[Rq-rules] Re: Question about multicast / Game Balance

[Simon Phipp]

Fred Vogel:

> Replies inline below.  I apologize in advance for the length!

Pah! I've never bothered about the length - I can witter on for pages and
pages without a problem.

> >... if the Projected Vision goes through walls or through earth/stone then
> >he neds a concentration >rolll. If something shocking happens in the area 
> >viewed, such as a dragon appearing, he would >need to make a concentration
> >roll.
> 
> I'm not sure I agree with this.  I think in travelling in a wall he risks 
> getting lost but don't understand why this would make him have to 
> concentrace more.  I see it this way because I am of the opinion that 
> concentration is maintaining the spell and not so much using it.  I

Because it is not natural or normal. If you are normally capable of moving
through earth, then fine it shoudln't affect you. If you are not that way
inclined, then it would be difficult to know where you are going, what's
coming up ahead and so on.

> likewise 
> don't think seeing a dragon or something would cause him to risk dropping 
> the spell.

If you are watching a horror movie and suddenly the killer pops up when he is
least expecting it, do you jump? Did you ever see Jaws, when the head popped
up inside the hols in the boat? Did you jump? Would you jump if a dragon
popped up just in front of your eyes?

Anything that gives you a start, or surprises you, is enough to force a
concentration roll, in my opinion. 

> I do agree that if something happened that caused the caster to be 
> "suprised" either on the far or near end; that he would definatly have to 
> make a concentration roll.

So, a Dragon appearing just in front of you would not surprise you? You must
have nerves of steel. Presumably when it covers your Projected Vision with
fire, that wouldn't faze you either?

> Actually, despite an explict mention in the description, my concept was
> that 
> the sense being projected would originate at the caster and then have to be
> moved to the location intended; but limited by its range.  It is clearly a 
> more powerful spell to make it appear anywhere within the range, but then 
> how do you deal with LOS issues?  We have been using it where it originates
> at the caster and has to be moved out.  It limits the spell a bit, but not 
> beyond value in my opinion.

But, if you think of it as a scrying glass, you don't get wicked witches
looking into their mirror and moving the eye for 20 miles to see Snow White.
You look into the mirror/cast project vision and you are where you want to
be. Otheriwse, the spell could run out before you get there.

As for LOS, I don't worry about them with Project Vision. I would use Farsee,
or a sorcerous equivalent, if I wanted LOS.

> >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.
> 
> Again, this is changing the description of the spell to stop the players 
> from doing something that it allows.  The purpose of the "rules" is so that
> everyone has a common expection to the outcome of actions.  

Not really. Does it say that the recipient of the Fly spell can move under
his own steam, or does it say that the recipient moves at a certain movement
rate? I can't remember.

> When you start 
> changing that you are changing how the game works on the fly and then 
> expectations of outcomes can no longer be trusted.  This makes PC's no
> trust 
> thier GM, makes them find the GM to be an adversary, and makes them like
> the 
> game less.

But, every game has house rules, certainly every game I've played in has. The
house rules need to be agreed between the players and the current GM. Then
eveyone knows where they stand, Not everyone is happy, but that's tough.

I used to play in a gaming group where different players took turns GMing,
and each one had their own house rules, so we had different rules in the same
campaign.

One GM played that birds and animals were dumb, dumb, dumb, so anyone using
Speak to Birds or Speak to Beasts got answers like "I'm hungry, got any
food", "Who are you, got any food, arrk", "What's a Lunar? Have I seen them?
I might have, got any food and I might tell you. Thanks, arrk" and so on.
Very frustrating if you've spent POW on the spell, but that's life.

Another GM played that Teleport kept any momentum, so if you fell off a cliff
and plummeted to the ground and tried to use Teleport to move to the top of
the cliff, you hit the ground at the top at the same speed as you would have
hit the ground at the bottom. So, we couldn't use Teleport to stop falling
damage in his games.

> >Yes, but not everyone plays according to the spirit of the rules.
> 
> The GM is the rules of the game.  Players are restricted to the parameters 
> that you let them, not the other way around. If a tactic works it works, it
> not, it doesn't, so what?

So, if the GM says "I don't like that" then he has made a ruling that the
players have to obey. Fair enough.

Leon Kirshtein:
> > 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.
> 
> Actually to me game balance implies the relative
> strength of player character to each other.

Not really, one person could have, say, 100% in Singing, Play Instrument,
Dancing and Seduce and still not have the same effect on play as a 50%
sorcerer. 

Game Balance, to me, is ensuring that one tactic or one player does not
completely dominate the game.

> > It's not that the players are "abusing" anything,
> > it's that they don't share your conception of the
> world.
> 
> You are right and wrong. The players are not
> "abusing", but it is a game mechanic flaw as far as I
> am concerned.

If there is a flaw that allows players to manipulate the rules to their own
devious advantage then they will use it and use it again until you remove the
flaw or stop them doing it.

Sneaky buggers, players.

> Sorry that would not work, since Mystic Vision is not
> a "Detection" spell.  Detection Blank was published
> before sorcery was created and really does not cover
> it. In addtion, not all of my campaigns have cults.

I would play that it does, but I don't have many sorcerers in may campaigns.

Lev Lafayette:
> > Actually to me game balance implies the relative
> > strength of player character to each other.

> Very true; that is a very gamist concept (yes, I have
> been infected by The Forge); having players of fairly
> equal abilities to each other is a means of ensuring
> that everyone has an opportunity to Step On Up (yes,
> mor Forge talk) and participate to the best of their
> ability.

And is easier to play.

> A thoroughly simulationist game would have a
> distribution of character strengths according to their
> distribution in the game world, accounting for the
> fact that people of similar abilities do tend to
> associate with each other.

Which is completely boring - everyone would be farmers or peasants and
where's the joy in that?

> A narrative game could have significant divergence;
> one to three main characters who are invariably
> powerful and some lesser sidekicks. Actually Ars
> Magica was well suited for that, thinking about it.

Which only works properly if every player has a role to play. Otherwise, the
game gets completely dominated by one or two players and the rest are just
making up the numbers.

Also, it is important for a GM to be able to judge NPCs so that they are not
too easy to overcome that there is no contest and not too difficult that one
PC survives and the rest have no chance. This is more difficult when you have
a couple of powerful characters and other weaker characters.

> And I'd better stop right there. ;-)

Too right. You'll be playing The Pool next, and then there's no hope for you.

See Ya

Simon (Who must get at least some work done today)