[Rq-rules] Question about multicast

[Ashley Munday]

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 <leonbk at yahoo.com> 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 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!?
> 
=== message truncated ===