thought simply produces the ruling, and does not even have to be explained to the players at all (unless THEY want it)? Quite concisely, all they need ever hear is the actual ruling.

RULING: Yes, you can teleport onto a moving ship, but this is likely more dangerous and would fall under the 'description' category, unless you can see the ship or know somehow where it is first (or whatever you decide you want).

What player is going to shrivel at the sheer complexity of that? As for others who may think it worthwhile to ask such questions or to discuss it, such as in a forum or after the session, the very fact they are interested in the first place leads me to think they'd both enjoy the idea and welcome the discussion instead of feeling barraged by 'nonsense.' Did they just want a ruling or did they want some reason? Seems to me if they just wanted a ruling, that can only come their local DM and you won't find it in this forum. The very question being asked here in this forum calls for reason, doesn't it?

So while consistency from your DM is often more important than sheer detail or realism, it isn't the whole picture either. Consistently bad isn't fun, for example. And naturally, the fact it is the DM's call to make is such a truism it hardly bears repeated mentioning, does it?

But maybe I'm wrong. I stepped into this web site only a day or so ago more or less by invitation, but if few want to hear my POV or it gives them nothing but WANGER headaches, I might just be spending my time in the wrong place. Oh well, there's no pleasing everybody.

Jim.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

edit away comments

 

[kreynolds]

The only thing juvenile in this thread is some twit telling everyone about 100 times how he is smarter than the rest of us, and how we all are a bunch of simpletons since we don't want to be anal.

Here, here.