Mark Walsh on Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:41:33 -0600 (CST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] Triller submits p359

On: 2/14/06 10:55:27 AM Personman sent:
> Subject: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] Triller submits p359
> Just because a player is also a CHO doesn't make em not a player, so I
> we're fine there. 
I'd tend to agree here. I just extended the concept for opinion.
>Owned objects are game-defined properties, I would say.
> The ambiguity comes up in the word 'loses' -- are they destroyed, or
> dropped? For most things -- stats, the player object itself, Action
> etc -- destruction makes the most sense, and perhaps it does for talismans
> and the like too, but it might be cool if those were dropped. However, it
> also might just give the nearest player a bunch of free stuff for no
> so I'm not sure this is what we want.
This last true, but where?
To me, it makes little sense to have a Smited Vatee drop all carryable
objects in the Vat, thus requiring a player to be Vatted to acquire them.
This really is the gist of my concerns.
Also, as was pointed out a few nweeks ago, the giving (or gifting)
of a CHO to another Player isn't distinctly defined (and so what of GCs?).
The dispersal of Rainbow Wolfe's assets upon eir forfeiture wasn't argued,
but no Rule either allows or disallows it.
For that matter, no Rule allows or disallows for the transfer of any
Game Object from one Player to another.
Lotta possibilities here.


spoon-discuss mailing list