[Rq-rules] Question about multicast

[Lev Lafayette]

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 <aescleal at btinternet.com> 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 <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
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 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 ===
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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