Community

Maesto wrote:

Hmm? Google told me that my name was written on the interweb, so I investigated. Actually, I was just browsing the boards... ;-)

What's QFT, RanielK? I probably should know, but to me, that acronym will forever be known as Quantum Field Theory (oh the Feynman diagrams...).

For what it's worth, I think you recall back the spell and can use MMSF again, but that's just me. Apparently I have a US DMing style that disagrees with the Europeans I'm playing with at the moment, which is somewhat strange...

Didn't know Quantum Field Theory was used often enough to need to be abreviated. It is lazy speak for Quoted For Truth. Generally means "I sooooo agree." Though it is sometimes used to keep someone from changing their entry later to hide what they said. I used it in the first sense.

In my opinion the spell goes back in the slot as it came out. Prepared the spell with a MM Feat? You get the spell (feat and all) back, because to get it you have to have the pearl of the slot you cast. Cast Empowered False Life from a 4th level slot? You need to use a 4th level Pearl (or MM) to recover that. In the process you get it back as Empowered. You don't use a PoP 4 and get back a 2nd level spell. You equally don't use a PoP 2 just to get back the False Life side of things or broken of Brokens the fully mod'ed Empowered False Life.

If you used more feats to do even more funky things, it depends on who is doing it. Wizzy? You get it back as it went out since it was prepped. Sorcerers depends on the circumstances. After all Sanctum spells need you to be in your Sanctum to be at a lower spell slot. Not there, you don't get back the spell.

Also Rods o' Metamagic Goodiness don't affect what you get back. Cast a spell and tweak it with a rod, all you get back is the spell you cast. You don't get back the Metamagicked version. This is because what left you was an unaltered spell. The rod supplied all the juice to make it Sculpted or Maximzed or what have you. Your PoP isn't going to give the Rod its power back. Only waiting 24 hours will do that. Of course, nothing stops you from using the rod a second or third time if it still has uses.

_metz_ wrote:

Without trying to insult anyone (for a change)

I have been informed by people on Opnrpg/etc that the US DMing style is very RAW orientated and morally black and white. (x in mod = evil)

The Europeans apparently have a more intent/comparison to fantasy notion behind the rules and thier morality is viewed in shades of grey. (x = whatever you can convince the DM it is)

- This is just what I have been told, I have no personal opinion on this. I have heard very strong reactions to some Naerie mods though.

I don't think there is a universal US DMing style. I think there does tend to be a degree of regionalism that can vary widely; this isn't based on travel experience, but is based on conversations.

Personally, I describe myself as both RAW focused and conservative (a tendency toward lower power rulings for PCs and opponents); I find myself often out of step with the mainstream regionally (SoCal) and in a variety of rules discussions on-line; this may be most apparent in the liberal on-line community.

Having spoken with a variety of European players, and as both an author of a Naerie mod and a playtester for another, I would suggest that Naerie mods intentionally seek the moral grey areas. I have no experience with other European mods, but I think you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the Naerie mods are representative of a European player base or module character.

_metz_ wrote:

In Australia I have been informed that we fall somewhere in the middle of these two. Then again we have a smaler gaming community and only one region for a very long time.

I would assume Jolyon is referring to a differing set of interpretations on things that he is unused to.

I'd like to point out that this board can be very RAW orientated, for example in Sydney all the GMs rule one way on sculpt and think CM is irrelevant (see MwaO's post on the quality of some of the CM advice elsewhere) But most people I talk to online seem to think that the CM ruling is binding raw interpretation. Not trying to start a war here, I am just saying that some regions/countries develop thier own style of house rule interpretations.

I noticed that online games are their own community as well for this sort of stuff.

I have the sense, generally developed through conversation with the CuWyrmling, that there is an intentional focus in the Austrailian judge community toward consensus. I think that in the US, concensus for the sake of consistency is not valued to the same degree.

There has oft been made reference to the US/European distinction between that which is prescribed and that which is proscribed (in no particular order because I'm being intellectually lazy). With wide brush strokes to cover the gaps, I suspect that Jolyon's experience speaks to this issue.

There are some other oddities in US vs. European rules discussions; when you can charge as a standard action comes to mind.

David