From aescleal at btinternet.com Tue Jan 3 06:40:53 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Tue Jan 3 06:41:11 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <20051229140429.18508.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060103144053.3510.qmail@web86105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I'm a bugger then - since the mid 90s I've had players taking a heal (species) spirit magic rather than a general purpose one. I usually fudge 'round the edges a bit and have things like "Heal Aldryami" which heals anything plantish and "Heal Uz" which works on everything which eats rocks. Oh, Dwarves don't use heal, they use repair. Cheers, Ash From bick10 at comcast.net Tue Jan 3 08:54:00 2006 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10@comcast.net) Date: Tue Jan 3 08:54:08 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal Message-ID: <010320061654.16423.43BAAC280000A451000040272207300033CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> From: Ashley Munday > I'm a bugger then - since the mid 90s I've had players > taking a heal (species) spirit magic rather than a > general purpose one. Actually, that is a good way to cut down on the Heal everything issues I had. I think I like that. Might be possible, in a mystical since, to limit healing to clans and worshipers as well. Only if you feel the need to reign in too much healing going around. > I usually fudge 'round the edges a bit and have things > like "Heal Aldryami" which heals anything plantish and > "Heal Uz" which works on everything which eats rocks. Like. > Oh, Dwarves don't use heal, they use repair. Make perfect since. > Cheers, > > Ash Jim From carpgachair at yahoo.com Tue Jan 3 09:51:33 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Tue Jan 3 09:51:40 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <010320061654.16423.43BAAC280000A451000040272207300033CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20060103175133.40404.qmail@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In Mythworld, we found the best way to rein in abuse of the Healing spell was to add another item to the character sheet: Effective Age. Since Healing is essentially just a more rapid version of natural healing, have the character age at the same rate as if the healing took the normal time span. Since there are penalties for growing old (after various ages, STR, CON, INT, DEX, etc. must be rolled or there will be a drop in those primary characteristics as well as the secondary ones derived from them), too much use of Healing (or Xenohealing) will invoke these penalties at an earlier chronological age. It is amazing how many characters decide to leave injuries to normal healing rather than magic, with a shorter lifespan in the balance. Paul Cardwell --- bick10@comcast.net wrote: > From: Ashley Munday > > I'm a bugger then - since the mid 90s I've had > players > > taking a heal (species) spirit magic rather than a > > general purpose one. > > Actually, that is a good way to cut down on the Heal > everything issues I had. I think I like that. > Might be possible, in a mystical since, to limit > healing to clans and worshipers as well. Only if > you feel the need to reign in too much healing going > around. __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ From IQuinn at surewest.net Tue Jan 3 10:36:34 2006 From: IQuinn at surewest.net (Robert Hoffman) Date: Tue Jan 3 10:36:48 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <20060103175133.40404.qmail@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <016a01c61094$a025e4c0$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> Ouch,... slightly sadistic, but I like it. How did you calculate the age increase? Did it become a bookkeeping hassle? Cheers, Bert -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Paul Cardwell Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:52 AM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In Mythworld, we found the best way to rein in abuse of the Healing spell was to add another item to the character sheet: Effective Age. Since Healing is essentially just a more rapid version of natural healing, have the character age at the same rate as if the healing took the normal time span. Since there are penalties for growing old (after various ages, STR, CON, INT, DEX, etc. must be rolled or there will be a drop in those primary characteristics as well as the secondary ones derived from them), too much use of Healing (or Xenohealing) will invoke these penalties at an earlier chronological age. It is amazing how many characters decide to leave injuries to normal healing rather than magic, with a shorter lifespan in the balance. Paul Cardwell --- bick10@comcast.net wrote: > From: Ashley Munday > > I'm a bugger then - since the mid 90s I've had > players > > taking a heal (species) spirit magic rather than a > > general purpose one. > > Actually, that is a good way to cut down on the Heal > everything issues I had. I think I like that. > Might be possible, in a mystical since, to limit > healing to clans and worshipers as well. Only if > you feel the need to reign in too much healing going > around. __________________________________ Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules@crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From carpgachair at yahoo.com Tue Jan 3 11:07:10 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Tue Jan 3 11:07:16 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <016a01c61094$a025e4c0$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> Message-ID: <20060103190710.91185.qmail@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Robert Hoffman wrote: > Ouch,... slightly sadistic, but I like it. How did > you calculate the > age increase? Did it become a bookkeeping hassle? > > Cheers, > Bert No bookkeeping problems. As mentioned, there is an EA (effective age) on the character sheet which indicates how much older the character is than their chronological age. Birthdate is a terciary characteristic (rolled or chosen separately - rolled in this case, modified by how long they took to gain journeyman status in their trade and thus graduate from apprenticeship). It is also on the character sheet. Most PCs will either die in action or retire from adventuring before the critical ages set in (50 or 60 for humans) - one is more likely to damage primary (rolled) characteristics from injury or disease than aging. But it is there just the same, and too frequent use of Healing will get it relevant a whole lot faster! Paul Cardwell __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From IQuinn at surewest.net Tue Jan 3 11:29:07 2006 From: IQuinn at surewest.net (Robert Hoffman) Date: Tue Jan 3 11:29:23 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <20060103190710.91185.qmail@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <016f01c6109b$f7045770$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> Actually I meant what is the direct effect from Healing; ie how many days would they age per point of healing or how much would it take to gain a whole year to their EA? -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Paul Cardwell Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 11:07 AM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal --- Robert Hoffman wrote: > Ouch,... slightly sadistic, but I like it. How did > you calculate the > age increase? Did it become a bookkeeping hassle? > > Cheers, > Bert No bookkeeping problems. As mentioned, there is an EA (effective age) on the character sheet which indicates how much older the character is than their chronological age. Birthdate is a terciary characteristic (rolled or chosen separately - rolled in this case, modified by how long they took to gain journeyman status in their trade and thus graduate from apprenticeship). It is also on the character sheet. Most PCs will either die in action or retire from adventuring before the critical ages set in (50 or 60 for humans) - one is more likely to damage primary (rolled) characteristics from injury or disease than aging. But it is there just the same, and too frequent use of Healing will get it relevant a whole lot faster! Paul Cardwell __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules@crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From carpgachair at yahoo.com Tue Jan 3 12:03:23 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Tue Jan 3 12:03:31 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <016f01c6109b$f7045770$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> Message-ID: <20060103200323.25338.qmail@web31804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Five days per point, or about the time it would take for a properly treated injury to heal to the extent that the victim could return to normal activities. Obviously complete healing takes longer, but it is a sufficiently balanced penalty for game purposes. The EA part of the character sheet is subdivided into years, months, and days (y, m, d for space reasons). It must work well because we have not had any PCs age more than a year from this effect - natural aging is relentless enough! Paul Cardwell --- Robert Hoffman wrote: > Actually I meant what is the direct effect from > Healing; ie how many > days would they age per point of healing or how much > would it take to > gain a whole year to their EA? __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Tue Jan 3 22:30:21 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Tue Jan 3 22:30:37 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal Message-ID: Ay caramba! I didn't pick that point up when I scanned the Mythworld rules, but wha a concept! Gonna suggest it in my RQ group, although we for the mstv keep the magic low, bordering on zero, so magic healing usually comes out in dire emergency only. -----Original Message----- Paul Cardwell Sent: 03 January 2006 07:52 To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In Mythworld, we found the best way to rein in abuse of the Healing spell was to add another item to the character sheet: Effective Age. Since Healing is essentially just a more rapid version of natural healing, have the character age at the same rate as if the healing took the normal time span. Since there are penalties for growing old (after various ages, STR, CON, INT, DEX, etc. must be rolled or there will be a drop in those primary characteristics as well as the secondary ones derived from them), too much use of Healing (or Xenohealing) will invoke these penalties at an earlier chronological age. It is amazing how many characters decide to leave injuries to normal healing rather than magic, with a shorter lifespan in the balance. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website http://www.standardbank.co.za ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Wed Jan 4 02:38:47 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Wed Jan 4 02:39:24 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1136371127.9c6cdff6b18b5@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> The first campaign I played in was a multi-racial party, and our GM kindly allowed Heal to apply equally to all species (on and point for point basis). I kept the idea (even though I'm playing a human only game nowadays) just because I liked the idea that multi-racial parties shouldn't be discouraged (if that's the kind of game you want to run). As well as the normal Heal spell I let certain cults grant specific Heal (species) spells which are twice as effective - although there's no heal Human, Heal Troll etc... more like Heal Deer, Heal Cow granted from the various cattle cults. Nikk From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Jan 4 02:53:27 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed Jan 4 02:53:33 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <20060103190710.91185.qmail@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I just wanted to say that I liked this one very much, and will impose it on my players next time we play RQ (hehe) I'll allso start using the heal-species-thing; that spirits that are likely to heal plants won't like to heal Mostali/dwarves, and vice versa. This way, a human closely related to/worshipper of Aldrya or a pantheon closely related to/friendly towards aldrya could be healed by an aldryami and vice versa. The same thing should go for divine-spells; not likely that Yelm would heal an UZ... As for Sourcery, one can easily say that the physical mechanisms operating in a Mostali is so fundamentally different from a homid/UZ/aldryami, that it takes separate healing-sourcery. >From: Paul Cardwell >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal >Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:07:10 -0800 (PST) > >--- Robert Hoffman wrote: > > > Ouch,... slightly sadistic, but I like it. How did > > you calculate the > > age increase? Did it become a bookkeeping hassle? > > > > Cheers, > > Bert > >No bookkeeping problems. As mentioned, there is an EA >(effective age) on the character sheet which indicates >how much older the character is than their >chronological age. Birthdate is a terciary >characteristic (rolled or chosen separately - rolled >in this case, modified by how long they took to gain >journeyman status in their trade and thus graduate >from apprenticeship). It is also on the character >sheet. > >Most PCs will either die in action or retire from >adventuring before the critical ages set in (50 or 60 >for humans) - one is more likely to damage primary >(rolled) characteristics from injury or disease than >aging. But it is there just the same, and too >frequent use of Healing will get it relevant a whole >lot faster! > >Paul Cardwell > > > > >__________________________________________ >Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. >Just $16.99/mo. or less. >dsl.yahoo.com > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Jan 4 09:28:16 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Wed Jan 4 09:28:29 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <20060103175133.40404.qmail@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060104172816.41696.qmail@web86108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I toyed with a similar idea for a while, but haven't used it for a while. Essentially every character keeps a record of the number of points of damage healed by magic per hit location. Bit fiddly, but not too bad. Each week this number drops by one. Whenever a healing spell is cast on the character you compare the number of points in the spell to the total healed on that location on the resistance table. If you succeed, spell worked, if you fail, it doesn't. Cheers, Ash PS: I also had a variant in which if you'd been healed to by more than your total hit points healing spells effects are halved. Healed by more than three times your hitpoints healing spells effects are quartered, etc. --- Paul Cardwell wrote: > In Mythworld, we found the best way to rein in abuse > of the Healing spell was to add another item to the > character sheet: Effective Age. Since Healing is > essentially just a more rapid version of natural > healing, have the character age at the same rate as > if > the healing took the normal time span. > > Since there are penalties for growing old (after > various ages, STR, CON, INT, DEX, etc. must be > rolled > or there will be a drop in those primary > characteristics as well as the secondary ones > derived > from them), too much use of Healing (or Xenohealing) > will invoke these penalties at an earlier > chronological age. > > It is amazing how many characters decide to leave > injuries to normal healing rather than magic, with a > shorter lifespan in the balance. > > Paul Cardwell > > > > --- bick10@comcast.net wrote: > > > From: Ashley Munday > > > I'm a bugger then - since the mid 90s I've had > > players > > > taking a heal (species) spirit magic rather than > a > > > general purpose one. > > > > Actually, that is a good way to cut down on the > Heal > > everything issues I had. I think I like that. > > Might be possible, in a mystical since, to limit > > healing to clans and worshipers as well. Only if > > you feel the need to reign in too much healing > going > > around. > > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. > http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Jan 5 01:05:49 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu Jan 5 01:05:58 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <20060104172816.41696.qmail@web86108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: What if excessive healing cause damage? That would be a bummer (hope that is an OK word to write in english; you're all so polite in your language, and I -a stupid foreginer-doesn't allways know what is OK to write and what is not = haram in arabic, by the way)! I mean; healing is serious business; doing speed-up-repair-job on living tissue...scary when you come to think of it! Say someone is down 2 hp, and someone does "heal-3". That would heal two, but cause 1 hp damage as a result of too much. This might not be the case with spirit healing, as healing-spirits might know when to stop, but for divine healing or sourcery, this might be a fun way to reduce the coincidental way with healingspells! >From: Ashley Munday >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal >Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 17:28:16 +0000 (GMT) > >I toyed with a similar idea for a while, but haven't >used it for a while. Essentially every character keeps >a record of the number of points of damage healed by >magic per hit location. Bit fiddly, but not too bad. >Each week this number drops by one. > >Whenever a healing spell is cast on the character you >compare the number of points in the spell to the total >healed on that location on the resistance table. If >you succeed, spell worked, if you fail, it doesn't. > >Cheers, > >Ash > >PS: I also had a variant in which if you'd been healed >to by more than your total hit points healing spells >effects are halved. Healed by more than three times >your hitpoints healing spells effects are quartered, >etc. > >--- Paul Cardwell wrote: > > > In Mythworld, we found the best way to rein in abuse > > of the Healing spell was to add another item to the > > character sheet: Effective Age. Since Healing is > > essentially just a more rapid version of natural > > healing, have the character age at the same rate as > > if > > the healing took the normal time span. > > > > Since there are penalties for growing old (after > > various ages, STR, CON, INT, DEX, etc. must be > > rolled > > or there will be a drop in those primary > > characteristics as well as the secondary ones > > derived > > from them), too much use of Healing (or Xenohealing) > > will invoke these penalties at an earlier > > chronological age. > > > > It is amazing how many characters decide to leave > > injuries to normal healing rather than magic, with a > > shorter lifespan in the balance. > > > > Paul Cardwell > > > > > > > > --- bick10@comcast.net wrote: > > > > > From: Ashley Munday > > > > I'm a bugger then - since the mid 90s I've had > > > players > > > > taking a heal (species) spirit magic rather than > > a > > > > general purpose one. > > > > > > Actually, that is a good way to cut down on the > > Heal > > > everything issues I had. I think I like that. > > > Might be possible, in a mystical since, to limit > > > healing to clans and worshipers as well. Only if > > > you feel the need to reign in too much healing > > going > > > around. > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. > > http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From nphillis at shaw.ca Thu Jan 5 05:35:06 2006 From: nphillis at shaw.ca (Newton Philis) Date: Thu Jan 5 05:35:18 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal Message-ID: <1213fe51212ee0.1212ee01213fe5@shaw.ca> I really like the idea of Aging to heal (seems very cool). However, from a game balance point of view, doesn't this penalize Players? (Generally, few monsters, NPCs, townsfolk, bad-guys, etc, are encountered more than once or twice, so their age is irrelivant. I.e., an evil monster can heal [and age] as much as he likes, because he will probably not live to see the end of the encounter.) While good Game Masters may 'play' the monster as if he was afraid to get old, this rule is open to abuse for Game Masters who are not as vigil. (However, this same argument could be made for debilitating critical hits...) Thoughts? > > > >--- Paul Cardwell wrote: > > > > > In Mythworld, we found the best way to rein in abuse > > > of the Healing spell was to add another item to the > > > character sheet: Effective Age. Since Healing is > > > essentially just a more rapid version of natural > > > healing, have the character age at the same rate as > > > if > > > the healing took the normal time span. > > > > > > Since there are penalties for growing old (after > > > various ages, STR, CON, INT, DEX, etc. must be > > > rolled > > > or there will be a drop in those primary > > > characteristics as well as the secondary ones > > > derived > > > from them), too much use of Healing (or Xenohealing) > > > will invoke these penalties at an earlier > > > chronological age. > > > > > > It is amazing how many characters decide to leave > > > injuries to normal healing rather than magic, with a > > > shorter lifespan in the balance. > > > > > > Paul Cardwell From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Jan 5 06:16:50 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu Jan 5 06:17:02 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <1213fe51212ee0.1212ee01213fe5@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <20060105141650.93571.qmail@web86110.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> One thought: Rules don't exist to protect players from GM "abuse." Cheers, Ash --- Newton Philis wrote: > I really like the idea of Aging to heal (seems very > cool). > > However, from a game balance point of view, doesn't > this penalize Players? > > (Generally, few monsters, NPCs, townsfolk, bad-guys, > etc, are encountered more than once or twice, so > their age is irrelivant. I.e., an evil monster can > heal [and age] as much as he likes, because he will > probably not live to see the end of the encounter.) > > While good Game Masters may 'play' the monster as if > he was afraid to get old, this rule is open to abuse > for Game Masters who are not as vigil. > > (However, this same argument could be made for > debilitating critical hits...) > > Thoughts? > > > > > > >--- Paul Cardwell wrote: > > > > > > > In Mythworld, we found the best way to rein in > abuse > > > > of the Healing spell was to add another item > to the > > > > character sheet: Effective Age. Since Healing > is > > > > essentially just a more rapid version of > natural > > > > healing, have the character age at the same > rate as > > > > if > > > > the healing took the normal time span. > > > > > > > > Since there are penalties for growing old > (after > > > > various ages, STR, CON, INT, DEX, etc. must be > > > > rolled > > > > or there will be a drop in those primary > > > > characteristics as well as the secondary ones > > > > derived > > > > from them), too much use of Healing (or > Xenohealing) > > > > will invoke these penalties at an earlier > > > > chronological age. > > > > > > > > It is amazing how many characters decide to > leave > > > > injuries to normal healing rather than magic, > with a > > > > shorter lifespan in the balance. > > > > > > > > Paul Cardwell > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Thu Jan 5 06:21:02 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Thu Jan 5 06:21:20 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <20060105141650.93571.qmail@web86110.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060105141650.93571.qmail@web86110.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1136470862.6bce26102819a@webmail8.leeds.ac.uk> I have to admit I like the sound of all of these ideas, but I'd like to follow up on Newtons point - why do these things? Not that this is a criticism, not in the slightest, but I'm wondering why you want to stop the PCs from Healing themselves as often as possible. If you play a hefty combat orientated game then they'll need to heal all the time just to live as their arms and legs drop off at the pretty common rate that they do in RQ, and if you don't play a hefty combat orientated game then why is it an issue? If combat doesn't happen all that often then you needn't try and prevent them from doing it surely? I am intrigued. Why try and discourage your PCs from Healing? As a note, I do insist on one penalty, all Healing in my game leaves scars (I do in fact use a spirit magic spell of Chalanas Touch which leaves no scars but acts as a Heal spell of one point less then the pointage of the Touch), just because I like the idea of my Gloranthan warriros covered in scars. And, of course, not every cult grants Heal so it can be pretty hard just getting hold of the damn spell! I am I being too generous a GM? Nikk From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Jan 5 07:29:47 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu Jan 5 07:29:54 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <1136470862.6bce26102819a@webmail8.leeds.ac.uk> Message-ID: <20060105152947.77434.qmail@web86108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> You're not being too generous a GM by any stretch of the imagination. Without any restrictions in almost every case I've seen the rules as written work okay. What I originally wanted was a way of providing a sense of dwindling resources - make the players feel their adventurers had to manage and control things. Both the suggestions I've made and used in games I don't use anymore as they turned out to be more trouble than they're worth. I found adventurers running themselves out of magic points gave me the tension I wanted. Cheers, Ash --- Nikk Effingham wrote: > I have to admit I like the sound of all of these > ideas, but I'd like to follow > up on Newtons point - why do these things? Not that > this is a criticism, not in > the slightest, but I'm wondering why you want to > stop the PCs from Healing > themselves as often as possible. If you play a hefty > combat orientated game > then they'll need to heal all the time just to live > as their arms and legs drop > off at the pretty common rate that they do in RQ, > and if you don't play a hefty > combat orientated game then why is it an issue? If > combat doesn't happen all > that often then you needn't try and prevent them > from doing it surely? > > I am intrigued. Why try and discourage your PCs from > Healing? > > As a note, I do insist on one penalty, all Healing > in my game leaves scars (I do > in fact use a spirit magic spell of Chalanas Touch > which leaves no scars but > acts as a Heal spell of one point less then the > pointage of the Touch), just > because I like the idea of my Gloranthan warriros > covered in scars. And, of > course, not every cult grants Heal so it can be > pretty hard just getting hold > of the damn spell! > > I am I being too generous a GM? > > Nikk > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From IQuinn at surewest.net Thu Jan 5 08:58:07 2006 From: IQuinn at surewest.net (Robert Hoffman) Date: Thu Jan 5 08:58:32 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <20060105152947.77434.qmail@web86108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001001c61219$34101770$6401a8c0@QUINNLAND> I generally restrict the players to a maximum healing potency PER WOUND per week, meaning that if they cast 2pt Heal on a spear wound to the leg, another 2pt spell or potion will have no effect, and a 3pt spell would heal only the additional one point (though the resistance chart idea was also nice). This was mostly to offset the bonus I granted when casting out of combat (ie taking minutes of concentration to cast a spell rather then strike ranks). So even while I really like the idea of aging as a side effect I agree with Nikk that healing is often a tool for the GM to control the pacing of the game. If you want to delay the players in an interesting city then a plague may have all the healers tied up and if you're anxious to get the players moving then in walks a merchant with an ample supply of potions for a bargain price. Same holds true for the availability of the spells. And to the original point I also go with the lesser potency when casting heal on another race,... back when xenoheal was even offered it was most commonly used by the wealthy who worried about thier mounts. Cheers, Bert -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Ashley Munday Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:30 AM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal You're not being too generous a GM by any stretch of the imagination. Without any restrictions in almost every case I've seen the rules as written work okay. What I originally wanted was a way of providing a sense of dwindling resources - make the players feel their adventurers had to manage and control things. Both the suggestions I've made and used in games I don't use anymore as they turned out to be more trouble than they're worth. I found adventurers running themselves out of magic points gave me the tension I wanted. Cheers, Ash --- Nikk Effingham wrote: > I have to admit I like the sound of all of these > ideas, but I'd like to follow > up on Newtons point - why do these things? Not that > this is a criticism, not in > the slightest, but I'm wondering why you want to > stop the PCs from Healing > themselves as often as possible. If you play a hefty > combat orientated game > then they'll need to heal all the time just to live > as their arms and legs drop > off at the pretty common rate that they do in RQ, > and if you don't play a hefty > combat orientated game then why is it an issue? If > combat doesn't happen all > that often then you needn't try and prevent them > from doing it surely? > > I am intrigued. Why try and discourage your PCs from > Healing? > > As a note, I do insist on one penalty, all Healing > in my game leaves scars (I do > in fact use a spirit magic spell of Chalanas Touch > which leaves no scars but > acts as a Heal spell of one point less then the > pointage of the Touch), just > because I like the idea of my Gloranthan warriros > covered in scars. And, of > course, not every cult grants Heal so it can be > pretty hard just getting hold > of the damn spell! > > I am I being too generous a GM? > > Nikk > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules@crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Jan 5 09:24:36 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu Jan 5 09:24:45 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <1213fe51212ee0.1212ee01213fe5@shaw.ca> Message-ID: <20060105172436.50631.qmail@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Newton Philis wrote: > I really like the idea of Aging to heal (seems very cool). > > However, from a game balance point of view, doesn't > this penalize Players? > > (Generally, few monsters, NPCs, townsfolk, bad-guys, > etc, are encountered more than once or twice, so > their age is irrelivant. I.e., an evil monster can > heal [and age] as much as he likes, because he will > probably not live to see the end of the encounter.) > > While good Game Masters may 'play' the monster as if > he was afraid to get old, this rule is open to abuse > for Game Masters who are not as vigil. > > (However, this same argument could be made for > debilitating critical hits...) > > Thoughts? Trouble getting this sent. If you get two, my apologies. PCs will also get into situations where healing is necessary to live to see the end of the encounter. The aging rule is not just to prevent abuse of Healing spells, but also to challenge the player to decide whether the situation requires magic or the character can let nature take its course. There is a general skill of First Aid and will be used in most cases. However, one point of Healing (or Xenohealing) will stop bleeding, and six points at once after three successive successful First Aid roll (to get everything properly aligned) is needed to reattach a limb. Obviously the latter cannot be done over time by nature, although the loss of the limb is survivable. Except for severing, there is essentially no difference between cumulative injuries, the wear and tear of battle, and the instant damage of a critical hit of the same hit-point damage. Both require the decision to go with Healing or with nature. There is an added problem in Mythworld. A character has a Pain Resistance Factor (CON + INT + MNA [mana, much the same as RQ's POW]) which must be rolled if a hit location drops to +1 (0 if the character has only one local point normally). If fails, the character is completely incapacitated for a round due to the pain, but can try again on the next round. This is in contrast to D&D where a character functions quite normally until the last hit point is lost to a mosquito bite, whereupon dies suddenly. There are a lot of stages between healthy and dead! Also, remember while Mythworld has a common heritage with RQ, they are different games, and getting more so as rules revisions occur. However, it is a game RQ fans will enjoy, especially if they want more detail (too much detail is why Greg rejected it as the basis for RQ3) at the expense of a detailed setting like Glorantha. Mythworld can be played in a Glorantha setting, but also in Iron Crown's Middle Earth, or one of your own design. However, attempts to use D&D settings could do no more than a complete rewrite within the same plot line. And yes, it is susceptible to the same problems of the quality of the referee - as are all games, including [ugh] video puzzles where the "referee" is in the softwear and highly restrictive as to possibilities. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com From tcantine at incentre.net Thu Jan 5 21:46:19 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Thu Jan 5 22:05:35 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <20060105172436.50631.qmail@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060105172436.50631.qmail@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I also like the idea of including a downside to healing magic. I think it's because with healing magic being too cheap, the consequences of combat are not taken seriously enough. Players just don't feel what their characters suffer, so it's difficult to model the disincentive of sheer pain effectively. In RQ, it's less severe a problem than in games with lots of hit points and no hit locations, but it's still there. I like the way Harnmaster deals with the problem, by describing an injury graphically in a way that has a practical effect on how one goes about treating it. In fact, in my own game, I use a modified version of the Harnmaster wounding system for PC's, while sticking with basic RQ hit points for NPCs and beasties. Another approach is to give Heal a duration, rather than to make it an Instant spell. Make it last maybe 24 hours, or even 12, during which time it will hold everything together well enough to be used for battle and so forth, but when it wears off (or is dispelled!) the wounds open up again, although you could of course cast a new bunch of Heals five minutes before the last one expires. Natural healing only happens when it's actually damaged, though, so to properly recover, the spell would have to be maintained at less than the full injury. For example, if you've got a 4 point wound to the chest, you'd have three points of Heal cast on you every 12 hours for five days or so, and then two points for the next five days, and so on. From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Fri Jan 6 02:39:41 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Fri Jan 6 02:40:22 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: References: <20060105172436.50631.qmail@web31801.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1136543981.45bcd6797aa72@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> > Another approach is to give Heal a duration, rather than to make it an > Instant spell. Make it last maybe 24 hours, or even 12, during which > time it will hold everything together well enough to be used for battle > and so forth, but when it wears off (or is dispelled!) the wounds open > up again, although you could of course cast a new bunch of Heals five > minutes before the last one expires. Natural healing only happens when > it's actually damaged, though, so to properly recover, the spell would > have to be maintained at less than the full injury. For example, if > you've got a 4 point wound to the chest, you'd have three points of > Heal cast on you every 12 hours for five days or so, and then two > points for the next five days, and so on. Y'see, I'm not certain how this is meant to work in practice. Within the space of a few adventures, if each adventure has, let's say, a fight with four foes in it eventually one of them is going to critical with a sword blow to the chest, head or abdomen and do nine or ten points of damage to that location. This is enough to take your average character down to minues negatives in that location. If the Heal spell had a duration then every fifteen minutes (or what have you) you'd have to apply the spell to prevent them from dying. Most beginning groups won't have the magic points to do this! First aid could help, but a beginning group might only have fourty or fifty percent in first aid at best (unless, unlike me, you play that you can keep trying to first aid until you make a successful skill roll). Even then the PC would be effectively incapacitated for the rest of the session (it'd take a while to heal that kind of damage). Whilst this rule would certainly discourage combat, I think you'd have to be playing a very combat-lite game (which I could imagine, where there are very few fights and all fights are, literally, a matter of life and death). Even then you're going to routinely get shish-kebabed PC every now and again - so adevntures would have to be plotted rather differently than I would plot one. You'd have to have fights that the players could avoid, all of the time, or quite quickly you'll end up with your beautifully crafted adventure ruined as the group drag around a half-corpse with them. Especially if you meant for the incapacitated PC to have a main role in the game! So, I like the idea in principle, but you'd have to run a quite different type of game than normal RQ. I'd suggest. Oh, and I've updated my webpage http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~phl0nje/runequest/ Cheers, Nikk From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Jan 6 03:31:24 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri Jan 6 03:31:33 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <20060105141702.81AB92E6043@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060106113124.44208.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Wow, and I thought _I_ was a harsh GM. Personally, I allow Healing to heal people. I know, weak and wishy-washy - Healing should hurt them, make them older, make their hair fall out and make them impotent, but I'm kinda old-fashioned, I sometimes like the PCs to survive encounters and be able to do things afterwards. As for keeping tracks on the hit points healed, how many points were healed, how old do I look etc - I've got better things to do than that kind of thing. Now, I did once have an NPC with a chaotic feature of "reverse damage" which meant that any damage he did was reversed, so any attempts to heal the damage did more damage and the only way to heal it was to further damage the wound, by hitting it with a sword, for instance. Healing by time didn't work, either, it just caused more damage. If the critter hit a vital location, the PC could kill themselves with Healing. It made me laugh for a couple of hours, so it was worth the effort. See Ya Simon From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jan 6 04:01:34 2006 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Fri Jan 6 04:01:38 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <20060106113124.44208.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060106113124.44208.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43BE5C1E.5090601@sbcglobal.net> It might be interesting (and not too hard to implement) if people and animals healed by magic built up a resistance to healing magic. Perhaps (for example) for every x points of magical healing in a 24-hour period, they built up 1 point of healing resistance. One point of healing resistance wears off after 24 hours without magical healing, but it blocks 1 point of healing. That's just off the top of my head. From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Fri Jan 6 05:18:06 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Fri Jan 6 05:18:26 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <43BE5C1E.5090601@sbcglobal.net> References: <20060106113124.44208.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> <43BE5C1E.5090601@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <1136553486.3a80274352aa3@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> > It might be interesting (and not too hard to implement) if people and > animals healed by magic built up a resistance to healing magic. Perhaps > (for example) for every x points of magical healing in a 24-hour period, > they built up 1 point of healing resistance. One point of healing > resistance wears off after 24 hours without magical healing, but it > blocks 1 point of healing. That's just off the top of my head. Now, that sounds like an implementable rule. If you really want to stop the PCs from healing, that'll work. However, again, I question the need - if you've made a game with lots of fights then this rule would effectively comdemn the PCs to death, and if you haven't made a game with lots of fights, then why use this rule? But, certainly, that sounds like a workable option. Simon Phipps: >Now, I did once have an NPC with a chaotic feature of "reverse damage" which >meant that any damage he did was reversed, so any attempts to heal the damage >did more damage and the only way to heal it was to further damage the wound, >by hitting it with a sword, for instance. Healing by time didn't work, >either, it just caused more damage. If the critter hit a vital location, the >PC could kill themselves with Healing. It made me laugh for a couple of >hours, so it was worth the effort. Genius. That's one for the next game, that'll also make me laugh - laugh more than poison (always great to watch thme kill the beastie and then get floored by the poison that's worked it's way into their body). On that note, do you guys let the Heal spell heal poison damage? Nikk From pmj at comhem.se Fri Jan 6 07:25:54 2006 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Fri Jan 6 07:26:28 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <1136553486.3a80274352aa3@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> References: <20060106113124.44208.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> <43BE5C1E.5090601@sbcglobal.net> <1136553486.3a80274352aa3@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> Message-ID: <43BE8C02.1060309@comhem.se> Hi! Nikk Effingham wrote: > I question the need - if you've made a game with lots of fights then > this rule would effectively comdemn the PCs to death, and if you > haven't made a game with lots of fights, then why use this rule? I agree with Nikk. I let my group use the Healing spell freely. However, I play a pretty low magic type (and money) game where the PC:s have a quite limited amount of Magic Points (and money) available. After rushing in to a fight they usually don't have that much MP:s left to heal themselves with anyway, and I use the RQ2 rules of needing a Heal 6 (expensive to buy) to attache severed limbs. Most PC:s don't have the Heal 6 spell. Never even thought about limiting Healing because of that. I did however play in another campaign that were sort of classic RQ Hack and Slash style with RQ rules but in a world almost without magical healing spells. Immensly frustrating for all involved after a while. Almost destroyed the campaign. The GM learned after a while though, but I still prefer a liberal use and avaliability of healing magic spells in those kind of games. >On that note, do you guys let the Heal spell heal poison damage? > > No. That's were I draw the line for the Heal spell. However it is used for healing both fire and acid burns. No real logic behind it I guess. But hey, it's magic... and besides, it makes poison much more fun to use. :-) /Peter J From pmj at comhem.se Fri Jan 6 07:40:30 2006 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Fri Jan 6 07:40:49 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters In-Reply-To: <20060106113124.44208.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060106113124.44208.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43BE8F6E.5040402@comhem.se> Simon's example below got me thinking of an amusing critter I used extensively against the PC:s in a campaign where they spent many weeks in swamp; The Exploading Toad. Pretty weak when it comes to giving damage (Bite 1D6) and in HP, but annoying nevertheless because they are extremely aggressive and after biting for a while they will get that inevitable critical or impale, so you can't really ignore them. Their main chaotic feature is "Explodes when Dies" doing 3D6 of damage to everything around them. However, the swamp was also full of Skeletons so the toads could also be used as a kind of remote bombs that could be "triggered" with an arrow. /Peter J Simon Phipp wrote: >Now, I did once have an NPC with a chaotic feature of "reverse damage" which meant that any damage he did was reversed, so any attempts to heal the damage did more damage and the only way to heal it was to further damage the wound, by hitting it with a sword, for instance. Healing by time didn't work, either, it just caused more damage. If the critter hit a vital location, the PC could kill themselves with Healing. It made me laugh for a couple of hours, so it was worth the effort. > From nphillis at shaw.ca Fri Jan 6 07:48:22 2006 From: nphillis at shaw.ca (Newton Philis) Date: Fri Jan 6 07:48:33 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal Message-ID: <1326eb9132de2b.132de2b1326eb9@shaw.ca> Peter Johansson wrote: "...After rushing in to a fight they usually don't have that much MP:s left to heal themselves with anyway...a world almost without magical healing spells...Immensly frustrating for all involved after a while..." This brings up a good point. How is game-play affected when you add a rule that restricts healing (i.e., aging, reduced healing, limited species, etc)? In my experience, it causes allot of 'down-time' between combats. Either the group must 'camp' or retreat from the adventure to heal in a town/church/hospital. While this seems realistic, it slows down game-play immensly, and soon frustrates players. Unless you have a very time-sensitive campaign, stopping players between every fight really serves no purpose. My $0.02 N. From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri Jan 6 09:12:33 2006 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Fri Jan 6 09:12:46 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters Message-ID: <1492464.1136567553938.JavaMail.root@elwamui-milano.atl.sa.earthlink.net> I used to game with a group of guys who would have _loved_ these. They'd use the toads as the equivalent of homing Limpit mines. David -----Original Message----- >From: Peter Johansson >Sent: Jan 6, 2006 9:40 AM >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters > >Simon's example below got me thinking of an amusing critter I used >extensively against the PC:s in a campaign where they spent many weeks >in swamp; The Exploading Toad. Pretty weak when it comes to giving >damage (Bite 1D6) and in HP, but annoying nevertheless because they are >extremely aggressive and after biting for a while they will get that >inevitable critical or impale, so you can't really ignore them. Their >main chaotic feature is "Explodes when Dies" doing 3D6 of damage to >everything around them. However, the swamp was also full of Skeletons so >the toads could also be used as a kind of remote bombs that could be >"triggered" with an arrow. > > /Peter J From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Jan 6 11:39:42 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri Jan 6 11:39:55 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heal and xenoheal In-Reply-To: <43BE8C02.1060309@comhem.se> References: <20060106113124.44208.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> <43BE5C1E.5090601@sbcglobal.net> <1136553486.3a80274352aa3@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> <43BE8C02.1060309@comhem.se> Message-ID: <43BEC77E.7070406@gmail.com> The way I limit spells is by having a critical ingredient associated with each one. For example to cast any kind of heal spell you consumed a packet of Mugwort (common), & Mandragora (rare &/or expensive). Thus you had a limited supply on a campaign (do I carry that spare shortsword in case my main one breaks or do I carry 10 packets of herbs), a historical flavor, & more reasons for a quest. A simple mechanism with many rewards. I based my ingredient list on some medieval writings. A simple ticklist kept track of consumption. Instead of just herbs, it sometimes was things like special runes inscribed by a priestess of Eir under a full-moon on the heart skin of a dragon. The ingredients became rarer with more powerful spells. So where healings all had mugwort in common, the more powerful versions had rarer elements to distinguish them. Add this to consumption of magic points during the day & it became very self limiting & tactical. --Sven Peter Johansson wrote: > Hi! > > Nikk Effingham wrote: > >> I question the need - if you've made a game with lots of fights then >> this rule would effectively comdemn the PCs to death, and if you >> haven't made a game with lots of fights, then why use this rule? > > > I agree with Nikk. I let my group use the Healing spell freely. > However, I play a pretty low magic type (and money) game where the > PC:s have a quite limited amount of Magic Points (and money) > available. After rushing in to a fight they usually don't have that > much MP:s left to heal themselves with anyway, and I use the RQ2 rules > of needing a Heal 6 (expensive to buy) to attache severed limbs. Most > PC:s don't have the Heal 6 spell. Never even thought about limiting > Healing because of that. > > I did however play in another campaign that were sort of classic RQ > Hack and Slash style with RQ rules but in a world almost without > magical healing spells. Immensly frustrating for all involved after a > while. Almost destroyed the campaign. The GM learned after a while > though, but I still prefer a liberal use and avaliability of healing > magic spells in those kind of games. > >> On that note, do you guys let the Heal spell heal poison damage? >> >> > No. That's were I draw the line for the Heal spell. However it is used > for healing both fire and acid burns. No real logic behind it I guess. > But hey, it's magic... and besides, it makes poison much more fun to > use. :-) > > /Peter J > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From steve at perrinworlds.com Fri Jan 6 23:19:09 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Stephen Perrin) Date: Fri Jan 6 23:19:54 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters References: <1492464.1136567553938.JavaMail.root@elwamui-milano.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <003f01c6135a$b70a7ca0$68417442@wizard> The local (in Southern California - I was still in Northern Califironia so this is hearsay) RQ campaign many years ago had a cult that could induce a chaotic feature under the complete control of the caster. It became a standard operation procedure for the bad guys to infect a horde of Rubble Runners with the exploding feature, then send them after the PCs. It got so that no one ever wanted to see a Rubble Runner again. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Smart" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 9:12 AM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters >I used to game with a group of guys who would have _loved_ these. They'd >use the toads as the equivalent of homing Limpit mines. > > David > > -----Original Message----- >>From: Peter Johansson >>Sent: Jan 6, 2006 9:40 AM >>To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >>Subject: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters >> >>Simon's example below got me thinking of an amusing critter I used >>extensively against the PC:s in a campaign where they spent many weeks >>in swamp; The Exploading Toad. Pretty weak when it comes to giving >>damage (Bite 1D6) and in HP, but annoying nevertheless because they are >>extremely aggressive and after biting for a while they will get that >>inevitable critical or impale, so you can't really ignore them. Their >>main chaotic feature is "Explodes when Dies" doing 3D6 of damage to >>everything around them. However, the swamp was also full of Skeletons so >>the toads could also be used as a kind of remote bombs that could be >>"triggered" with an arrow. >> >> /Peter J > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sat Jan 7 06:26:05 2006 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Sat Jan 7 06:26:12 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters Message-ID: <6494475.1136643965883.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Yeesh! That is just plain _evil_. I like that in a gamer! *grin* David -----Original Message----- >From: Stephen Perrin >Sent: Jan 7, 2006 1:19 AM >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters > >The local (in Southern California - I was still in Northern Califironia so >this is hearsay) RQ campaign many years ago had a cult that could induce a >chaotic feature under the complete control of the caster. It became a >standard operation procedure for the bad guys to infect a horde of Rubble >Runners with the exploding feature, then send them after the PCs. > >It got so that no one ever wanted to see a Rubble Runner again. > >Steve Perrin From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Sun Jan 8 23:38:51 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Sun Jan 8 23:39:10 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters Message-ID: Peter Johansson wrote: Simon's example below got me thinking of an amusing critter I used extensively against the PC:s in a campaign where they spent many weeks in swamp; The Exploading Toad. Pretty weak when it comes to giving damage (Bite 1D6) and in HP, but annoying nevertheless because they are extremely aggressive and after biting for a while they will get that inevitable critical or impale, so you can't really ignore them. Their main chaotic feature is "Explodes when Dies" doing 3D6 of damage to everything around them. However, the swamp was also full of Skeletons so the toads could also be used as a kind of remote bombs that could be "triggered" with an arrow. /Peter J My group played a few sessions where some sort of lizard man type creatures did weird stuff when they died. (The GM at the time may have got this out of Dorastor, Land of Doom....) anyway, some turned to stone, some just became normal corpses, some turned to dust, some exploded, violently, some putrified to acid like substance, can't remember what else.... Made for some interesting play, try remove impaled sword from a sudden statue, or realise that the foe yo have just killed is going critical. Tony __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website http://www.standardbank.co.za ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Mon Jan 9 02:43:36 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Mon Jan 9 02:44:08 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1136803416.8b298dae0671e@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> I like that idea! Let's compile a list of 'Things to Do In Dorastor When You're Dead'. From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon Jan 9 03:11:24 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon Jan 9 03:11:35 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters Message-ID: Peter Maranci's page had an extensive list of chaotic features submitted by various punters, that (it may be in PDF form) may be a good place to start Tony. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Nikk Effingham Sent: 09 January 2006 12:44 To: rq-rules@crashbox.com Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters I like that idea! Let's compile a list of 'Things to Do In Dorastor When You're Dead'. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules@crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website http://www.standardbank.co.za ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jan 9 03:34:17 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon Jan 9 03:34:27 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Poison/Funny chaotic critters In-Reply-To: <20060107142617.169E32F6EDF@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060109113417.16202.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> Nikk Effingham: > Genius. That's one for the next game, that'll also make me laugh - laugh > more > than poison (always great to watch thme kill the beastie and then get > floored > by the poison that's worked it's way into their body). > > On that note, do you guys let the Heal spell heal poison damage? No, definitely not. I play that poison does general hit point damage (as RQ3), so you need specific magic to heal it. Heal Body works, as do poison antiodotes, Treat Poison and whatever poison-specific spells you want to invent. I don't even use Blade Venom, as I think it is far too powerful (and this is from someone who doesn't even blink at Crush 20 being used). You can put Blade Venom 10 on an arrow, Speedart it, fire it at someone's head and pretty much ensure that the person will be incapacitated, as long as it gets through. Peter Johansson uses exploding toads in his campaign, but PCs would become wary of them after several exploded, then they'd pump them full of arrows and they wouldn't be any fun at all. One of my favourite tactics, when the PCs were attacking a Thed Great Temple or something, would be to put two or three exploders together in a squad. Then, if one dies he explodes, having a good chance of killing another one and he explodes, probably setting off the third. So, you get three explosions in the same round, probably affecting the PCs and only losing a few NPCs in the process. If one of them is Highly Inflammable, it is even better as you can cast Ignite at them or set them off with a Firearrow. Of course, this relies on the Thed Priests knowing what Chaotic Features their congregation has and on them being willing to sacrifice their fellow cultists. Since I played that Thed could tell what a broo's chaos features were via Divination, the first was true, and the second was very probably true in all cases. David Smart: > I used to game with a group of guys who would have _loved_ these. They'd > use the toads as the equivalent of homing Limpit mines. During the Seige of Stalingrad, the Germans trained dogs to walk under tanks, with mines strapped to their backs, then set them off by jumping up beneath the tank. All well and good, until they were actually used and went and sat beneath the Panzers they had been trained in. Homing Limpit mines don't always work as planned. Stephen Perrin: > The local (in Southern California - I was still in Northern Califironia so > this is hearsay) RQ campaign many years ago had a cult that could induce a > chaotic feature under the complete control of the caster. It became a > standard operation procedure for the bad guys to infect a horde of Rubble > Runners with the exploding feature, then send them after the PCs. > > It got so that no one ever wanted to see a Rubble Runner again. That's quite a nice idea. One thing I always liked was to put something with Hypnotic Skin (INTx5% or stand drooling like an idiot staring at the pretty patterns) into some alcove that is hard to Spot (-50% Spot Hidden, or whatever), then make the PCs try a Spot Hidden roll at -50%, some of them would be really pleased they made it, then would have to make an INTx5% roll or be hypnotised. But, my all-time favourite has to be Acid - the burning type, not the pretty patterns type. It doesn't matter what form it takes, this has the potential to hurt, really annoy and perhaps kill the PCs. It hurts low level characters and destroys expensive equipment. It hurts high level characters a bit, but destroys their nice enchanted iron armour. It can be used in many ways: 1. Spit acid chaos feature (let them spit in a bucket over a few days and throw the bucket at PCs) 2. Hydras with acidic blood and poison - these are nice because even if the PCs are brave enough to attacke the hydra, every blow that does damage also burns their weapons away. Two for the price of one. And their heads grow back. And they get multiple attacks. And they have poison. And they get more attacks the longer the combat goes on. They are even better with Healing or Regeneration abilities. 3. Gorps, who are always funny, but especially against Yelmalians who can't cast Fireblade to damage them (one of the abiding memories of a ancient campaign was someone running from Bigclub in Snakepipe Hollow and deciding to jump into a pile of ashes to hide, only to jump out again minus ALL his armour and a nice all-over burn) 4. Krarsht assassin-hookers are good for a one-off attack on a PC - they come along, all smiles and hormones, get swept off their feet by the dashing young male PC, retire to a comfortable nook, remove all their clothes, start embracing and then cast a meaty Sweat Acid. You get the triple joy of a cunning plan working, a PC getting burnt all over by acid and a coitus interruptus of epic proprtions. 5. Cacodemon grants the spell Vomit Acid, which must be my all-time favourite spell. I play that Fiends get this as an automatic ability and when they cast it they get their full POW in acid. And, boy, do they use it. 6. My Dorastor Campaign had Acid Rain, from Urain or Ragnaglar. No, this wasn't the ecologically-sensitive polluted rain that turns leaves brown in summer, this was the POT 1D6 acid that fell on the PCs from a great height, stripping their armour from them. Even better if they have the "Never Shelter >From Storm" geas. Of course, they soon realised that Protection or Shield countered the acid effect, so they cast those spells whenever it started raining. It used their spells up quicker, though. 7. I had a hydra that spat her acid/poison with double potency, she was called Heidi. That was funny. The players didn't think so, though, I can't imagine why. Anyway, I've got to go and at least try to do some work. See Ya Simon From talmeta at talmeta.net Mon Jan 9 06:43:48 2006 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Mon Jan 9 06:43:45 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43C276A4.1080808@talmeta.net> Den, Tony T wrote: > My group played a few sessions where some sort of lizard man type > creatures did weird stuff when they died. (The GM at the time may have > got this out of Dorastor, Land of Doom....) anyway, some turned to > stone, some just became normal corpses, some turned to dust, some > exploded, violently, some putrified to acid like substance, can't > remember what else.... Made for some interesting play, try remove > impaled sword from a sudden statue, or realise that the foe yo have just > killed is going critical. Sounds like Draconians, from TSR's Dragonlance setting, to me. -- talmeta@talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - It requires a very unusual mind to undertake the analysis of the obvious. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.15/223 - Release Date: 1/6/2006 From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon Jan 9 06:53:06 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon Jan 9 06:53:22 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters Message-ID: You know what, you are right! Come to think of it I think he even said drakonian. Never played Krynn setting and read them chronicles way back before the runderpest so I never made the connection, untill now. Cheers Tony -----Original Message----- Tal Meta Sounds like Draconians, from TSR's Dragonlance setting, to me. -- __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website http://www.standardbank.co.za ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From tom at zunder.org.uk Mon Jan 9 07:07:42 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (tom@zunder.org.uk) Date: Mon Jan 9 07:08:01 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters In-Reply-To: <43C276A4.1080808@talmeta.net> References: <43C276A4.1080808@talmeta.net> Message-ID: <51312.128.240.229.66.1136819262.squirrel@webmail.zunder.org.uk> > Den, Tony T wrote: > >> My group played a few sessions where some sort of lizard man type >> creatures did weird stuff when they died. (The GM at the time may have >> got this out of Dorastor, Land of Doom....) anyway, some turned to Yup they're Draconians. Did you ever realise that with some luck a chain reaction could be triggered where they started to blow each other up in a mad nuclear reaction..? From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jan 9 15:30:38 2006 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Mon Jan 9 15:30:32 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Funny chaotic critters In-Reply-To: <51312.128.240.229.66.1136819262.squirrel@webmail.zunder.org.uk> References: <43C276A4.1080808@talmeta.net> <51312.128.240.229.66.1136819262.squirrel@webmail.zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <43C2F21E.3060906@sbcglobal.net> Fingerballs. They're like a bunch of severed fingers joined at the knuckle into a little ball. Guy From tcantine at incentre.net Mon Jan 9 16:56:20 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Mon Jan 9 19:26:29 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Poison/Funny chaotic critters In-Reply-To: <20060109113417.16202.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060109113417.16202.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In a related gimmick, I once played in a game where the GM got a bit tired of the powergamers in the group sacrificing for Armouring enchantments to their skin to a rather ridiculous degree. His solutions was to create a sort of Form/Set Gorp spell for one of the baddies we fought, and use it to make a few sets of strong but light magical armour. When the spell wore off, the first thing to get digested was the runes for the Armouring enchantments... > 3. Gorps, who are always funny, but especially against Yelmalians who > can't > cast Fireblade to damage them (one of the abiding memories of a ancient > campaign was someone running from Bigclub in Snakepipe Hollow and > deciding to > jump into a pile of ashes to hide, only to jump out again minus ALL his > armour and a nice all-over burn) From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Jan 11 03:05:34 2006 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Wed Jan 11 03:05:42 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Poison/Funny chaotic critters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I usually let the badies overwhelm people that make powerful armouringenchantments of their skin, then skinning them to make "Edgar-suits" for the baddies. That makes the players think twise before enchanting their body with 10 aps... >From: Tom Cantine >Reply-To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Poison/Funny chaotic critters >Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 17:56:20 -0700 > >In a related gimmick, I once played in a game where the GM got a bit tired >of the powergamers in the group sacrificing for Armouring enchantments to >their skin to a rather ridiculous degree. His solutions was to create a >sort of Form/Set Gorp spell for one of the baddies we fought, and use it to >make a few sets of strong but light magical armour. When the spell wore >off, the first thing to get digested was the runes for the Armouring >enchantments... > > >>3. Gorps, who are always funny, but especially against Yelmalians who >>can't >>cast Fireblade to damage them (one of the abiding memories of a ancient >>campaign was someone running from Bigclub in Snakepipe Hollow and deciding >>to >>jump into a pile of ashes to hide, only to jump out again minus ALL his >>armour and a nice all-over burn) > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From darthvogel at hotmail.com Wed Jan 11 15:57:05 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Wed Jan 11 15:57:14 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast Message-ID: Hello All, I am new to the list but ready to be active. I am participating in a RQIII campaign that has been going on for 3 years now. I have experience with several RPGs, but I fell in love with RQ when we started it. OK...intro over...on to the subject. I came across a scenario that got me thinking about stuff and I came up with a question in an RQIII sorcery magic context. Without elaborating on the scenario or the reason one would want to do this I would like to concentrate on the game mechanics and modeling philosophy involved in this. I'm going to multi-spell 5 Sight Projections, each to go to a different destination to act as a sentry. Normally, I say easy enough if you have the juice and the Free INT to pull it off. The trick is that this is an active spell. Can a character accomplish multi-spelling active spells? Is this multi-spell one thing he is concentrating to keep up allowing him to monitor each simultaneously? Alternately, is he concentrating on keeping the single multicast spell up and able to only monitor one of the active sight projection spells at a time; basically having to strobe through them? Or is he somehow trying to juggle 5 active spells that he has to make concentration rolls to maintain and use? I am curious to know what thoughts you guys have concerning this scenario. I have an opinion but don't want to taint any answers so I will withhold it for now. Also, I am open to answers that suggest that all 3 of my possible outcomes may be off base. Fred From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Jan 12 04:54:38 2006 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Thu Jan 12 04:54:51 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast Message-ID: <24114962.1137070478706.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Welcome to the list, Fred! Fred is one of the players in my non-Gloranthan campaign and has done wonders with his sorcerer. Questions like his have really helped me improve my GMing. When he brought up this question, I suggested it would be a great question for this list. I also have my own views but would prefer to hear those of the list, if you all wouldn't mind sharing your thoughts. David -----Original Message----- >From: Fred Vogel >Sent: Jan 11, 2006 5:57 PM >To: rq-rules@crashbox.com >Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast > >Hello All, > >I am new to the list but ready to be active. I am participating in a RQIII >campaign that has been going on for 3 years now. I have experience with >several RPGs, but I fell in love with RQ when we started it. OK...intro >over...on to the subject. > >I came across a scenario that got me thinking about stuff and I came up with >a question in an RQIII sorcery magic context. Without elaborating on the >scenario or the reason one would want to do this I would like to concentrate >on the game mechanics and modeling philosophy involved in this. I'm going >to multi-spell 5 Sight Projections, each to go to a different destination to >act as a sentry. > >Normally, I say easy enough if you have the juice and the Free INT to pull >it off. The trick is that this is an active spell. Can a character >accomplish multi-spelling active spells? Is this multi-spell one thing he >is concentrating to keep up allowing him to monitor each simultaneously? >Alternately, is he concentrating on keeping the single multicast spell up >and able to only monitor one of the active sight projection spells at a >time; basically having to strobe through them? Or is he somehow trying to >juggle 5 active spells that he has to make concentration rolls to maintain >and use? > >I am curious to know what thoughts you guys have concerning this scenario. I >have an opinion but don't want to taint any answers so I will withhold it >for now. Also, I am open to answers that suggest that all 3 of my possible >outcomes may be off base. > >Fred > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Thu Jan 12 05:41:09 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Thu Jan 12 05:41:30 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast In-Reply-To: <24114962.1137070478706.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <24114962.1137070478706.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1137073269.e4a735db8e648@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> Tricky. It sounds innocuous enough to use Project Sight to work as a mega-sentry. However, the 'active' component of a spell is an excellent in-game limitation on a sorceror, preventing them from flying around casting spells from afar, from casting spells willy nilly through Project Sight, and so forth. I allow characters to cast active spells (in a multispell or otherwise) and let it lapse. So they can only use one active spell at a time, but they can use different ones without the active spells expiring. But if you allow a PC to use multiple active spells just because they're in a multispell then this is such a minor inconvenience for a sorceror that you may as well ditch the active/passive rule anyhow. Since ditching the active/passive rule sounds to me to be a game breaking suggestion, it follows that you shouldn't be allowed to multispell multiple active spells and use them all at once. Whilst it might not break the game with the mega-sentry, it will break the game elsewhere as you run around Tapping people through your Projected Touch, or Flying around knocking off Palsy and Venom. Nikk From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Thu Jan 12 05:42:11 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Thu Jan 12 05:42:17 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast In-Reply-To: <24114962.1137070478706.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <24114962.1137070478706.JavaMail.root@elwamui-little.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1137073331.b18c1f9d846e8@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> Actually, one additional thought. You could multispell it, and then use one at a time. So don't use all five at once, but keep all five 'going' and look through one sight at a time. That'd be generally good for sentry purposes. Nikk From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 06:46:44 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu Jan 12 06:47:14 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast Message-ID: <20060112144644.60500.qmail@web35602.mail.mud.yahoo.com> This what I was going to suggest, but it seems you beat me to it. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com wrote: > Actually, one additional thought. You could multispell it, and then use one at a > time. So don't use all five at once, but keep all five 'going' and look through > one sight at a time. That'd be generally good for sentry purposes. > > Nikk > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Jan 12 07:19:06 2006 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Thu Jan 12 07:19:14 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast Message-ID: <10865270.1137079146833.JavaMail.root@elwamui-milano.atl.sa.earthlink.net> But then how would this count as actively concentrating on each spell? I guess it comes down to whether or not Multispell effectively acts to make all spells being cast a single uber spell or Multispell performs as an "energy bucket" that holds some spells in abeyance until all are ready to be cast and each spell affected by the Multispell roll is still considered a separate, unique spell. Thoughts? David -----Original Message----- >From: Leon Kirshtein >Sent: Jan 12, 2006 8:46 AM >To: rq-rules@crashbox.com >Subject: Re: Re: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast > >This what I was going to suggest, but it seems you >beat me to it. > >Leon >--- rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com > wrote: >> Actually, one additional thought. You could >multispell it, and then use one at a >> time. So don't use all five at once, but keep all >five 'going' and look through >> one sight at a time. That'd be generally good for >sentry purposes. >> >> Nikk >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RQ-Rules mailing list >> RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules@crashbox.com >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Thu Jan 12 07:46:06 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Thu Jan 12 07:46:15 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast In-Reply-To: <10865270.1137079146833.JavaMail.root@elwamui-milano.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <10865270.1137079146833.JavaMail.root@elwamui-milano.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1137080766.708fc27864388@webmail8.leeds.ac.uk> > But then how would this count as actively concentrating on each spell? I'm a wee bit confused. Standardly, you can only use an active spell if you concentrate on it, and can only concentrate on one spell at a time. However, you can cast an active spell and it will remain when you're not concentrating on it (so if you use Sandy rules it will remain ready to be activated as long as Presence is devoted, and if you are still stuck in the 20th century and use RQ III rules it remains up as long as the duration), otherwise sorcerors would be royally buggered as they'd have to recast an active spell every time they wanted to use it! Which would be unduly harsh, to say the least. So, given that you cast either five project sights, and send each project sight to five different locations OR you multispell them together. Then you activate each one in turn, and when you're done with one you move on to the next one, in quick succession. Probably not as good as receiving information simultaneously from five different source, but definitely better than nothing. One catch; you may or may not rule that when you stop keeping a projected sight activated it 'returns' to the caster. So I cast project sight, and send it hurtling across the countryside. If I then stop concentrating on it, it the projected sight returns to the caster. If you ruled this then going from each one in turn would be pointless, for obvious reasons, as the locus would return to the caster as soon as he stopped concentrating. And it wouldn't be unduly harsh to rule this; indeed I think it's quite important. Imagine you DON'T rule this, so the Projected Sense remains knocking around where you left it. So imagine you're in adungeon and send your projected sight fifty metres down a corridor. Suddenly you're attacked! You run away, but your projected sight remains where it is. For starters, it'll take a while to bring it back, but more likely you'll run out of range, and the spell - I would rule, is cancelled. Does that make sense? So, I'd call for a ruling on that, indeed I'm interested in what the list thinks. Also, when you cast Project, do you rule that the Projected Sense appears anywhere within the casting range, or does it have to start off at the caster and then move out at the rate of 1m/intensity? Nikk From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 08:04:57 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu Jan 12 08:05:01 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast Message-ID: <20060112160457.7392.qmail@web35607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In a same way as you can look at a split screen monitor. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com wrote: > But then how would this count as actively concentrating on each spell? > > I guess it comes down to whether or not Multispell effectively acts to make all spells being cast a single uber spell or Multispell performs as an "energy bucket" that holds some spells in abeyance until all are ready to be cast and each spell affected by the Multispell roll is still considered a separate, unique spell. > > Thoughts? > > David > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Leon Kirshtein > >Sent: Jan 12, 2006 8:46 AM > >To: rq-rules@crashbox.com > >Subject: Re: Re: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast > > > >This what I was going to suggest, but it seems you > >beat me to it. > > > >Leon > >--- rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com > > wrote: > >> Actually, one additional thought. You could > >multispell it, and then use one at a > >> time. So don't use all five at once, but keep all > >five 'going' and look through > >> one sight at a time. That'd be generally good for > >sentry purposes. > >> > >> Nikk > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> RQ-Rules mailing list > >> RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > >> http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > >http://mail.yahoo.com > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > >http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From darthvogel at hotmail.com Thu Jan 12 09:07:11 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Thu Jan 12 09:07:14 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast Message-ID: I'll throw my 2 cents in now that I've seen some answers. Let me know what you think. Here is how i see multispell. Using this art combines the spells into a single compound spell. It is a type of manipulation just like duration, range, and intensity. Concentration is about maintaining the spell and not about using the spell. There is a distinction here. Since a spell in this game is about channeling energy using mental power (hence using free Int to make manipulations) the concentration is about maintaining control of the energy that runs the spell to keep the spell up. Since you used the multicast art you are concentrating to maintain this large manipulation you cast. In terms of sense projection, i think it is reasonable to say that since you as an individual have only one sight sense that you could only monitor one at a time. To do more would be unnatural and require you to concentrate in order to do more. But you are already concentrating on maintaining your spell...so if you need to do this, you would have to make a roll to pull it off or risk dropping the spell. Each additional one you would want to monitor would increase the penalty. However, if similarly you cast a sight project, smell project, hear project, i would expect that you could monitor them all at the same time since it is natural for you to receive all these inputs. I have seen a comment that confused me. My understanding of an active spell is that you must concentrate on it to maintain the spell. You cant run away, or fight, or do much else, including a normal conversation. You are limited to low movement, phrases and words to communicate, stuff like that. Likewise, if i cast this for a year i'm effectively pinned down for that whole duration. As far as me having 5 sight projections up I can independently move then and then monitor them one at a time or even not pay attention to them for a while. I don't see why they would come back. At least not under the premise i'm pitching. By maintaining the spell effetely, they should remain where i put them. Interested to see what you guys think. Fred >From: Nikk Effingham > >Actually, one additional thought. You could multispell it, and then use one >at a >time. So don't use all five at once, but keep all five 'going' and look >through >one sight at a time. That'd be generally good for sentry purposes. > From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 10:59:16 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu Jan 12 10:59:19 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast Message-ID: <20060112185916.86779.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >otherwise sorcerors would be royally buggered as theyd have to recast an active spell every time they wanted to use it! Which would be unduly harsh, to say the least. Actually, this is exactly how I see it. If the sorcerer stop concentrating, the spell goes poof. I have also made most Divination type spells Active (like Mystic Vision). Its really annoying for a GM to have players walk around all the time being able to see everything. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com wrote: > > But then how would this count as actively concentrating on each spell? > > I'm a wee bit confused. Standardly, you can only use an active spell if you > concentrate on it, and can only concentrate on one spell at a time. However, > you can cast an active spell and it will remain when you're not concentrating > on it (so if you use Sandy rules it will remain ready to be activated as long > as Presence is devoted, and if you are still stuck in the 20th century and use > RQ III rules it remains up as long as the duration), otherwise sorcerors would > be royally buggered as they'd have to recast an active spell every time they > wanted to use it! Which would be unduly harsh, to say the least. > > So, given that you cast either five project sights, and send each project sight > to five different locations OR you multispell them together. Then you activate > each one in turn, and when you're done with one you move on to the next one, in > quick succession. Probably not as good as receiving information simultaneously > from five different source, but definitely better than nothing. > > One catch; you may or may not rule that when you stop keeping a projected sight > activated it 'returns' to the caster. So I cast project sight, and send it > hurtling across the countryside. If I then stop concentrating on it, it the > projected sight returns to the caster. If you ruled this then going from each > one in turn would be pointless, for obvious reasons, as the locus would return > to the caster as soon as he stopped concentrating. > > And it wouldn't be unduly harsh to rule this; indeed I think it's quite > important. Imagine you DON'T rule this, so the Projected Sense remains knocking > around where you left it. So imagine you're in adungeon and send your projected > sight fifty metres down a corridor. Suddenly you're attacked! You run away, but > your projected sight remains where it is. For starters, it'll take a while to > bring it back, but more likely you'll run out of range, and the spell - I would > rule, is cancelled. > > Does that make sense? > > So, I'd call for a ruling on that, indeed I'm interested in what the list > thinks. Also, when you cast Project, do you rule that the Projected Sense > appears anywhere within the casting range, or does it have to start off at the > caster and then move out at the rate of 1m/intensity? > > Nikk > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From darthvogel at hotmail.com Thu Jan 12 11:03:57 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Thu Jan 12 11:04:05 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast In-Reply-To: <20060112185916.86779.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >I have also made most Divination type spells Active >(like Mystic Vision). Its really annoying for a GM to >have players walk around all the time being able to >see everything. Clearly if you are using an active spell you have to concentrate on it. But let's say for the sake of arguement, if Mystic Vision were a passive spell rather than active; why is that a pain for the GM? Fred From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 11:57:12 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu Jan 12 11:57:15 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast Message-ID: <20060112195712.12099.qmail@web35611.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mystic Vision would negate most attempts at hidding as well as show invisible things and likely point out most magical items (ones with POW in any case). While I do not mind players having the ability to do all that, having them be able to do that all the time is annoying. Yes, there are a many different ways to punish them for it, and ways a GM can play around it, but I find that making these spells Active, solves this whole thing rather nicely. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com wrote: > > >I have also made most Divination type spells Active > >(like Mystic Vision). Its really annoying for a GM to > >have players walk around all the time being able to > >see everything. > > Clearly if you are using an active spell you have to concentrate on it. But > let's say for the sake of arguement, if Mystic Vision were a passive spell > rather than active; why is that a pain for the GM? > > Fred > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Thu Jan 12 11:59:30 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Thu Jan 12 11:59:36 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1137095970.b26a3d24538be@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> > >I have also made most Divination type spells Active > >(like Mystic Vision). Its really annoying for a GM to > >have players walk around all the time being able to > >see everything. > > Clearly if you are using an active spell you have to concentrate on it. But > let's say for the sake of arguement, if Mystic Vision were a passive spell > rather than active; why is that a pain for the GM? Actually he has a point, and I'm now reconsidering my position. Thinking about it I am ticked off by Fly spells kicking in every five minutes and players sitting there and just causally asking if spells are cast around them and the POW of the various NPCs etc... It'd be quite a curb for the Dominate spell, however. Any thoughts on the Project Sense questions? Nikk From darthvogel at hotmail.com Thu Jan 12 13:03:36 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Thu Jan 12 13:03:41 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast Message-ID: >Mystic Vision would negate most attempts at hidding as >well as show invisible things and likely point out >most magical items (ones with POW in any case). While >I do not mind players having the ability to do all >that, having them be able to do that all the time is >annoying. I don't understand why this is annoying. I guess my way of looking at it is, if they can so what? >Yes, there are a many different ways to punish them >for it, and ways a GM can play around it, but I find >that making these spells Active, solves this whole >thing rather nicely. > >Leon What do you mean punish them? I never thought that RPG's were the GM vs. the players. As a GM i simply don't care what the players do. I'm never concerned if they are "too powerful" or want to do something i never thought of. I rather like players that are creative and find innovative ways to do things. For me whether a play can or can't do something lies purely along the lines of does it fit within the modeling construct that we are using. Sometimes as a GM these things are less convenient than others; but that is fine with me. I also do not put barriers in front of them just to impede them from doing things. If they want to raid a keep, the keep will have the defenses I saw fit to put to defend/secure it....not from the players; but rather what the guard is there to do in general unless the guard is award of the raid and has taken special precautions. If the PC's are clever enough to completely circumvent all that, I congratulate them, not scorn them or punish them. Please keep in mind I am only talking of my personal approach and philosophy about this. Since I am saying these things questioning your comments I want you to know that I'm only saying this to share and discuss my views and my intention is not to attack your approach, every group is different. Fred From darthvogel at hotmail.com Thu Jan 12 13:25:34 2006 From: darthvogel at hotmail.com (Fred Vogel) Date: Thu Jan 12 13:25:37 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast Message-ID: > >RQ->Actually he has a point, and I'm now reconsidering my position. >Thinking about >it I am ticked off by Fly spells kicking in every five minutes and players >sitting there and just causally asking if spells are cast around them and >the >POW of the various NPCs etc... It'd be quite a curb for the Dominate spell, >however. > >Any thoughts on the Project Sense questions? > >Nikk Again...this is a GM vs. players thing and does not have anything to do with the mechanics of the game. It really doesn't matter if the GM likes an approach or not...either the game concepts support it or they don't. Saying that you don't like that players want to do something and the game should be changed because of it isn't the point. I don't understand what there is for a GM to get ticked off when a player does something anyway. I can understand that sometimes players want to work the rules to do things that are outside the spirit of the game. The "rules" are there to model something; however it is impossible for them to blanket every situation. As a result there is, like in law, the letter and the spirit of the "rules". I have read about this "golf bag of weapons" thing where players work the experience system to get an xp tick in an additional weapon on their final blow. As a GM i would not award this because it violates the spirit of the xp system and I would simply rule that this was not a reasonable amount of use to gain the experience. If on the other hand, they switched in mid fight because they figured another weapon would be better in the fight, I would consider awarding both if I thought both had been used enough to merit the xp check. In this specific case, fly is an active spell. If they caster wants to cast additional spells while he is using fly he has to make his concentration roll or risk failing to cast the new spell AND failing to maintain his fly spell. He is taking an awful chance with his life in this case. If he has high enough stats to make the risk low enough for him to tolerate and get away with it...good for him...otherwise he might hurt himself. So from my point of view, it seems like the game takes of these things automatically. Like in my previous post, I want to make it clear these are my views. I want to discuss these things even where there is dissent. My goal is not to ruffle feathers by taking an opposing viewpoint. If I have challenged any of the things you say, please, understand the intent is not an attack. I am new to the group, I do not want people thinking I'm an ass or a flamer because I might challenge a few things people say. Fred From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Jan 12 13:50:05 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu Jan 12 13:50:10 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast Message-ID: <20060112215005.22511.qmail@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> >Again...this is a GM vs. players thing and does not have anything to do with the mechanics of the game. It really doesnt matter if the GM likes an approach or not...either the game concepts support it or they dont. Saying that you dont like that players want to do something and the game should be changed because of it isnt the point. This is not a GM vs. players thing. It is more of a game balance thing. As a GM, then I see something abused, I consider the ramifications of a similar action by NPCs on the PC. So for example, Mystic Vison is an unbalancing spells (IMO), since it will remove any possibility of a player to sneak up on an enemy sorcerer, even a Counter Magic will not work, since technically the Mystic Vision will detect the Counter Magic itself. Game balance is restored by making the sorcerers cast the spell when they feel they need to and in effect limiting the amount of time this spell is being maintained. >I dont understand what there is for a GM to get ticked off when a player does something anyway. I can understand that sometimes players want to work the rules to do things that are outside the spirit of the game. The rules are there to model something; however it is impossible for them to blanket every situation. As a result there is, like in law, the letter and the spirit of the rules. Players have different motivations and are on a different level of maturity. What works with some, does not work with others. I found that removing temptation, to abuse teh rules, and maintaining consistency increases game play and enjoyment >In this specific case, fly is an active spell. If they caster wants to cast additional spells while he is using fly he has to make his concentration roll or risk failing to cast the new spell AND failing to maintain his fly spell. He is taking an awful chance with his life in this case. If he has high enough stats to make the risk low enough for him to tolerate and get away with it...good for him...otherwise he might hurt himself. So from my point of view, it seems like the game takes of these things automatically. Depending on the rules you are playing with. I am not worried really about a sorcerer casting another spell while flying, but rather always having the Fly spell up. Therefore, IMW, if you do not concentrate on an Active spell it goes down. >I want to make it clear these are my views. I want to discuss these things even where there is dissent. My goal is not to ruffle feathers by taking an opposing viewpoint. If I have challenged any of the things you say, please, understand the intent is not an attack. I am new to the group, I do not want people thinking Im an ass or a flamer because I might challenge a few things people say. Dont worry about it. I am sure everyone here had been shot down in flames at least once. As a group I would say wea thick skinned bunch. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com wrote: > > > >RQ->Actually he has a point, and I'm now reconsidering my position. > >Thinking about > >it I am ticked off by Fly spells kicking in every five minutes and players > >sitting there and just causally asking if spells are cast around them and > >the > >POW of the various NPCs etc... It'd be quite a curb for the Dominate spell, > >however. > > > >Any thoughts on the Project Sense questions? > > > >Nikk > > > Again...this is a GM vs. players thing and does not have anything to do with > the mechanics of the game. It really doesn't matter if the GM likes an > approach or not...either the game concepts support it or they don't. Saying > that you don't like that players want to do something and the game should be > changed because of it isn't the point. > > I don't understand what there is for a GM to get ticked off when a player > does something anyway. I can understand that sometimes players want to work > the rules to do things that are outside the spirit of the game. The "rules" > are there to model something; however it is impossible for them to blanket > every situation. As a result there is, like in law, the letter and the > spirit of the "rules". > > I have read about this "golf bag of weapons" thing where players work the > experience system to get an xp tick in an additional weapon on their final > blow. As a GM i would not award this because it violates the spirit of the > xp system and I would simply rule that this was not a reasonable amount of > use to gain the experience. If on the other hand, they switched in mid > fight because they figured another weapon would be better in the fight, I > would consider awarding both if I thought both had been used enough to merit > the xp check. > > In this specific case, fly is an active spell. If they caster wants to cast > additional spells while he is using fly he has to make his concentration > roll or risk failing to cast the new spell AND failing to maintain his fly > spell. He is taking an awful chance with his life in this case. If he has > high enough stats to make the risk low enough for him to tolerate and get > away with it...good for him...otherwise he might hurt himself. So from my > point of view, it seems like the game takes of these things automatically. > > Like in my previous post, I want to make it clear these are my views. I > want to discuss these things even where there is dissent. My goal is not to > ruffle feathers by taking an opposing viewpoint. If I have challenged any > of the things you say, please, understand the intent is not an attack. I am > new to the group, I do not want people thinking I'm an ass or a flamer > because I might challenge a few things people say. > > Fred > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Jan 12 14:09:51 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu Jan 12 14:09:57 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast In-Reply-To: <20060112215005.22511.qmail@web35605.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060112220951.48815.qmail@web86107.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I'm always very wary when people wheel out the whole "game balance" argument. There's no such thing as game balance in an RPG - let's face it, the GM can liquidate the adventurers REAL easy without their players being able to do a damned thing about it. What's more at tension here is the way the rules simulate the world and your conception of the world. You obviously like the idea of someone being to sneak up on a sorcerer without the sorcerer being able to see their POW and do something about it within the limits you mentioned. It's not that the players are "abusing" anything, it's that they don't share your conception of the world. House ruling to get the game world working the way you want isn't a bad thing. However it's not abuse and you should never think of "punishing" your players for doing something that falls outside your perception of the world. Cheers, Ash PS: You could even say the designers knew about the "problem" of sneaking up on people using POW detecting magic when they invented Detection Blank. I imagine most sneaky cults can find Detection Blank spell spirits if they put their mind to it. --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > >Again...this is a GM vs. players thing and does not > have anything to do with > the mechanics of the game. It really doesnt matter > if > the GM likes an > approach or not...either the game concepts support > it > or they dont. Saying > that you dont like that players want to do something > and the game should be > changed because of it isnt the point. > > This is not a GM vs. players thing. It is more of a > game balance thing. As a GM, then I see something > abused, I consider the ramifications of a similar > action by NPCs on the PC. So for example, Mystic > Vison > is an unbalancing spells (IMO), since it will remove > any possibility of a player to sneak up on an enemy > sorcerer, even a Counter Magic will not work, since > technically the Mystic Vision will detect the > Counter > Magic itself. Game balance is restored by making the > sorcerers cast the spell when they feel they need to > and in effect limiting the amount of time this spell > is being maintained. > > >I dont understand what there is for a GM to get > ticked off when a player > does something anyway. I can understand that > sometimes > players want to work > the rules to do things that are outside the spirit > of > the game. The rules > are there to model something; however it is > impossible > for them to blanket > every situation. As a result there is, like in law, > the letter and the > spirit of the rules. > > Players have different motivations and are on a > different level of maturity. What works with some, > does not work with others. I found that removing > temptation, to abuse teh rules, and maintaining > consistency increases game play and enjoyment > > >In this specific case, fly is an active spell. If > they caster wants to cast > additional spells while he is using fly he has to > make > his concentration > roll or risk failing to cast the new spell AND > failing > to maintain his fly > spell. He is taking an awful chance with his life in > this case. If he has > high enough stats to make the risk low enough for > him > to tolerate and get > away with it...good for him...otherwise he might > hurt > himself. So from my > point of view, it seems like the game takes of these > things automatically. > > Depending on the rules you are playing with. I am > not > worried really about a sorcerer casting another > spell > while flying, but rather always having the Fly spell > up. Therefore, IMW, if you do not concentrate on an > Active spell it goes down. > > >I want to make it clear these are my views. I > want to discuss these things even where there is > dissent. My goal is not to > ruffle feathers by taking an opposing viewpoint. If > I > have challenged any > of the things you say, please, understand the intent > is not an attack. I am > new to the group, I do not want people thinking Im > an > ass or a flamer > because I might challenge a few things people say. > > Dont worry about it. I am sure everyone here had > been > shot down in flames at least once. As a group I > would > say wea thick skinned bunch. > > Leon > --- rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com > wrote: > > > > > >RQ->Actually he has a point, and I'm now > reconsidering my position. > > >Thinking about > > >it I am ticked off by Fly spells kicking in every > five minutes and players > > >sitting there and just causally asking if spells > are cast around them and > > >the > > >POW of the various NPCs etc... It'd be quite a > curb > for the Dominate spell, > > >however. > > > > > >Any thoughts on the Project Sense questions? > > > > > >Nikk > > > > > > Again...this is a GM vs. players thing and does > not > have anything to do with > > the mechanics of the game. It really doesn't > matter > if the GM likes an > > approach or not...either the game concepts support > it or they don't. Saying > > that you don't like that players want to do > something and the game should be > > changed because of it isn't the point. > > > > I don't understand what there is for a GM to get > ticked off when a player > > does something anyway. I can understand that > sometimes players want to work > > the rules to do things that are outside the spirit > of the game. The "rules" > > are there to model something; however it is > impossible for them to blanket > > every situation. As a result there is, like in > law, > the letter and the > > spirit of the "rules". > > > > I have read about this "golf bag of weapons" thing > where players work the > > experience system to get an xp tick in an > additional > weapon on their final > > blow. As a GM i would not award this because it > violates the spirit of the > > xp system and I would simply rule that this was > not > a reasonable amount of > > use to gain the experience. If on the other hand, > they switched in mid > > fight because they figured another weapon would be > better in the fight, I > > would consider awarding both if I thought both had > been used enough to merit > > the xp check. > > > > In this specific case, fly is an active spell. If > they caster wants to cast > > additional spells while he is using fly he has to > make his concentration > > roll or risk failing to cast the new spell AND > failing to maintain his fly > > spell. He is taking an awful chance with his life > in this case. If he has > > high enough stats to make the risk low enough for > him to tolerate and get > > away with it...good for him...otherwise he might > hurt himself. So from my > > point of view, it seems like the game takes of > these > things automatically. > > > > Like in my previous post, I want to make it clear > these are my views. I > > want to discuss these things even where there is > dissent. My goal is not to > > ruffle feathers by taking an opposing viewpoint. > If > I have challenged any > > of the things you say, please, understand the > intent > is not an attack. I am > > new to the group, I do not want people thinking > I'm > an ass or a flamer > > because I might challenge a few things people say. > > > > Fred > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > === message truncated === From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Jan 12 14:43:47 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu Jan 12 14:43:57 2006 Subject: [Rq-rules] Question about multicast In-Reply-To: <20060112220951.48815.qmail@web86107.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060112224347.55115.qmail@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Game balance is just about the challenge that a GM puts the PCs up against. Game balance is about the players being of relatively equal power among each other. Whether or not this is a good thing depends on the stye of player you are; rather uniquely however RPGs do assume that a party is made up of characters of roughly equal (if different) abilities. I think however you are fundamentally correct with the 'Detection Blank' point tho'. If players discover a loop-hole in a rules sure as London to a brick NPCs would exploit it as much as PCs. Let them get away with it *once* and congratulate them for doing so. --- Ashley Munday wrote: > I'm always very wary when people wheel out the whole > "game balance" argument. There's no such thing as > game > balance in an RPG - let's face it, the GM can > liquidate the adventurers REAL easy without their > players being able to do a damned thing about it. > > What's more at tension here is the way the rules > simulate the world and your conception of the world. > You obviously like the idea of someone being to > sneak > up on a sorcerer without the sorcerer being able to > see their POW and do something about it within the > limits you mentioned. > > It's not that the players are "abusing" anything, > it's > that they don't share your conception of the world. > House ruling to get the game world working the way > you > want isn't a bad thing. However it's not abuse and > you > should never think of "punishing" your players for > doing something that falls outside your perception > of > the world. > > Cheers, > > Ash > > PS: You could even say the designers knew about the > "problem" of sneaking up on people using POW > detecting > magic when they invented Detection Blank. I imagine > most sneaky cults can find Detection Blank spell > spirits if they put their mind to it. > > --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > > >Again...this is a GM vs. players thing and does > not > > have anything to do with > > the mechanics of the game. It really doesnt matter > > if > > the GM likes an > > approach or not...either the game concepts support > > it > > or they dont. Saying > > that you dont like that players want to do > something > > and the game should be > > changed because of it isnt the point. > > > > This is not a GM vs. players thing. It is more of > a > > game balance thing. As a GM, then I see something > > abused, I consider the ramifications of a similar > > action by NPCs on the PC. So for example, Mystic 3> > Vison > > is an unbalancing spells (IMO), since it will > remove > > any possibility of a player to sneak up on an > enemy > > sorcerer, even a Counter Magic will not work, > since > > technically the Mystic Vision will detect the > > Counter > > Magic itself. Game balance is restored by making > the > > sorcerers cast the spell when they feel they need > to > > and in effect limiting the amount of time this > spell > > is being maintained. > > > > >I dont understand what there is for a GM to get > > ticked off when a player > > does something anyway. I can understand that > > sometimes > > players want to work > > the rules to do things that are outside the spirit > > of > > the game. The rules > > are there to model something; however it is > > impossible > > for them to blanket > > every situation. As a result there is, like in > law, > > the letter and the > > spirit of the rules. > > > > Players have different motivations and are on a > > different level of maturity. What works with some, > > does not work with others. I found that removing > > temptation, to abuse teh rules, and maintaining > > consistency increases game play and enjoyment > > > > >In this specific case, fly is an active spell. If > > they caster wants to cast > > additional spells while he is using fly he has to > > make > > his concentration > > roll or risk failing to cast the new spell AND > > failing > > to maintain his fly > > spell. He is taking an awful chance with his life > in > > this case. If he has > > high enough stats to make the risk low enough for > > him > > to tolerate and get > > away with it...good for him...otherwise he might > > hurt > > himself. So from my > > point of view, it seems like the game takes of > these > > things automatically. > > > > Depending on the rules you are playing with. I am > > not > > worried really about a sorcerer casting another > > spell > > while flying, but rather always having the Fly > spell > > up. Therefore, IMW, if you do not concentrate on > an > > Active spell it goes down. > > > > >I want to make it clear these are my views. I > > want to discuss these things even where there is > > dissent. My goal is not to > > ruffle feathers by taking an opposing viewpoint. > If > > I > > have challenged any > > of the things you say, please, understand the > intent > > is not an attack. I am > > new to the group, I do not want people thinking Im > > an > > ass or a flamer > > because I might challenge a few things people say. > > > > > Dont worry about it. I am sure everyone here had > > been > > shot down in flames at least once. As a group I > > would > > say wea thick skinned bunch. > > > > Leon > > --- rq-rules-bounces@crashbox.com > > wrote: > > > > > > > >RQ->Actually he has a point, and I'm now > > reconsidering my position. > > > >Thinking about > > > >it I am ticked off by Fly spells kicking in > every > > five minutes and players > > > >sitting there and just causally asking if > spells > > are cast around them and > > > >the > > > >POW of the various NPCs etc... It'd be quite a > > curb > > for the Dominate spell, > > > >however. > > > > > > > >Any thoughts on the Project Sense questions? > > > > > > > >Nikk > > > > > > > > > Again...this is a GM vs. players thing and does > > not > > have anything to do with > > > the mechanics of the game. It really doesn't > > matter > > if the GM likes an > > > approach or not...either the game concepts > support > > it or they don't. Saying > > > that you don't like that players want to do > > something and the game should be > > > changed because of it isn't the point. > > > > > > I don't understand what there is for a GM to get > > ticked off when a player > > > does something anyway. I can understand that > > sometimes players want to work > > > the rules to do things that are outside the > spirit > > of the game. The "rules" > > > are there to model something; however it is > > impossible for them to blanket > > > every situation. As a result there is, like in > > law, > > the letter and the > > > spirit of the "rules". > > > > > > I have read about this "golf bag of weapons" > thing > > where players work the > > > experience system to get an xp tick in an > > additional > > weapon on their final > > > blow. As a GM i would not award this because it > > violates the spirit of the > > > xp system and I would simply rule that this was > > not > > a reasonable amount of > > > use to gain the experience. If on the other > hand, > > they switched in mid > > > fight because they figured another weapon would > be > > better in the fight, I > > > would consider awarding both if I thought both > had > > been used enough to merit > > > the xp check. > > > > > > In this specific case, fly is an active spell. > If > > they caster wants to cast > > > additional spells while he is using fly he has > to > > make his concentration > > > roll or risk failing to cast the new spell AND > > failing to maintain his fly > > > spell. He is taking an awful chance with his > life > > in this case. If he has > > > high enough stats to make the risk low enough > for > > him to tolerate and get > > > away with it...good for him...otherwise he might > > hurt himself. So from my > > > point of view, it seems like the game takes of > > these > > things automatically. > > > > > > Like in my previous post, I want to make it > clear > > these are my views. I > > > want to discuss these things even where there is > > dissent. My goal is not to > > > ruffle feathers by taking an opposing viewpoint. > > > If > > I have challenged any > > > of the things you say, please, understand the > > intent > > is not an attack. I am > > > new to the group, I do not want people thinking > > I'm > > an ass or a flamer > > > because I might challenge a few things people > say. > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > > RQ-Rules@crashbox.com > > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > > === message truncated === > > ______________