[Rq-rules] Re: Question about multicast

[Simon Phipp]

I've just checked my email to find 4 RQ-Rules Digests in one day.

As to the Multicast question, I always played Multispell as creating one
entirely new spell containing the spells multicast within it. So, the example
given creates one spell that allows the user to see 5 different places at
once. How this works in practice is up to individual GMs, but the example
about the screen of TVs rings true for me. I normally like to use objects
with Project Sight, so the sorcerer would be looking in a mirror/through
eyeglasses at five different places.

As for keeping it up, it is an Active spell, so if the sorcerer wanted to
cast another spell or do something difficult, then he'd have to roll an
INTx3% to keep the spell. I also tend to play that if the Projected Vision
goes through walls or through earth/stone then he neds a concentration roll
as well. Similarly, if something shocking happens in the area viewed, such as
a dragon appearing, he would need to make a concentration roll.

I also play that someone with Mystic Vision or Detect Magic would be able to
see the Projected Vision spell effect, perhaps as a little eye, and could
target spells at it, which would then affect the sorcerer. So, he could be
Feared, Madnessed or Disrupted by the people he is looking at. He would then
have to make a concentration roll to keep the spell going.

For long duration active spells, I normally require a concentration roll
every hour. Anyway, they give the caster a headache if they last a long time.
Also, anyone with mystic sense spells, such as Project Sense or Mystic Vision
would get a headache from using it alongside his normal senses. The effects
of the headache are not important, but it might cause fatigue loss or skill
reductions.

Nikk:
> 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.

That's exactly how I play it. In fact, he would need a concentration roll to
keep it up while he is attacked and another while he is running away. He
can't move it when he is doing something else, so he could easily go out of
range.

> 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?

It can appear anywhere within the range, in my opinion. Then it has to be
moved normally. Treat it as a scrying glass - in movies, wizards who look
through scrying glasses don't switch to different places all the time, they
keep it in one place and move it around a bit. If they have more than one
spell going then they have more than one scrying glass.

Fred Vogel:
> 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.

Yes, that's what I'd say.


Nikk:
> 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.

I would certainly make Fly and Dominate active spells, if they are not
already. Having to make a roll every hour and have the spells potentially go
down during combat and when casting other spells makes them more reasonable.

Fred Vogel:

> 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.  

How naive, how quaint :-)

Everyone knows that a roleplaying game is a battle between the GM and those
nasty players who need taking down a peg or two. When the poor GM has had a
bad day at work, or his wife is nagging at him, or his life is crap, what
better way to have fun than to persecute the players at his weekly
roleplaying game.

I thought that's what they were for.

> 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.

But, there are times when player tactics can totally ruin a game's enjoyment.
In the RQ campaign we played in years ago, they banned the Vision (RQ2)
spell. When we used RQ3, I allowed them to use Visin, Project Vision etc, so
one session they cast a long-extension Project Vision and scouted out a
castle, room by room. After 4 hours of mapping out the castle, I asked them
if they were enjoying the session. To a man, they said "No" and they never
again used Project Vision in that way, but it was their choice.

If you have PCs with long-duration Fly spells to stop them falling down pits,
for example, then it can affect how the game is played. There are ways around
it, though, I would play that someone with a Fly spell could only move at the
speed of the Fly spell, so that should make them think twice about using it.
People with other long-duration spells would detect as magical or show up on
Mystic Vision/Second Sight as being powerful sorceres, so would be the likely
recipient of the multimissiled Arbalest barrage.

> 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.

It doesn't really matter. Everyone has their own opinions and should share
them without worrying about trampling on other people's feelings. I've been
told in the past that someone would _never_ play in one of my games, and that
by someone who has never met me. If people go too far, then the moderator
should give them a slapping, or at least a quiet talking to, or the person
affected should explain that his feelings have been hurt and, please, don't
do it again.

> 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.

Well, it can be. I've played in games where they have banned Vision/Project
Vision, another where they banned Invisibility. I tend not to ban spells, but
sometimes I make it clear that I don't want them used, or I make the spells
hard to get hold of.

> 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".

Yes, but not everyone plays according to the spirit of the rules.

One thing I have found particularly useful is the maxim "Let others do unto
you what you do unto others". So, if the PCs use Project Vision to spy on
enemies, then they will be the target of Project Visions. If they use Blade
Venom on arbalest bolts at every opportunity, then so will NPCs. If they go
around with high-intensity Mystic Vision spells then so will the NPCs. And,
don't forget, there are a lot more NPCs than PCs, and they have more
resources, more time and can expend more effort against the PCs. Just make
this clear and game balance will be restored, until the next time.

> 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.

One of our players had a minotaur who did this, but it was allowed as he had
INT 7, or something, and had virtually no chance of increasing through
experience. Nobody esle was allowed it, though. One of our PCs, Derak the
Dark Troll, had trollkin who would follow him around and carry his weapons in
golf bags, he called them his caddies and used to ask for weapons before
combat. He never qquite asked for a "number 2 maul" but I could see it
happening.

> 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.

Exactly.

> 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.  

Ruffle away, by all means.

> 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.

They might think that anyway :-) Nobody should be afraid to voice an opinion
because it will be shouted down or cause offence. This isn't the Gloranthan
Digest, after all.

Leon:
> 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.

In RQ2 there was a spell called Detection Blank, which was available to
everyone, in RQ3 I think it is a cult specific spell. It blocked detect
spells up to its own pointage, so someone with Detection Blank 4 would block
Detect spells backed to 4 MPs/POW.

Would this show up using Mystic Vision? Would you need Mystic Vision 5 to get
through it?

Also, does Countermagic stop Detect spells? After all, they are magical.
SOmeone I played with used to play that they were blocked but the caster knew
they had been stopped.


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.

Can we? Thanks.

I find it pisses the players off, though, and they are normally _real_
whingers and whiners. "You killed off me Freddy and I hate you!".

> 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.

Oh, you spoil all my fun.

> 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.

Probably. I hope so. In fact, I'm the GM - of course they can.

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.

Perhaps. I've had many a game where one PC has dominated because he was
better in combat/stronger/tougher than the rest, so it unbalances the game a
bit. When you design opponents, you have to pitch them against everyone, not
just one person, so if someone is very powerful then it puts everything else
out of whack. That is why it is useful to have specialities in the party, so
someone is not good in combat but is very good at sneaking around, another is
good at magic and so on. But then you end up with something very D&Dish,
rather than something RQish.

> 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.

Let them do it once and congratulate them, let them do it again and say
nothing, the third time, point out that NPCs could do it, the fourth time let
NPCs do it better, then perhaps there won;t be a fifth time.

Cor, only 4 indents to delete in that reply ....

See Ya

Simon