Dare I ask?

[Shaira]

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

This thread have convinced me to introduce a new smiley - the "beating a dead horse"-smiley!



So even if you can't agree with each other, you have at least accomplished something!

SGL.

*giggle*

It should probably be some kind of award, too. "Beating a Dead Horse Above and Beyond the Call of Duty" ...

Lovely. And so to bed (with a smile).

G'night all!

Sarah

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

If in your neck of the woods accusing someone of goalpost moving and putting scare quotes around the word courtesy translates into friendly, we have vastly different definitions of the term.

It was just a simple factual/logic error, similar to being corrected for making a simple mathematical error. That's not something I would expect anyone to take as a personal attack, or to automatically view me as having an attitude about.

I don't consider removing standard spells from the rules part of basic GM decision making at all, but houseruling. If you do, then your definition is sufficiently different as to make discussion of the subject useless.

You're definition is pretty much out of line for any RPG discussion I've ever seen or any other gamer I've ever met. In fact, it's generally considered part of the GM's basic responsibilities, unless we're talking about a specific adaptation. (Yes, I recognize that at some point it does differ sufficiently from someone else's to make discussions pointless, but there's a lot of gray area in between where discussion is possible and potentially fruitful.)

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Trifletraxor

This thread have convinced me to introduce a new smiley - the "beating a dead horse"-smiley!



So even if you can't agree with each other, you have at least accomplished something!

SGL.

I want to be the first, besides you, to use it:

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by RMS

It was just a simple factual/logic error, similar to being corrected for making a simple mathematical error. That's not something I would expect anyone to take as a personal attack, or to automatically view me as having an attitude about.

I'd suggest looking up the term "disingenuous" for my reaction to this.

You're definition is pretty much out of line for any RPG discussion I've ever seen or any other gamer I've ever met. In fact, it's generally considered part of the GM's basic responsibilities, unless we're talking about a specific

Making major parts of a spell system _unavailable_? Nonsense. I don't know anyone who considers doing that part of normal campaign setup. In specific, just because it _is_ indistinguishable from someone houseruling them out of existance.

adaptation. (Yes, I recognize that at some point it does differ sufficiently from someone else's to make discussions pointless, but there's a lot of gray area in between where discussion is possible and potentially fruitful.)

When you essentially remove the elements that create the topic at hand, I don't consider that the case.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by RMS

I want to be the first, besides you, to use it:

As one of the contributors to the side thread, I'd suggest that's more than a little--well, I believe I pointed you at the term in my prior message.

[RMS]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

I'd suggest looking up the term "disingenuous" for my reaction to this.

I give up then. I just thought the right thing to do was to make it clear that there really was nothing personal (or "attitude") about it, at least from my perspective. I still have no animosity towards you about it, so unless you drag this into another thread, no big deal to me.

Making major parts of a spell system _unavailable_? Nonsense.

Nothing I mentioned could be considered major parts of the spell system. Selecting which spells are available is simply part of putting the setting together. When I put my own world together, the first thing I did when considering magic was decide which spells were available to certain schools of sorcery, which spells were available to specific cults, and which spells were available from local spirits. (I also have a couple of other magic systems going in the world too, but that's for another discussion.) I never considered that anyone would do anything else. Btw, none of those decisions had anything to do with game balance, though everything balanced well enough for my tastes. That doesn't mean that someone couldn't attempt to get something not available from their own sect, and that did happen, but was part of a major plot/adventure in the campaign. In fact, I find that putting certain initial limitations out there actively drives the game at certain points.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

As one of the contributors to the side thread, I'd suggest that's more than a little--well, I believe I pointed you at the term in my prior message.

I agree completely with him. It is beating a dead horse. I suppose it is ironic, but far from disingenuous, to participate in a discussion that one actively recognizes is most likely beyond hope. The "most likely" part there is actually the only thing that made me continue, and I see from above that it didn't pan out.

That ball's in your court. I'll drop out if nothing positive can come of this at this point.

[RMS]

Double post. See below. Is there a way to actually delete them?

[RMS]

Since the discussion continued in a serious manner, a joke seemed out of place, but I can't think of where else I'd share it.

Originally Posted by Nightshade

If in your neck of the woods accusing someone of goalpost moving...

You know goalpost moving is only a foul if done intentionally, and even then it's only a 2 minute minor.

Of course, if everyone else bothering to read this now is from Europe, I'll have to explain the joke to them and it'll get lost in translation.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by RMS

I give up then. I just thought the right thing to do was to make it clear that there really was nothing personal (or "attitude") about it, at least from my perspective. I still have no animosity towards you about it, so unless you drag this into another thread, no big deal to me.

I will take you at your word that this was not your intent, but I wish to make it clear it is _only_ because I don't accuse people of being liars without overwhelming evidence. There's certainly nothing in the posts I took umbrage at that even vaguely suggests anything but my interpetation to me, looking over them again in retrospect.

Nothing I mentioned could be considered major parts of the spell system.

I'd consider the summoning and binding spells at discussion just that, given that they replace the earlier rules bound spirit rules, and have a dramatic effect on the magical capabailities of almost any character who uses magic points (which to some degree describes practitioners of all three systems (since divine mages _also_ use spirit magic) or Free Intelligence (the same, for the same reason).

I agree completely with him. It is beating a dead horse. I suppose it is ironic, but far from disingenuous, to participate in a discussion that one actively recognizes is most likely beyond hope. The "most likely" part there is actually the only thing that made me continue, and I see from above that it didn't pan out.

I stand by my opinion that one doesn't get to complain about beating a dead horse when one's participating in doing so.

That ball's in your court. I'll drop out if nothing positive can come of this at this point.

Do you see that as at all likely, given our premises seem at complete odds? I'm having what I consider a functional discussion with Kloster on this, because our differences seem based on game culture differences rather than irreconcilable differences on what the topic at discussion pertains to, but I honestly don't think you can talk about the RQ3 sorcerer and the RQ3 + Cults of Glorantha sorcerer in the same breath.

[soltakss]

Gods of Glorantha had precious little sorcery in it. The Mostali had sorcery and a few examples of spells and the Malkioni had a few examples of spells. But nothing compared with the numbers of Divine Spells and Spirit Magic spells available.

So, to look at the bigger picture you have to look at all the rules for the system, regardless of setting (except where rules are specifically for one setting and no other).

As far as I know, Allied Spirits and Rune Lords are not just for Glorantha - I use them in Alternate Earth setting without a problem. Similarly, I use a lot of the spells in other supplements in Alternate Earth.

It's like talking about Star Trek and only discussing the Pilot episode. Or perhaps talking about the original series and none of the later ones, that's a better analogy.