Finger Wigglers and Bottom Jigglers

[musashi]

So, with magicker types, as I understand it they have to be standing up in order to cast.

Would it be possible to change it so that they could cast while sitting down as well. Not resting, just sitting.

My thought being that since the spells require a verbal component, and a hand gesture component (since you can't be wielding weapons while casting), can't you acomplish both of those while sitting upright?

If the spell also has a river dance component, of course I understand not being able to cast while sitting, but otherwise ... I was just thinking it would make sense to add this in.

[Bilanthri]

The somatic component so often involved with casting (as presented by D&D) is about a variety of postures, not necessarily just hand movements. But then, if you look into some of the original DarkSun books, you find things like the Somatic Concealment Proficiency, which allows a caster to disguise their movements to avoid being detected when casting.
It does seem like some spells should be castable from a sitting position, especially ones that create small illusions or sleight of hand style effects. But casting Earthquake from your plush, suede couch might be a bit much.

[Dan]

I think this would be fine if said magickers were not in combat while casting in that position. Either that, or just keep it to a minimum as to what you could cast while sitting down.

[musashi]

If it weren't too much of a coded hassle, I'd ideally like whether you have to be standing or sitting based on the spell, yes.

But if that's too hard, it seems like it makes more sense to me to have them all be castable from a sitting position, and trust folks to RP standing up before summoning earthquaks/sandstorms/tenticle monsters.

[fourTwenty]

If it weren't too much of a coded hassle, I'd ideally like whether you have to be standing or sitting based on the spell, yes.

But if that's too hard, it seems like it makes more sense to me to have them all be castable from a sitting position, and trust folks to RP standing up before summoning earthquaks/sandstorms/tenticle monsters.

Why would you RP standing up without actually standing up?

[musashi]

You know what I meant. 

[KIA]

FAIL.

[musashi]

Ok ok, I'll spell it out.

RP'ing Standing:

Code Select Expand

stand (pushing up from his table with a burst of energy)

[Clearsighted]

I'm against anything that might make a finger wiggler's life easier. Just on principle. But seriously, yeah, the standing component takes into account a variety of gestures and motions beyond just wiggling fingers.

[musashi]

I guess that's one way to look at it, but eh ... I feel "meh" about imagining casting via dance.

[fourTwenty]

Ok ok, I'll spell it out.

RP'ing Standing:

Code Select Expand

stand (pushing up from his table with a burst of energy)

Epic Fail for sure, I'm a total head. I really didn't get it the first time.

I'm with Clearsighted about not helping 'gickers on principle, but I don't really have a good argument as to why

As much as I hate to I do think that cheaters, I mean magickers, should be able to cast somethings sitting down. I mean seeing an elf pull a piece of fruit out of midair while relaxing in the shade might be kinda cool to some people, I guess.(You ought to work for your damn fruit). They should not however be able to cast Evans Spiked Tentacle of Forced Intrusion(tm) with out standing and doing an intricate little two-step. I would say this didn't need to be coded because it was suppose to be a karma role where we can trust the players but...

[Zoan]

[ I would say this didn't need to be coded because it was suppose to be a karma role where we can trust the players but...

lol k.

[brytta.leofa]

I think this would be fine if said magickers were not in combat while casting in that position.

Not an experienced 'gicker-player, but that sounds sufficient to me.

[Tisiphone]

I think this would be fine if said magickers were not in combat while casting in that position.

Agreed.

[musashi]

While on the topic of magickers and what have you, I believe Lizzie mentioned in another thread about RP'ing hiding her PC's gem with her cloak, but having some other PC's opt to see it anyway ...

Wouldn't that problem be solved by just making the gem "technically" a tattoo for the purposes of code? I was just thinking off-handedly but, if that were the case ... it would still be plainly visible on the neck, by all accounts in its description, it would be a physical gem (not an actual tattoo) that just can't be removed, and if said mage was trying to play out a low key life somewhere, they could take a sandcloth wrap or something else of the like and wrap it around their neck to conceal the gem, the same way they could conceal a tattoo.

I don't quite understand why its not handled that way already 

EDIT: Found the quote ... sorry about getting the author wrong, Tis!

It comes down to personal taste. I did much the same with a gem, once - emoting that my character was being very, very careful about keeping her cloak bunched closed around her neck, using a hand for the task. In this case, you can't just automatically hide something in your eq that isn't normally hidden, so it depended on the others in the scenes.

Some people pretended like they didn't see the gem. Some people pretended that they did. There's no complaint that you can really make against either one, except to say perhaps that the latter are not going along with something you want -  but then, you aren't in charge of the game, and if you're trying to do something not specifically allowed by code, you either need a staffer's support, or the goodwill of the other players.

This is a prime example of why a good MUSH is hard to pull off.

[Yokunama]

While on the topic of magickers and what have you, I believe Lizzie mentioned in another thread about RP'ing hiding her PC's gem with her cloak, but having some other PC's opt to see it anyway ...

The gem is suppose to be present from my understanding.

[Tisiphone]

I disagree with making the gem a tattoo object; 'tis supposed to be difficult to hide. In the case above, I assumed that the people who reacted to my character's gem caught a glimpse of it, or noted that something was pushing against the fabric of the cloak, or did some quick deductive thinking.

[RogueGunslinger]

Obviously the gem's suppose to be there.. but how hard could it be to hide? How big is the gem supposed to be?

I've always hated how easily the sdesc for the gem can be spotted easier than any other piece of clothing because it's so short.

I feel like I'm the only one who plays like they can't see them when I  l <person>

[brytta.leofa]

I disagree with making the gem a tattoo object; 'tis supposed to be difficult to hide.

Is it really?  How big is the gem?

[Tisiphone]

I disagree with making the gem a tattoo object; 'tis supposed to be difficult to hide.

Is it really?  How big is the gem?

I'll get back to you on that.

[Boggis]

Is it really?  How big is the gem?

"Diameter is roughly equal to that of a small marble."

[musashi]

If it is in fact the size of a small marble ... I feel like it should /not/ be difficult to hide. But rather, perhaps if you are gemmed, make it illegal to even try hiding it while in Allanak (sort of like the Nazis and the Jewish stars) ... and if the mage went anywhere else, esp up north towards Tuluk, it might make for a very cool scene indeed if someone from down south spotted them and you had a big scene of: You ... take off that wrap around your neck. Show the templar.

These are just my idle thoughts on it. I know there's a strong feeling of: Lets not ease up on magick users about anything just because! But, some of these things just seem like easily correctable coded oversights.

[Delstro]

I'd definately like that idea, Musashi, but I doubt Gems will be in Arm.2.

[FightClub]

Ok ok, I'll spell it out.

RP'ing Standing:

Code Select Expand

stand (pushing up from his table with a burst of energy)

Do that at a bar near me, and you wont have to worry about this thread anymore.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I wouldn't mind making the Gem a perma-tattoo instead of an item. Hiding it sounds rational to me. Of course, if you get caught hiding it, now, that's a new story, depending on who catches you.

[Cutthroat]

I can think of a few really good reasons why the gem should be an item and not a permanent tattoo, and while there are some benefits to having it as a tattoo, I personally think it should stay as an item.

On the original topic,

I think this would be fine if said magickers were not in combat while casting in that position. Either that, or just keep it to a minimum as to what you could cast while sitting down.

I agree with this.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I can think of a few really good reasons why the gem should be an item and not a permanent tattoo...

Like what? Those coded things that happen with gems can also happen with tattoos. Make no mistake .. a tattoo is an item. It can be referenced in code just fine. Other than the fact that you could hide the gem, what reasons could you have that are not about the concept of it not being an item?

[Tisiphone]

I can think of a few really good reasons why the gem should be an item and not a permanent tattoo...

Like what?

Just for a couple: gem items are still around after the user dies, they'd have to completely rewrite how one gets a gem (codewise), items can be targetted in ways that tattoos cannot (e.g. combat), items can be taken off whereas tattoos cannot.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

...gem items are still around after the user dies, they'd have to completely rewrite how one gets a gem (codewise),

A tattoo can be flagged to be picked up and held, though I don't know about worn.

items can be targetted in ways that tattoos cannot (e.g. combat),

Gems are never targeted in combat, with the exception of the flag code that dusts, blood-sprays, or blackens stuff.

items can be taken off whereas tattoos cannot.

This is fair, but, in this case, I think that the only way to do this is a certian way, and that way can be changed to target the tattoo.

I could be wrong about all of this, but I have dealt with tattoos on another MUD, and I'd bet that the system is close to the same on ARM.

[BlackMagic0]

Is it really?  How big is the gem?

"Diameter is roughly equal to that of a small marble."

I really want the ability to hide items, such as a necklace underneath my cloak or shirt or armor.  Seeing as hiding a marble on some kind of string would not at all be hard under a massive, awesome, super, silk greatcloak.
Or even your shirt if the string was long enough.

Would be easy to tuck something about the neck under a piece of clothing...  Just something I always wished to be able to do CODEDLY.

[musashi]

I wouldn't mind making the Gem a perma-tattoo instead of an item. Hiding it sounds rational to me. Of course, if you get caught hiding it, now, that's a new story, depending on who catches you.

That's about how I feel about it too.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

We'll have layers in the next game, I believe. You'll be able to hide things then. Right now, we only have two layers, and that is tattoo and clothing, and a pseudo layer with cloaks.

[musashi]

Ok ok, I'll spell it out.

RP'ing Standing:

Code Select Expand

stand (pushing up from his table with a burst of energy)

Do that at a bar near me, and you wont have to worry about this thread anymore.

For the record, I didn't mean anything supernatural by burst of energy ... think mundane ... ie, (pushing up from his table suddenly/in a hurry/with vigor) ...

Or maybe you just meant your PC attacks anyone who makes sudden movements around him because you play in the 'Rinth