[Rq-rules] Question about multicast

[Leon Kirshtein]

>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 at crashbox.com
<darthvogel at hotmail.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 at 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