Motions to propose
j d mcgettrick
Well, here are the motions I'm actually thining of proposing (still open to change).
A) Wilderness and Subterfuge
Many of the skills in these two classses currently duplicate anyway (Acute Hearing, Agility, Hide
and Sneak, Stealth, SCout Armour, Silence Armour, Relaxed Fall, Spider Climb).
Many of the skills, for various reasons, are underused.
Several skills introduce unsatisfying phys-repping problems.
Propose:
1) A new ranger/thief (can't think of a better skill name yet) class costing 15pts/level and
encompassing the skillsets of both, but with the changes outlined below. Any skill that requires a
level of wilderness or subterfuge now requires the equivalent level of ranger/thief.
i) Retain the following skills unchanged (except for thief/ranger now being their pre-requisites as
above):
Agility
Streetfighter
Fur and Leather Hardening
Communicate with Animals
Use Venom/Use Assassins Venom
Subdue
Targeteer
Brwaling
Scout Armour
Acute Hearing [I don't really like it, but enough people have given me sensible reasons why it
should stay]
Recognise Scent [Again, I don't like it, but several people have said they do]
Track [Well, Little Dave's post was good enough to convince me it has some use - although refs
should be encouraged to build some tracking possibilities into adventures]
Pick Lock [If people want to keep it then fine].
ii) Make several skills into 1pt 'backgrounds' only available to ranger/thief.
Firelighting
Knot Tying
Sun and Star Lore
Find Food and Water
Devise/Disarm Trap (Tried to think of a better way of wording this skill but the current "The
character has skill in setting and disarming traps and snares in the wild. This skill may suggest
the best way to deal with a trap, but gives no benefit in the actual process of disarming" is so
vague as to be uesless).
"Insert Place Name" Geography Lore (Again, as a background but ref's could pick up on it in downtime
or for specific characters)
[I think most people would agree these skills are way too overpriced for the in-game effect that
they have]
iii) Remove entirely the following skills
Spider Climb (Impossible to phys-rep)
Relaxed Fall (Underused and unrealistic)
Light Fingers (A horrible mechanic and discourages roleplay)
Silence Armour (If people really want to wear plate/chain etc when scouting they can live with it)
Herb Lore (This duplicates the Alchemy skills at a price of 4XP less)
Camoflage (I'm sorry, but this skill genuinely does suck, at 0' people should really phys-rep hiding
very well - whatever thier costume).
Conceal weapon/equipment (why not roleplay this one?)
iv) Ammend the following rules with the line "An appropriate attempt at phys-repping must be made."
and the appropriate examples.
Disguise I (eg A fake beard, changing accent, walking with a limp, changing clothes)
Disguise II (eg Green face paint for an orc, whiting out hair to appear older, wearing appropriate
coloured make-up for an elf).
[I still don't really like these skills, but if people make an effort they can be fun]
Forgery I (eg A copy of the document, with subtle errors that can be spotted)
Forgery II (eg A copy of the document)
v) Backstab amended to be used with bladed weapons <18".
Backstab (10pts requires T/M IV) allows through damage to be called when a blow is struck from
behind against a character in combat, or who is incapacitated through paralysis, sleep, VOP.
Superior Backstab (10pts requires T/M VI, backstab) as backstab but +2 Degrees of damage
vi) Add skill "Balance"
Requires T/M IV 5pt, Through extensive training the character has learned to deal with a wide
variety of precarious situations and the characters balance is supreme. While concious, the
character is not required to fall over when an effect [such as a sheet of ice spell] would otherwise
require it.
vii) Amend Hide and Sneak so that base distance is 40' or 20' if _stationary_ and wearing suitable
clothing (ie Green/Brown armory kit). Ditch the armour requirement.
B) Warriors:
i) Remove the combat awareness skill. Warriors do not need the extra hit.
ii) Remove blind fighting as a deeply unsatisfying skill [does there really need three levels of
blind fighting anyway?].
iii) Remove Targeteer from the Warrior class.
iv) Increase Cost of fitness and fortitude to 8pts.
--
Jimbob!
*hyperfluffiness is a state of mind*
j d mcgettrick
A) Wilderness and Subterfuge
Backstab (10pts requires T/R IV) allows through damage to be called when a blow is struck from
behind against a character in combat, or who is incapacitated through paralysis, sleep, VOP.
Superior Backstab (10pts requires T/R VI, backstab) as backstab but +2 Degrees of damage
vi) Add skill "Balance"
Requires T/R IV 5pt, Through extensive training the character has learned to deal with a wide
d j d harris
fighting all together. its a little known secret that im now willing to
share = if you have blind fighting one the chance that you will be
killed as soon as your flashed is reduced considerably and i think we
can all agree that that can only be a good thing
Chris Cunliffe
really need three levels of
> blind fighting anyway?].
The original reason for three levels was because it was considered a bad
thing that a level 3 skill (requires Warr3 for BF1) to make somebody immune
to the effects of a 6th level spell, but making the skill any higher made it
to high for the effect of immunity to level 1 spells.
> iii) Remove Targeteer from the Warrior class.
You don't believe that soldiers should be able to use bows or crossbows?
Also, how many ranger types traditionally use a crossbow?
> iv) Increase Cost of fitness and fortitude to 8pts.
Why exactly?
Chris
d g james
Weapons in LARP are much bulkier than what they are attempting
to phys-rep, so a stilleto might be a six inch needle but in LARP it is
probably an inch thick and two wide. This obviously makes it harder
(although not impossible) to conceal. That and the fact that latex is a
lot "grippier" (is that a word?) than metal makes thieving weapons
difficult. In the same vein while you could snatch someones bag/purse
by cutting the strap/strings, this tends to upset people if done in LARP.
--
Later, back in reality...
Marcus Rich
Errr, why? Trained warriors probably *would* know how to use, say, a
crossbow, or may well have had training in thrown weapons...
Marcus
---
"I'm not lost, I just haven't pinpointed exactly where we are at the
moment" - Belgarath The Sorceror
Marcus Rich
Marcus Rich
This is indeed a fantastic point... Who wants to get a nice well-made prop
damaged horribly just because someone felt like nicking their wallet...
j d mcgettrick
Marcus Rich wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, d g james wrote:
>
>
>>Note on light fingers/conceal weapon/equipment
>>Weapons in LARP are much bulkier than what they are attempting
>>to phys-rep, so a stilleto might be a six inch needle but in LARP it is
>>probably an inch thick and two wide. This obviously makes it harder
>>(although not impossible) to conceal. That and the fact that latex is a
>>lot "grippier" (is that a word?) than metal makes thieving weapons
>>difficult. In the same vein while you could snatch someones bag/purse
>>by cutting the strap/strings, this tends to upset people if done in LARP.
>
>
> This is indeed a fantastic point... Who wants to get a nice well-made prop
> damaged horribly just because someone felt like nicking their wallet...
>
Propose a decent mechanic for it and I'll gladly put it in so that the huge number of people who
wear purses every week can wear them without fear.
j d mcgettrick
Chris Cunliffe wrote:
>>ii) Remove blind fighting as a deeply unsatisfying skill [does there
>
> really need three levels of
>
>>blind fighting anyway?].
>
>
> The original reason for three levels was because it was considered a bad
> thing that a level 3 skill (requires Warr3 for BF1) to make somebody immune
> to the effects of a 6th level spell, but making the skill any higher made it
> to high for the effect of immunity to level 1 spells.
Hmmmn. An interesting point. In which case - ditch the top two levels and force fighters to suffer
through utterdark etc. Leave only level one.
>
>
>>iii) Remove Targeteer from the Warrior class.
>
>
> You don't believe that soldiers should be able to use bows or crossbows?
>
> Also, how many ranger types traditionally use a crossbow?
>
Fair enough, consider it reinstated. Rangers could still use a crossbow by buying Targeteer through
wilderness skills anyway as its still in the proposed ranger/thief class. Or the warrior could spend
points outside warrior to get it.
>
>>iv) Increase Cost of fitness and fortitude to 8pts.
>
>
> Why exactly?
These are good skills and are underpriced. Fitness and fortitude is essentially double-buying health
(TWICE). I personally thought these prices were restrained - especially as they make fighters even
harder what would it cost to double buy health (12 + 18pts = 30 , under this system 16 so I think
warriors are still doing very well).
Marcus Rich
> (TWICE). I personally thought these prices were restrained - especially as they make fighters even
> harder what would it cost to double buy health (12 + 18pts = 30 , under this system 16 so I think
> warriors are still doing very well).
Even better:
As things currently stand, a fighter can get all the important fighter
skills *and* double buy health every level... with the extra 4XP on Fit &
Fort I think it may actually stop this, thus removing 10/20 hit brick
walls...
This I like a lot
Marcus Rich
> wear purses every week can wear them without fear.
I'll get to work on it right away... I can think of one or two right now
that would still require a ref like lightfingers but would be pure
roleplay rather than finger-in-air work...
An example:
Characters have stickers (or the refs have them and people can ask for
them before the interactive) which can be used in the following way:
If the character can successfully deposit one of these stickers onto the
item to be stolen (a pouch for example) without being noticed, they inform
a ref and this item is removed and given to the thief in question...
For swords etc, a tag on a piece of string that must be tied to the weapon
(thus simulating the time it would require to sloooowly draw the weapon in
question)...
This means the actual removal of the object is done by a ref, but the act
of the theft is done purely IC with no finger-in-air work...
That's a start, I'll come up with some more and get them to you asap
Jimbob.
Chris Cunliffe
> >
> >
> > You don't believe that soldiers should be able to use bows or crossbows?
>
> >
> > Also, how many ranger types traditionally use a crossbow?
> >
> Fair enough, consider it reinstated. Rangers could still use a crossbow by
buying Targeteer through
> wilderness skills anyway as its still in the proposed ranger/thief class.
Or the warrior could spend
> points outside warrior to get it.
Are you agreeing that Warrior should still have Targeteer or not there?
> >>iv) Increase Cost of fitness and fortitude to 8pts.
> >
> >
> > Why exactly?
>
> These are good skills and are underpriced. Fitness and fortitude is
essentially double-buying health
> (TWICE). I personally thought these prices were restrained - especially as
they make fighters even
> harder what would it cost to double buy health (12 + 18pts = 30 , under
this system 16 so I think
> warriors are still doing very well).
I both agree and disagree. I certainly see your point, but I don't think it
is as big an issue as you clearly do.
I like the fact that Warriors are built like brick shit houses and take a
lot of chopping at to get them down. Agreed, above any other class (for want
of a better term), Warriors do well for hit points, but I think they should
do.
Also, you have lorewardens and warlocks (admittedly this point applies to
lorewardens more than it does to warlocks) who have trouble fitting in
skills as it is.
One suggestion that was put forward a long time ago but never reached OGM
that I quite liked was the following:
To change the description of the Fortitude skill to:
Fortitude (4xp) [requires equal level of Control Rage]
This skill acts as an extra level of Health.
This would bring back the original balance of the setting where most people
were wusses (only bought Health), some people were a bit harder (bought
Health and some Fitness), some were really quite tough (buy Health and all
of Fitness) and Berserkers were impossible to knock over (bough Health,
Fitness and Fortitude).
This would achieve the same thing you seem to want.
Personally I would be against it as it would significantly weaken the vast
majority of characters (including both of mine, I freely admit).
Chris.
Marios
>1) A new ranger/thief (can't think of a better skill name yet)
WILDERFUGE!
>ii) Make several skills into 1pt 'backgrounds' only available to ranger/thief.
I'll have a think about background skills in general.
>v) Backstab amended to be used with bladed weapons <18".
>Backstab (10pts requires T/M IV) allows through damage to be called when a blow is struck from
>behind against a character in combat, or who is incapacitated through paralysis, sleep, VOP.
Would that include Halt? I think that would be cool, but I
don't know whether it was meant to be included as a form of termporary
paralysis.
>Superior Backstab (10pts requires T/M VI, backstab) as backstab but +2 Degrees of damage
Not tempted by finer degrees of gradation?
>vi) Add skill "Balance"
>Requires T/M IV 5pt, Through extensive training the character has learned to deal with a wide
>variety of precarious situations and the characters balance is supreme. While concious, the
>character is not required to fall over when an effect [such as a sheet of ice spell] would otherwise
>require it.
I like it - but I'd prefer a role-play coda so that it's read
as resistance not immunity.
>vii) Amend Hide and Sneak so that base distance is 40' or 20' if _stationary_ and wearing suitable
>clothing (ie Green/Brown armory kit). Ditch the armour requirement.
Why ditch the armour restriction?
>ii) Remove blind fighting as a deeply unsatisfying skill [does there really need three levels of
>blind fighting anyway?].
As long as we remove Flash, Blackflash and Globe of Darkness
(which would be good).
>iv) Increase Cost of fitness and fortitude to 8pts.
Interesting.
Marios
Marios
>i like pretty much all of this except the idea of removing blind
>fighting all together. its a little known secret that im now willing to
>share = if you have blind fighting one the chance that you will be
>killed as soon as your flashed is reduced considerably and i think we
>can all agree that that can only be a good thing
Actually - although I don't think anyone's pushed this
(because (i) there haven't been a lot of PC vs PC killings and (ii) I
keep mentioning it as a gross strategy, so it's harder for people to
use it and argue that it's an 'emergent strategy) - all the
Blindfighting skills let you do is parry.
Parry, not call damage. Now, it would be very bad roleplay -
unless you are Dodgy King Rationalistion and believe that you've
watched people training to fight in darkness and have noticed that
they never actually deal real damage - to charge in knowing that they
can parry my dagger (say) but not actually hurt me.
How much good is a parry when you can't actually attack? How
much worse when the other person knows you can't attack?
Pretty good in line fighting - but then, isn't everything?
People don't tend to get assassinated while they are standing
shoulder-to-shoulder with their comrades.
Marios
Marios
>Note on light fingers/conceal weapon/equipment
>Weapons in LARP are much bulkier than what they are attempting
>to phys-rep, so a stilleto might be a six inch needle but in LARP it is
>probably an inch thick and two wide. This obviously makes it harder
>(although not impossible) to conceal.
Sometimes easier, actually. I walked around for 30 minutes
with a dagger hidden up the back of my cowl (over the shirt). Because
it's latex and grippier it just stayed there. All I had to do was be
careful not to lean far backwards and it just sat there.
Equally, larp weapons aren't actually sharp and injurious - I
think it might be a 'swings and roundabouts' scenario.
>That and the fact that latex is a
>lot "grippier" (is that a word?) than metal makes thieving weapons
>difficult. In the same vein while you could snatch someones bag/purse
>by cutting the strap/strings, this tends to upset people if done in LARP.
Yes - snacting from scabbards is very difficult, because latex
weapon adhere to latex scabbard - they can't be removed very quickly.
That said, not everyone has scabbard (significant majority, in
fact). You can walk around holding your sword all the time (very
provocative) or you can put it down. Once it's down and decent thief
can make it disappear very quickly.
I've got a purse/pouch with leather thongs. If there were
enough in the interactive to make it worthwhile we could just buy a
load of cheap leather thongs (good for bracers/leggings/costume as
well). Then you'd only have to be careful enough to not damage the
pouch too much (make sure that we don't buy mega-strong leather
thong/stringings).
Marios
Marios
>I'll get to work on it right away... I can think of one or two right now
>that would still require a ref like lightfingers but would be pure
>roleplay rather than finger-in-air work...
>
>An example:
>
>Characters have stickers (or the refs have them and people can ask for
>them before the interactive) which can be used in the following way:
>
>If the character can successfully deposit one of these stickers onto the
>item to be stolen (a pouch for example) without being noticed, they inform
>a ref and this item is removed and given to the thief in question...
>
>For swords etc, a tag on a piece of string that must be tied to the weapon
>(thus simulating the time it would require to sloooowly draw the weapon in
>question)...
>
>This means the actual removal of the object is done by a ref, but the act
>of the theft is done purely IC with no finger-in-air work...
>
>That's a start, I'll come up with some more and get them to you asap
>Jimbob.
Better! But still not as good as actual thieving. Might work
best as intro/practice. Nice IC test for the scouts guild...
Marios
Marios
>Errr, why? Trained warriors probably *would* know how to use, say, a
>crossbow, or may well have had training in thrown weapons...
Another historian question - but I reckon I could pre-empt it.
Some did, most didn't. Crossbows are difficult since they were
designed so that any idiot could use them - however, this contradicts
with the whole skill element of the system (ditto shield use!) and is
thus ignored. Archery is a better example. Not many front line
fighters could use bows, not many archers could hack the front line.
Bottom line is, you can assume they and you can assume they
don't. But the point of a skill system is not to clump skills
together, but to let people choose. If you want basic proficiency with
a bow, take a level of Wilderfuge and Targeteer (19XP) - doubles your
damage with all range weapons.
In the long run? How often are players going to want to
specialise with melee weapons and range weapons? Generally people can
only afford to focus on one at a time - in and out of character.
Marios
Marios
>> ii) Remove blind fighting as a deeply unsatisfying skill [does there
>really need three levels of
>> blind fighting anyway?].
>
>The original reason for three levels was because it was considered a bad
>thing that a level 3 skill (requires Warr3 for BF1) to make somebody immune
>to the effects of a 6th level spell, but making the skill any higher made it
>to high for the effect of immunity to level 1 spells.
Once again - I've got to say that it doesn't make you immune.
It's certainly better than not having and very nice against someone
who roleplays fear of a weapon even when they know OOC that you can't
actually deal damage with it.
>> iii) Remove Targeteer from the Warrior class.
>
>You don't believe that soldiers should be able to use bows or crossbows?
In all the Norse legends the Wizards or Wise-Men all tended to
be pretty damn good fighters. Gandalf (norse-derived) is pretty damn
good with a longsword.
Should melee weapon use come with Elemental Power? Or should
mages have to buy into warrior if they want melee weapon use?
>Also, how many ranger types traditionally use a crossbow?
Ranger = Scout + Fighter?
Marios
Marcus Rich
> enough in the interactive to make it worthwhile we could just buy a
> load of cheap leather thongs (good for bracers/leggings/costume as
> well). Then you'd only have to be careful enough to not damage the
> pouch too much (make sure that we don't buy mega-strong leather
> thong/stringings).
See my post replying to Jimbob... there are easier ways to do theft that
still work better than the current system... :)
Zoë Robinson
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.04...@altair.dur.ac.uk...
<Cut>
> An example:
>
> Characters have stickers (or the refs have them and people can ask for
> them before the interactive) which can be used in the following way:
>
> If the character can successfully deposit one of these stickers onto the
> item to be stolen (a pouch for example) without being noticed, they inform
> a ref and this item is removed and given to the thief in question...
>
> For swords etc, a tag on a piece of string that must be tied to the weapon
> (thus simulating the time it would require to sloooowly draw the weapon in
> question)...
>
> This means the actual removal of the object is done by a ref, but the act
> of the theft is done purely IC with no finger-in-air work...
Damn, that's a good idea! Propose it as a new motion and I'll second it.
Zoė
--
"You can't stop being dead just because you're a different
colour!" - Saruman to Gandalf, 'Dead Ringers'
Zoë Robinson
news:Pine.GSO.4.58.04...@altair.dur.ac.uk...
<Cut>
> crossbow, or may well have had training in thrown weapons...
This would be on top of their regular training, would it not? Because it's
extra, it's put into the system as an extra.
I think we're back to the "what's the difference between a Humakti and
someone who's bought Undeath Lore?" question here. Fact is, there's no
difference - a ranger who's learned to fire a bow buys Targeteer and would
have to buy Warrior in order to use a longsword. From the other side of
things, a figher buys Warrior to learn how to use a sword and if he wants to
fire a bow properly, he needs to buy Targeteer.
The fact is, the skill based system is skills only, not classes. Too many
people are still thinking in terms of the Class Based System. "Why can't my
warrior make potions?" "Because you didn't buy the skill".
Marios
>> Why exactly?
>
>These are good skills and are underpriced. Fitness and fortitude is essentially double-buying health
>(TWICE). I personally thought these prices were restrained - especially as they make fighters even
>harder what would it cost to double buy health (12 + 18pts = 30 , under this system 16 so I think
>warriors are still doing very well).
In the Auld Systeme, Warriors (Grauniads) only got two levels
of health / levels (other people got one or a 2/3 for mages or 1.5 for
spirit warriors). There was a Barbarian class which got three levels
of health / level, but no armour use.
Si's original system was costed so that you couldn't get all
the core warrior skills and would thus have to ditch something.
One lazy solution would be reducing the XP / lvl back to 50 -
but that would be so drastically unpopular ("roleplay society"?) that
it would never get passed.
You could make it a choice at each level - Fortitude or Armour
- but then you'd have more spare XP floating around.
So, maybe increasing the cost is the best solution.
Marios
Marios
>Even better:
>
>As things currently stand, a fighter can get all the important fighter
>skills *and* double buy health every level... with the extra 4XP on Fit &
>Fort I think it may actually stop this, thus removing 10/20 hit brick
>walls...
Ubarian + armour!
Marios
Zoë Robinson
news:401ee1ec....@news.freeserve.net...
<Cut>
<Jimbob> ii) Remove blind fighting as a deeply unsatisfying skill [does
> there really need three levels of blind fighting anyway?].
>
> As long as we remove Flash, Blackflash and Globe of Darkness
> (which would be good).
This is a good point. I tried to get Flash, Blackflash and Firedart removed
because they destroy what should be a much more fun aspect of the game and
the existence of Blindfighting is proof of this.
If you remove Blindfighting, fighters will start getting crippled in combat
by mages again and you're back to the Tinity of Evil, Game-ruining Shits
(one mage, to cast flash, one fighter to cripple the opposition and one
priest to heal the fighter) again.
The only solutions to this are a) keep both Blindfighting and the
game-ruining spells or b) get rid of both Blindfighting and the
game-runining spells.
Marios
>I like the fact that Warriors are built like brick shit houses and take a
>lot of chopping at to get them down. Agreed, above any other class (for want
>of a better term), Warriors do well for hit points, but I think they should
>do.
They would still be much tougher than other characters -
Guardians were much tougher than other characters and they had only
twice as much health a level than other characters (not 3 or 4 times
as much).
>Also, you have lorewardens and warlocks (admittedly this point applies to
>lorewardens more than it does to warlocks) who have trouble fitting in
>skills as it is.
They are supposed to. They are not _actually_ supposed to be
able to fit all their core skills into each level.
>One suggestion that was put forward a long time ago but never reached OGM
>that I quite liked was the following:
>
>To change the description of the Fortitude skill to:
>
>Fortitude (4xp) [requires equal level of Control Rage]
>This skill acts as an extra level of Health.
>
>This would bring back the original balance of the setting where most people
>were wusses (only bought Health), some people were a bit harder (bought
>Health and some Fitness), some were really quite tough (buy Health and all
>of Fitness) and Berserkers were impossible to knock over (bough Health,
>Fitness and Fortitude).
But this is actually wrong - Berserkers, as fas as I recall
had the same health as Guardians (2 a level).
Barbarians were the ones with 3 (what munchkins!) levels of
health / lvl, for which they gave up any rigid armour (3+) use (and
had some other minor restrictions - only ever use one sword,
illiterate, innumerate etc.).
Hits for amour is a balanced trade - armour dude does better
in combat, but hit dude has better luck against spells/venoms.
>This would achieve the same thing you seem to want.
I don't think Berserker is a 'well tempered' skill at all and
I'd be happy to stick it into the 'Spring Cleaning' removal section -
it's not cross-linked to anything and not really required by the
system. A berserker is an aggressive fighter who doesn't use a shield,
buys - maybe double-buys - hits and doesn't buy armour.
So, for those reasons, I wouldn't dump extra hits on the
Berserker.
Marios
Marcus Rich
Am going to see if I can come up with something easier, but if I can't
I'll propose it (if the refs are willing to enforce it)...
Any improvements are welcome :)
Marcus Rich
Pleeeeaaaaaaase do...
marios richards
> See my post replying to Jimbob... there are easier ways to do theft that
> still work better than the current system... :)
It's good, but it's still not as good as actually doing it. I'd assumed
that the new mechanic wouldn't prevent you from actually taking stuff.
For swiping stuff that can be easily taken (e.g. weapon lying on table)
there are issues of concurrency. If you want to take it because you've
set up an undead attack and you want the Humackti to rush out without
his weapon then it has to be taken right away.
I'll support it as a motion as long as it doesn't 'illegalise' actualy
swiping.
Marios
marios richards
>>As long as we remove Flash, Blackflash and Globe of Darkness
>>(which would be good).
>
>
> This is a good point. I tried to get Flash, Blackflash and Firedart removed
> because they destroy what should be a much more fun aspect of the game and
> the existence of Blindfighting is proof of this.
Firedart is now 'well-tempered' or, if you prefer, does what it says on
the can. Still worth using, but not as good as Fireball.
> If you remove Blindfighting, fighters will start getting crippled in combat
> by mages again and you're back to the Tinity of Evil
The Trinity isn't nearly so bad - if people want to be strong they
should be forced to work together. If you want to create
Johnny-Standalone, that's fine, but he should be considerably weaker
than a group of specialists. In counter, a group of specialists will
each have a crippling weakness.
E.g. if you hit fighter with swords, cast spells at the mages and try
to befriend the priest then you/the opposition get splatted. But, if you
hit the mage with swords, cast spells at the priest and befriend the
fighter then we're back to the toddler-by-truck scenario.
The real problem is when the rules can be bent to make one person
Uber-Killor - it's a problem re PVP assassinations -
Blackflash-Throatslit and a problem on adventures - Plateself! This
encounter contains only single-wielding monsters, all players but me are
superfluous.
In fact, there haven't been many Flassassinations (it's absolutely
vital that you create mocking names for any style of play you disagree
with) - but that's because we haven't had a lot of PVP. Partly because
it causes resentment and using Flash to 'seal the deal' would cause a
lot more resentment (because you'd look at it and think "What could I
have done to avoid that? - Nothing").
> The only solutions to this are a) keep both Blindfighting and the
> game-ruining spells or b) get rid of both Blindfighting and the
> game-runining spells.
I find (b) very attractive - Big stone kills many birds.
Marios
t a seaton
> much worse when the other person knows you can't attack?
> Pretty good in line fighting - but then, isn't everything?
> People don't tend to get assassinated while they are standing
> shoulder-to-shoulder with their comrades.
> Marios
I've actually found blindfight to be a very effective defence against
flash and its ilk. Flash becomes devastating when the player has to
become completely immobile, and hence can't retreat. The critical
difference with blindfight is not that you can parry, but that you can
carry on moving, and so can stop your aggressor closing and getting in
those give-away hits.
My 2 cents,
Tom
j d mcgettrick
I thought you could _only_ parry with blindfighting. I'm not sure its meant to include moving around
- otherwise it ceases to be 'blindfighting' and essentially becomes 'immunity to flash/blackflash'.
See the wording below:
"Allows fighter to defend themselves (OOC Parry with eyes open) under the effects of a flash or
blackflash spell."
I concede that my interpretation might be wrong, but I always try to take the 'penalise me most'
interpretation.
T J Bradley
: t a seaton wrote:
: > I've actually found blindfight to be a very effective defence against
: > become completely immobile, and hence can't retreat. The critical
: > difference with blindfight is not that you can parry, but that you can
: > carry on moving, and so can stop your aggressor closing and getting in
: > those give-away hits.
: See the wording below:
: "Allows fighter to defend themselves (OOC Parry with eyes open) under the effects of a flash or
: blackflash spell."
: I concede that my interpretation might be wrong, but I always try to take the 'penalise me most'
: interpretation.
Where does it say in the description of flash or blackflash that you can't
move. My instinctive reation to either of those spells would to be to
recoil backwards (even with a character who has blindfighting)
The effect of both reads:
Effect: Causes a ``flash'' of darkness, which will blind a foe for 3
seconds
Effect: Target is blinded for 3 seconds by a flash of intense light shot
from the caster's palm.
Neither of those restrict movement.
Braddas
Alasdair MacLeod
> I thought you could _only_ parry with blindfighting. I'm not sure its
> meant to include moving around - otherwise it ceases to be
> 'blindfighting' and essentially becomes 'immunity to flash/blackflash'.
But flash never prevented the victim from moving anyway. Any numptie hut
with a flash could still run around, just with their eyes closed.
Blindfighting allows them to do so whilst parrying.
Al .-.
--
Sig missing. Reward for capture. Thanks.
http://www.north5.demon.co.uk/al/
renaud van-strydonck
This seems like a clever set of ammendments. One that I'd be glad to see
going to the AGM.
The Blindfighting and Flash issue will always arise, and mage-only
characters (as opposed to mage-and-stick characters) will suffer from
losing flash. While warriors will suffer from mage-and-stick characters
if they lose Blindfighting.
We could make Blindfighters actually immune to Flash and Blackflash
while still only better resistant to other blindnesses. Ie. a
Blindfighter hit by a flash would just grin and lay the smack; while
other lesser warriors would still cry.
Might make people think twice about using flash quite so often (which
reminds me; I haven't heard that call in quite a while) and will keep
warriors a good reason to have blindfighting?
What do you think?
Renaud
t a seaton
> the effects of a flash or blackflash spell."
I think the confusion over the movement thing arises because people
don't move about much with their eyes closed, due to the perceived
safety issue. Barring a number with no regard for self-preservation, eg.
Marios. So it often gets treated sort of like a 3 second halt - although
I agree with Braddas that staggering back is probably better
roleplaying. One of the (many) problems with flash/blackflash is there
doesn't seem to be any set way to respond to it - another reason to
ditch it, IMHO.
Tom
marios richards
> I've actually found blindfight to be a very effective defence against
> flash and its ilk. Flash becomes devastating when the player has to
> become completely immobile, and hence can't retreat. The critical
> difference with blindfight is not that you can parry, but that you can
> carry on moving, and so can stop your aggressor closing and getting in
> those give-away hits.
The issue here - and part of my dislike of Flash/Blackflash is that it
is very badly defined.
For instance - what does 'blindness' mean? I know what it means in real
life and I know what it means to shut my eyes, but what does keeping
your eyes open and pretending to be blind mean?
Braddas-Tom points out that it doesn't specify that it restricts
movement. Al says you can run around - ok, but can you do it without
falling over? Can you run towards people and attack them? It doesn't
specify that you can't swing a sword, play darts (well) or read a book,
but we tend to assume that you can't.
Like I said, it's one of those things about Flash/Blackflash that
irritates me - the rules are vague on really vital points - whether you
can run directly away from someone in a reasnably straight line without
falling over is the difference between taking no damage and dying.
So, recently - and where the ground is safe - I've just been shutting
my eyes and running around. The last adventure someone complained when I
ran in a straight line along a slightly inclined path (having been
flashed) - he couldn't see that I had my hand over my eyes at the time,
so I couldn't be bothered to argue and just spontaneously fell over and
got butchered.
Later that adventure, we fought - just next the the old arch before
Maiden Castle - in the long grass, surrounding the character. We got
flashed a lot, so I just ran blindly (with my eyes shut OOC) away from
the character party (I kept dropping my sword in 'shock' because I was
feeling generous - I was a drow, after all).
However, there's no real ruling on any of this. People can - and
occasionally do, particularly when it's important to their character's
survival - dictate their own interpretation of the rules.
Marios
marios richards
It's really a rather offensive spell. It's very open and unambiguous -
you've done pretty well with Blindfighting because no one has pushed the
issue - when monster have hit you with it, none of them actually wanted
to kill you, none of them leapt past your guard and started stabbing
your sword arm repeatedly with a dagger.
Equally, characters haven't been using it in a particularly offensive
fashion e.g. Cast Blackflash and when people start to run away tell them
that they can't do it because they are blind - you can then stop play,
have an argument about how agile a blind-person really is ("it's a
magical effect, it's much more surprising than simply closing your
eyes!"), or you can fall over/stand still and get butchered.
Since it's only happened with monsters and not too often at the moment,
it's not become a major issue. But the moment it becomes a PVP issue, I
reckon there'll be grief. In one interpretation the victim has no chance
- can't move without falling over, can't deal damage - in the the other
interpretation the victim is simply forced to back/run off for 3 seconds.
Blindfighting doesn't really clear up the issue at all, in fact, it
adds to it. Blindfighting says you can parry with your eyes closed - it
doesn't say whether you can deal damage or not. Black/flash says nothing
about dealing damage at all - but is generally assumed to mean that you
can't.
Then again, there's some people who are willing to swing their weapons
around when flashed, with their eyes shut. The occasions I recall them
doing this, they swung the weapon pretty f!ing hard, I stepped in,
nearly lost my weapon parrying a wild blow and decided that I simply
wasn't going to risk my delicate sensory organs by attacking them while
they were flashed. I really don't approve of wild swings with your eyes
shut - or, indeed, running with your eyes shut in a situation that might
cause you to (i) run into someone and hurt them or (ii) run into/off
something and hurt yourself.
Solutions? Rewrite the spell - again! Or ditch it. Then we won't need
Anti-Black/Flash skills.
Marios
marios richards
> The Blindfighting and Flash issue will always arise, and mage-only
> characters (as opposed to mage-and-stick characters) will suffer from
> losing flash. While warriors will suffer from mage-and-stick characters
> if they lose Blindfighting.
I was concerned with the idea of removing Flash because of the silly "a
sword/chainmail is in contact with you, now you can't cast" rule. But,
since Si says this is not _actually_ part of the system, I'm very much
willing to push the new interpretation (of not having this rule) - note:
Mages still can't wield big metal weapons or wear metal armour without
losing the ability to cast, risking loss of mana.
Without the old interpretation, I don't see mages _needing_ Black/Flash
to survive. Nor do I think it defines them in a positive light. It was a
originally a way to escape getting gibbed by a monster, these days,
however, mages are really forced into cutting the monster up while it's
flashed - which looks/feels naff.
It doesn't help mages look like mages, it just makes you feel like a
munchkin. In practice, people balance between safety and self-contempt
by using flash, but deliberately not running up and gibbing the monster,
but 'individual restraint' is not how a system should be run (if it was,
you wouldn't need a rule system).
> We could make Blindfighters actually immune to Flash and Blackflash
> while still only better resistant to other blindnesses. Ie. a
> Blindfighter hit by a flash would just grin and lay the smack; while
> other lesser warriors would still cry.
If you need to make people immune to a level one spell, then it's time
to think about ditching that spell. What about people who can't/don't
want to buy Blindfighting? Not everyone will buy level 3 Warrior (?).
Mage battles that involve both parties trying to be the first to Flash
eachother are rather tedious (the person who casts "Flash" is simply not
going to allow Dispel 1 to count as dispelling the Flash if the flash
lands anytime during the Dispel 1 (because it would interrupt the vocal)
and it's not clear whether you can cast spells when Flashed - surely you
need your eyesight to cast spells on other people? What about yourself?)
- even if one person spends all their time Flashing, while the other
person spends all their time Dispelling, the Flash-Mage can rain blows
with their off hand (if they have the appropriate warrior/streetfighter)
while maintaining the Flash.
Pure scouts, alchemists, priests - all would also fall to Black/Flash.
> Might make people think twice about using flash quite so often (which
> reminds me; I haven't heard that call in quite a while) and will keep
> warriors a good reason to have blindfighting?
You've lost very little if you cast it and find the 1/4 person who's
immune to it. I remember suggesting a spell called 'Mirror Eyed', level
1 spell, duration 5 mins, reflects any Black/Flash against the caster.
> What do you think?
Like my spell idea, it would improve things but not nearly as much as
just removing those spells.
If mages can't survive without Flash/Blackflash then there's a serious
problem with the class. Or perhaps simply a problem with the perception
of the class.
Marios
Paul Townend
: The issue here - and part of my dislike of Flash/Blackflash is that it
: is very badly defined.
In my LARP naivety, I at first assumed that you just shut your eyes if
you'd been flashed (either by Marios' underwear or the spell) and
continued as normal via your memory of your surroundings. I still don't
see why this is in itself a problem, although I would think that if you'd
been temporarily blinded (which is what flash is, isn't it?) then you'd
have a moment or two of complete shock. Unless it happened to you on a
reasonably regular basis, in which case you could more or less instantly
flee.
What I'm trying to say is that a second or two of disorientation is
reasonable, but after that, movement (and indeed, parrying/flailing with
weapon) also seems reasonable.
What I'm really trying to say is: ditch flash/backflash!
*Paul has been well trained by Marios and Si*
Marcus Rich
> swiping.
OK, allow swiping of objects that are just lying around, but any number of
people will take *massive* offense at being poked at in an attempt to
steal their wallet... I personally wouldn't complain but I can see any
number of people getting really really annoyed at it...
Marcus Rich
> reminds me; I haven't heard that call in quite a while) and will keep
> warriors a good reason to have blindfighting?
Haven't heard flash much because there haven't been many monster attacks
in the bar, where the majority of mages stay when the cry "go get the
<insert monster name here> who just attacked the city"...
No offense to any mage-players, and to any who do go out and fight them
off, I apologise for not noticing...
David Leach
> I've got a purse/pouch with leather thongs. If there were
> enough in the interactive to make it worthwhile we could just buy a
> load of cheap leather thongs (good for bracers/leggings/costume as
> well). Then you'd only have to be careful enough to not damage the
> pouch too much (make sure that we don't buy mega-strong leather
> thong/stringings).
No, that would encourage use of very sharp objects near people and is to be
avoided at all costs.
Little Dave
Marcus Rich
Flash/blackflash...
why not drop winds of disarming or trip to 1st level so that mages still
have the defensive capability..
Oh, no, of course, that makes them also insta-death spells...
fundamentally any good defensive spell is a good offensive spell unless it
does something extreme like erect a wall of force...
any disarming or blinding effect can be used to truly destroy lines or
single fighters, as they render them completely defenseless (sadly not the
intended use of the spells)...
Perhaps a 1st level spell (in grey maybe?) that does something to make it
impossible to attack the caster for a couple of seconds, or slows down the
target's feet but not their attacks (thus making it a good "i'm running
away" spell)...
Tag
> Haven't heard flash much because there haven't been many monster attacks
> in the bar, where the majority of mages stay when the cry "go get the
> <insert monster name here> who just attacked the city"...
> No offense to any mage-players, and to any who do go out and fight them
> off, I apologise for not noticing...
To be fair, a couple of mages came out with us when we went to deal with
slavers. The did disappear before the last fight, but they were there
for a while...
Tag
=-=
--
oOoOo Curates, long dust, will come and go oOoOo
oOoOo On lissom, clerical, printless toe; oOoOo
oOoOo oOoOo
oOoOo oTago
Tag
> To be fair, a couple of mages came out with us when we went to deal with
> slavers. The did disappear before the last fight, but they were there
> for a while...
Actually, I find I have more to say...
Maybe one of the reasons you don't see mages rushing for the most
dangerous situations much is because they're not actually that hard.
I don't think it's at all true that mages are over-powered. Maybe they
were with 'old' flash and blackflash, but even then I wasn't convinced -
maybe *combined* with warrior skills it's broken, but as an alternative
to warrior skills there's little contest. Especially on adventures, a
stick which you can hit people with and works every time, plus a whole
load of hits, is far better than something which you only have so much
of, and which hurts people only if you let it hurt you back, coupled
with much lower hits meaning you're shafted if you don't happen to get
it in there first.
If spells like flash and blackflash are "game-breaking", WHY do the
mages hide when there's danger, rather than standing proud in the middle
of the bar with their alleged invulnerability? WHY do mages spend a lot
of adventures tramping along with almost nothing to do? WHY is almost
exactly every fight on an adventure solved with raw swordpower, rather
than the mages using their "game-breaking" spells to just walk through?
Because mages aren't over-powered at all. There's no need to remove any
spells. Maybe old flash and blackflash were overpowered but now they're
not really. Even when I was playing a mage I used to carry a stick, and
I found that half the time it was easier to "half" things to death than
waste my precious mana and even more precious health by using magic.
People concentrate a lot on the "one entirely unharmed full-power
warrior, one entirely unharmed full-power mage" scenario; but that's
simply not that common. Yeah, maybe, at high levels, the mage would
win. But most situations aren't like that. The main difference between
the two is that, if the warrior DOES win, they can go on and do it
again, and again, and again. If the mage wins that's probably taken up
half their mana and health. Mages are already sometimes unuseful to the
point of being bored on adventures; don't make it worse.
Tag
=-=
--
oOoOo love gets kinda crazy with a spooky little boy like you fudge
oOoOo @durg
oOoOo e.org
Marcus Rich
> dangerous situations much is because they're not actually that hard.
As opposed to the uber-hard priests and scouts and alchemists...
OK so warriors are hard, they're supposed to be, but mages physically are
no weaker than their non-warrior counterparts, and frequently (due to
metal restrictions) carry the uber-death weapon that is the quarterstaff.
> I don't think it's at all true that mages are over-powered. Maybe they
> were with 'old' flash and blackflash, but even then I wasn't convinced -
> maybe *combined* with warrior skills it's broken, but as an alternative
> to warrior skills there's little contest. Especially on adventures, a
> stick which you can hit people with and works every time, plus a whole
> load of hits, is far better than something which you only have so much
> of, and which hurts people only if you let it hurt you back, coupled
> with much lower hits meaning you're shafted if you don't happen to get
> it in there first.
But a 1-mana spell, and couple of "half"s with your quarterstaff, then a
few more before the fighter gets in range again, is pretty hard... As for
mages going along with nothing to do, the same could apply to priests
except that they have healing, and alchemists... Mages *could* do plenty
on an adventure if they were willing...
Personally what I dislike is the metagaming opinion of "i'd better save up
my mana since i'm bound to need it at the last fight" attitude carried by
many mages and priests, when a mage, if the situation is suitable, would
realistically blow a bit of mana on a quick talk-to spell or a detect
spell...
> If spells like flash and blackflash are "game-breaking", WHY do the
> mages hide when there's danger, rather than standing proud in the middle
> of the bar with their alleged invulnerability? WHY do mages spend a lot
> of adventures tramping along with almost nothing to do? WHY is almost
> exactly every fight on an adventure solved with raw swordpower, rather
> than the mages using their "game-breaking" spells to just walk through?
Because they choose not to fight? Because it's easier to leave it to the
fighters and other people willing to fight? I'd think this was due to a
lot of mages being played by players who generally don't enjoy fighting,
and thus avoid fighting for OOC reasons, of course i could be wrong...
> Because mages aren't over-powered at all. There's no need to remove any
> spells. Maybe old flash and blackflash were overpowered but now they're
> not really. Even when I was playing a mage I used to carry a stick, and
> I found that half the time it was easier to "half" things to death than
> waste my precious mana and even more precious health by using magic.
And if you feel happy halfing things to death then go on, and don't waste
mana, but mages *can* flash and kill most things, due to the zero-vocal of
the spell, and any mage who takes a hit casting a level one spell is
missing a level of ele skill...
> People concentrate a lot on the "one entirely unharmed full-power
> warrior, one entirely unharmed full-power mage" scenario; but that's
> simply not that common. Yeah, maybe, at high levels, the mage would
> win. But most situations aren't like that. The main difference between
> the two is that, if the warrior DOES win, they can go on and do it
> again, and again, and again. If the mage wins that's probably taken up
> half their mana and health. Mages are already sometimes unuseful to the
> point of being bored on adventures; don't make it worse.
This is true, mages do suffer a lot from not having the ability to go on,
but as for fighters being able to do it again and again i disagree with...
Mages may lose half their mana, but the result of this is the fighter
walks away heavily wounded, meaning that he/she *can't* do it again and
again, since the next fight would quite possibly kill them, just as it'd
finish off the mage's mana...
These are mostly just my opinions and observations of the behaviour of
mages in the past, they are probably wrong and it's certainly possible to
argue every which way with them, so feel free :)
ora...@hotmail.com
mages got 2/level, priests 3/level, fighters 6/level and
barbarians/berserkers 8/level but no metal armour. So really, the
warrior skill set should have a fourth health skill which is not
compatible with metal armour (probably would be if a fourth was added
and armour is bumped to 10XP per buy).
[in the original SBS draft, fighters were only able to afford 3 health
OR 2 health + armour. also, mages were to lose health with ele skill!]
x
si
ora...@hotmail.com
> could hack the front line.
there were actually two types of 'archer':
- one type only used a bow and light/no armour (eg, peasant levy or
some trained missile units in medieval times)
- the other type used a bow, armour and arms (a big 2-handed weapon
for english and indian longbowmen, javelins and shield for the elite
Persian Immortals)
x
si
Marios
>Flash/blackflash...
>
>why not drop winds of disarming or trip to 1st level so that mages still
>have the defensive capability..
Well, it's level 3 for a reason (not a particularly good
reason, I grant). Yes, it should probably be lvl 2 (semi-equivalent to
shatter/warp). Upside : You don't destroy loot. Downside : They can
pick it up.
Comparing having your weapon fall to the ground with
(interpretation dependent) 3 seconds of paralysis?
(i) Winds of Disarming doesn't stop people running away. So,
it's nearly pointless as an assassination weapon unless you are much
faster than them or have them stuck in a corner.
(ii) You can pick up a weapon in less than a second.
(iii) Putting both hands on the weapon will prevent the spell
from causing you to drop it.
(iv) You could hold two weapons.
(v) It doesn't incapacitate mages/priests...
... and the list goes on. There's no real comparison between
Winds of Disarming and Black/Flash, even if they were the same level.
>Oh, no, of course, that makes them also insta-death spells...
No it doesn't.
>fundamentally any good defensive spell is a good offensive spell unless it
>does something extreme like erect a wall of force...
What about a "you cannot advance" spell? E.g. a 10s Gust of
Wind.
Yes, it's tricky to make defensive spells that can't be
twisted into offensive spells, but it can be done.
>any disarming or blinding effect can be used to truly destroy lines or
>single fighters, as they render them completely defenseless (sadly not the
>intended use of the spells)...
Lines aren't so bad - disarming is pretty trivial since, by
the time you've cast it on them all, the first few will have picked
their weapons up and can cover the other ones.
Blinding effects are pretty horrible, simply because there's
nothing in the system that says how you should act - munchkins choose
to be very slightly 'longsighted', role-players crawl around on their
knees.
Black/Flash isn't so bad on a long line, unless you have a
couple of fighters waiting for one edge of the line to go blind and
cut their way down the lines, 1 second behind the Flash. Trickier than
it seems, but a fighting line _is_ the strongest defensive formation
you can come up with agains Black/Flash.
Weapon destruction isn't any worse than disarming, until you
reach the point when there's less than 1 weapon per person, including
weapons left on corpses. It happens very rarely.
>Perhaps a 1st level spell (in grey maybe?) that does something to make it
>impossible to attack the caster for a couple of seconds,
!!!! Think about it !!!!
>or slows down the target's feet
Better - unfortunately it's called slow and put at level 3 or
higher (but then it does last 5 minutes). Walking speed is a difficult
one to ref - my walking speed is 2x most peoples. Feet stuck to the
ground for 3 seconds (but _not_ a trip effects). Still pretty
offensive, though, you could cast it on people as they run away and
then hack them down from behind (it would be hard for the to turn
around to face you).
>but not their attacks (thus making it a good "i'm running
>away" spell)...
Quite a good, you're running now I'm going to stop you and
hack you down from behind.
Marios
Marios
>In my LARP naivety, I at first assumed that you just shut your eyes if
>you'd been flashed (either by Marios' underwear or the spell) and
>continued as normal via your memory of your surroundings. I still don't
>see why this is in itself a problem, although I would think that if you'd
>been temporarily blinded (which is what flash is, isn't it?) then you'd
>have a moment or two of complete shock. Unless it happened to you on a
>reasonably regular basis, in which case you could more or less instantly
>flee.
A lot of people don't want to shut their eyes for fear of
falling over, getting knocked over, knocking someone over. It's fair
enough, if someone starts throwing Flash around in the bar, there will
be a lot of panic - everyone will run in different directions. Not a
good time to have your eyes closed OOC (unless you're leaning back
into a corner).
>What I'm trying to say is that a second or two of disorientation is
>reasonable, but after that, movement (and indeed, parrying/flailing with
>weapon) also seems reasonable.
2 seconds out of the 3 - and can you imagine people 'flailing'
with larp weapons?
>What I'm really trying to say is: ditch flash/backflash!
We programmed you well...
Marios
Marios
>> I'll support it as a motion as long as it doesn't 'illegalise' actualy
>> swiping.
>
>OK, allow swiping of objects that are just lying around, but any number of
>people will take *massive* offense at being poked at in an attempt to
>steal their wallet... I personally wouldn't complain but I can see any
>number of people getting really really annoyed at it...
No they didn't! Not the last time I did it. And now I can pay
the rent...
Think about it - you're not going to be stealing anyone's
wallet. You are never going to be sticking your hand into someone's
pocket unless they have an IC item slipping out of it (or unless they
are unconscious).
This is something that people can - and have! - applied common
sense to, like the many of other parts of the game where you are
likely to end up touching someone.
If there's something in someone's pocket that you can't reach
without serious physical contact then (i) you shouldn't be able to
steal it with pickpocket, because you would not be _able_ to
pickpocket it, (ii) you would never attempt to pickpocket it OOC,
because they would immediately notice and (iii) you'd never be able to
get a sticker on it either.
Poked where? Somewhere they couldn't poked during a fight,
with people running around the bar, landing a spell effect?
If lascivious groping were a problem then why hasn't it come
up with all the 'first aid I' checking or checking for concealed
weapons or any of a number of situations where people are searched?
Generally, people know where other people don't/won't want to
be touched and don't touch them there. I don't see how pickpocketing
would change this (unless people are stupid and hide vital plot item
in their underwear - heat metal!).
Marios
Marios
I didn't say anything about knives!
Just buy leather thongs that are strong enough to keep a pouch
on a belt, but weak enough to break. The standard ones you can pick up
for pouches are just that strength.
You're right - you can never have cutpurses who _actually_ cut
purses. But you can have purses whose ties can be easily broken.
Marios
Marios
>> Might make people think twice about using flash quite so often (which
>> reminds me; I haven't heard that call in quite a while) and will keep
>> warriors a good reason to have blindfighting?
>
>Haven't heard flash much because there haven't been many monster attacks
>in the bar, where the majority of mages stay when the cry "go get the
><insert monster name here> who just attacked the city"...
>
>No offense to any mage-players, and to any who do go out and fight them
>off, I apologise for not noticing...
The most heinouse use of Black/Flash was always on adventures
or PVP. If interactive monsters were designed to do more than appear
in the 'also ran' listings, they are immune to Flash/Blackflash (as,
you will notice, is every threatening monster). When Flash/Blackflash
were really popular we had a sudden run of eyeless monsters - monsters
with unbelievably sensitive hearing, big noses, long invisible
probosces...
Marios
Marcus Rich
> No they didn't! Not the last time I did it. And now I can pay
> the rent...
> Think about it - you're not going to be stealing anyone's
> wallet. You are never going to be sticking your hand into someone's
> pocket unless they have an IC item slipping out of it (or unless they
> are unconscious).
> This is something that people can - and have! - applied common
> sense to, like the many of other parts of the game where you are
> likely to end up touching someone.
OK, first point: common sense has indeed been applied, in situations where
complete OOC physrepping is not an issue, what you are suggesting though
is a completely OOC theft, done the way a real thief in the real world
would do it, and if common sense were applied in this situation people
simply wouldn't try since common sense negates about 80% of the chance of
success of the theft...
Second point:
It is accepted in combat you will get hit by weapons, this is somewhat
different to turning around in your seat and feeling someone's hand at
your hip, where it would land if they were nicking your pouch say...
> If there's something in someone's pocket that you can't reach
> without serious physical contact then (i) you shouldn't be able to
> steal it with pickpocket, because you would not be _able_ to
> pickpocket it, (ii) you would never attempt to pickpocket it OOC,
> because they would immediately notice and (iii) you'd never be able to
> get a sticker on it either.
OK, so it's in their pocket and therefore you can't see it, but a pouch is
another matter and still poses IC problems with real theft...
> Poked where? Somewhere they couldn't poked during a fight,
> with people running around the bar, landing a spell effect?
If there's commotion going on, like a fight or something, people who don't
want to be touched generally get into a corner or otherwise prepare
themselves for it... What I'm describing is completely unexpected contact
that is easily misinterpreted...
> If lascivious groping were a problem then why hasn't it come
> up with all the 'first aid I' checking or checking for concealed
> weapons or any of a number of situations where people are searched?
Not *DELIBERATE* groping... The interpretation of an act of pickpocketing
as groping.
> Generally, people know where other people don't/won't want to
> be touched and don't touch them there. I don't see how pickpocketing
> would change this (unless people are stupid and hide vital plot item
> in their underwear - heat metal!).
Where do I not want to be touched? Can you tell me? Can you tell most
members where they don't want to be touched?
I don't think it can be assumed that a budding thief will *know* their
victim doesn't mind OOC, and that the victim won't scream bloody murder if
it's done.
Marios
>Maybe one of the reasons you don't see mages rushing for the most
>dangerous situations much is because they're not actually that hard.
I agree! I've always said that mages were very weak.
>I don't think it's at all true that mages are over-powered. Maybe they
>were with 'old' flash and blackflash, but even then I wasn't convinced -
>maybe *combined* with warrior skills it's broken, but as an alternative
>to warrior skills there's little contest. Especially on adventures, a
>stick which you can hit people with and works every time, plus a whole
>load of hits, is far better than something which you only have so much
>of, and which hurts people only if you let it hurt you back, coupled
>with much lower hits meaning you're shafted if you don't happen to get
>it in there first.
I've never said that mages were over-powered. Only Black/Flash
("Mages don't kill monsters, Flashes do!"). You'll notice that mages
who didn't use Flash/Blackflash had to work really, really hard to do
anything on adventures.
>If spells like flash and blackflash are "game-breaking", WHY do the
>mages hide when there's danger, rather than standing proud in the middle
>of the bar with their alleged invulnerability? WHY do mages spend a lot
>of adventures tramping along with almost nothing to do? WHY is almost
>exactly every fight on an adventure solved with raw swordpower, rather
>than the mages using their "game-breaking" spells to just walk through?
The spell _is_ game-breaking. Any monster that's supposed to
provide a decent challenge automatically has to be Flash/Blackflash
resistant. In PVP, Flash/Blackflash is disgusting.
Flash isn't about being invulnerable, it's about being able to
kill anything if you are willing to lean on the rules.
People who don't feel happy leaning on the rules or doing
'munchy' things don't use Black/Flash to kill stuff.
(Pure) Mages spend a lot of their time trumping about because
- while they do have the ability to kill anything by paralysing it and
chopping it to pieces - you rarely meet anything that the can't just
kill anyway, without the waste of mana.
On the first 3YGB of the term, the entire character party were
saved by the use of Flash. And the party used it in a very, very
disorganised fashion - we were rarely attacked when we were flashed,
generally there was time for us to run away, taking only one or two
blows before it wore off.
Again, on the Return to Arcadia adventure, without Alison
using Flash, they would have been butchered in the Tin Man encounter.
Now that I think about it, I've not seen a spell used as often
or as effectively as Flash in the last term. Every time I've been on
adventure with Mages and serious fights, flashes were the thing that
determined it (unless we were immune). Which is actually pretty
unsatisfying for the monsters - you fight for a bit lose a few hits,
land a few hits, then you're flashed and you die.
Because adventure refs got really, really wussy in the last
few years - fights on adventures could be solved with raw swordpower,
without any need for Flashes.
There's also machine-gunning - I can point at you, cast Flash
and you'll probably die in the resulting bludgeoning. Or I can run at
you and beat on you incredibly rapidly and you'll definitely die. The
only danger is taking damage (which is still a problem when using
flash) - so, Plate Self became more popular than Flash, because it was
more important not to take damage than to knock out 4 monsters. Put up
plate self and you could generally take out N monsters, where N was 15
minutes / divided by the time to move from one monster to the other
and machinegun it to the ground.
Alright - that's an extremem rant, but we're talking about
extremes here (where you'd expect the Flashes to come out).
>Because mages aren't over-powered at all. There's no need to remove any
>spells.
Even Globe of Darkness?
> Maybe old flash and blackflash were overpowered but now they're
>not really.
The time was never the key issue - it's the fact that
blindness is un-defined, so you have to take it as paralysis just to
be sure. 3 seconds of paralysis, 10 seconds of paralysis? Either way,
I'm dead without being able to put up any fight at all - the only
change is mana efficiency.
For a pure mage you are still talking about being able to
output 2 hits of damage for every pt of mana. You can see why range
spells are still underused - a choice between firedarting the
green-elf or Flashing it? Well, even with your dagger you'll be able
to knock out 4 blows before he comes out of it, he can't run away
while flashed and _everyone_ can hit him for 4-6 blows while he's
flashed.
>Even when I was playing a mage I used to carry a stick, and
>I found that half the time it was easier to "half" things to death than
>waste my precious mana and even more precious health by using magic.
Yes. If things get really gnarly, add 3 seconds of paralysis
to the Stick of Halves.
>People concentrate a lot on the "one entirely unharmed full-power
>warrior, one entirely unharmed full-power mage" scenario; but that's
>simply not that common. Yeah, maybe, at high levels, the mage would
>win. But most situations aren't like that. The main difference between
>the two is that, if the warrior DOES win, they can go on and do it
>again, and again, and again. If the mage wins that's probably taken up
>half their mana and health. Mages are already sometimes unuseful to the
>point of being bored on adventures; don't make it worse.
Direct damage spells is a separate thing - I'm reasonable
happy with magic-users blowing other people away with direct damage
spells - they do have a chance, since they can run in/away - they can
become more resistant by buying more hits - and it's what those spells
are actually designed for - and you can't 'lean' on the interpretation
to make them much more powerful.
Flash is one of the reasons mages have been downpowered and
trod on again and again. The spell effect simply cannot be balanced,
because you can always leverage it into a death spell. With mages
having a level 1 death spell, is it any surprise that they are
constantly downpowered and stamped on?
I say to you! Black/Flash is a millstone around mages necks -
whether they use it as a death spell or not, the entire class is
balanced assuming the worst.
If you remove Flash/Blackflash people will finally start being
more generous to mages (step one: remove the concept that mages can't
cast if a sword/chainmail is being pressed against them by someone
else).
Hopefully then, we'd see more than a few token attempts to use
spells other than Flash/Blackflash in dangerous situations.
Marios
Marcus Rich
> saved by the use of Flash. And the party used it in a very, very
> disorganised fashion - we were rarely attacked when we were flashed,
> generally there was time for us to run away, taking only one or two
> blows before it wore off.
Try leaping from defensive to offensive in heavy armour wearing a
shield... plus the entire character party had *something* wrong (weak
legs, lingering illness, etc)... We *could* have organised better and
co-ordinated our attacks better, but didn't have the muscle to get away
with it for the most part...
Anyway...
Marcus Rich
> spells other than Flash/Blackflash in dangerous situations.
> Marios
And no more "you flash it and i'll kill it" from non-mage characters...
"Flash it??? *muttermuttermutter* FLASH!"
"I sait IT not ME!"
This is how "you flash it..." chats should go ;)
Marios
>> Maybe one of the reasons you don't see mages rushing for the most
>> dangerous situations much is because they're not actually that hard.
>
>As opposed to the uber-hard priests and scouts and alchemists...
>
>OK so warriors are hard, they're supposed to be, but mages physically are
>no weaker than their non-warrior counterparts, and frequently (due to
>metal restrictions) carry the uber-death weapon that is the quarterstaff.
Yes. The comparison is really between characters with Warrior
and characters without.
Characters without are ill-served, partly by difficult to
use/apply rules, but mostly because it's (a lot) more work for the
refs.
A pure mage tends to do a bit better than a pure priest -
priests find (found, hopefully) it hard to ever use their spirit for
anything other than healing.
Scouts? Weak fighters with short weapons. At least they got to
entertain themselves by crawling through the undergrowth.
>But a 1-mana spell, and couple of "half"s with your quarterstaff, then a
>few more before the fighter gets in range again, is pretty hard... As for
>mages going along with nothing to do, the same could apply to priests
>except that they have healing, and alchemists... Mages *could* do plenty
>on an adventure if they were willing...
There tends to be lots of widdle-monsters - easily killed
without wasting mana. Then one or two very hard monsters, who are
immune to Flash/Blackflash - since it's painfully anti-climactic to
see a big monster taken down with a 1st level spell.
So, yes, generally encounters are set to _avoid_ the
usefulness of Flash. If you had an adventure where you met a small
number of medium strength, effect-by-Flash monsters in each encounter
then mana-permitting you could kill every monster without taking any
damage at all.
Obviously, you'd never be able to run an adventure again,
because no one would ever want to monster for you.
>Personally what I dislike is the metagaming opinion of "i'd better save up
>my mana since i'm bound to need it at the last fight" attitude carried by
>many mages and priests, when a mage, if the situation is suitable, would
>realistically blow a bit of mana on a quick talk-to spell or a detect
>spell...
It's fair enough in the general sense - blowing all your mana
away in the first two encounters can be rather discouraging.
And if you wait for a moment where your magic can really make
a difference, you may reach the last encounter having used none of it.
>Because they choose not to fight? Because it's easier to leave it to the
>fighters and other people willing to fight? I'd think this was due to a
>lot of mages being played by players who generally don't enjoy fighting,
>and thus avoid fighting for OOC reasons, of course i could be wrong...
Thankfully, a lot of people realise that blinding a monster
and beating it to death while it screams and clutches it's eyes isn't
very exciting/heroic. Fighting a monster with a sword is a lot more
fun. Blowing it away with Fireballs is a lot more fun.
It's not that the spell has meaningfully changed, more that
it's become more and more unpopular to Flassassinate monsters.
Marios
Marcus Rich
<Snip>
None of those were meant as realistic suggestions, what they were intended
to do was put up the idea of creating a replacement, which they did :P
I feel vindicated, now you can go back to arguing with Tim...
Zoë Robinson
news:bvotrj$di4$1...@sirius.dur.ac.uk...
<Cut>
> Maybe one of the reasons you don't see mages rushing for the most
> dangerous situations much is because they're not actually that hard.
You didn't meet Boren Kanly (Water mage who converted to Darkness,
eventually got the Ring of Ultimate Power and set-off the Crisis) or Jacques
(pure Darkness mage), did you?
Jacques didn't have any levels of health and died after taking down a few
monsters with Black Flash and the ability to deal halves (see, I've tried it
and this is why I think it's a bad thing). Boren lasted two terms and was
only taken down thanks to being beaten unconcious by three Children of
Light, Patrick the Black and a couple of other people, then being stabbed
through the heart while unconcious.
He had three levels of health and needed a f*cking possee to take him down
and even then they only killed him by taking him out while he was prone.
The moral of this story is: mages are as hard as anyone else (a pure fighter
excepted) and the only reason people think they need these low-level death
spells is because the people who play mages aren't willing to play mages for
what they are in TT (more hardy than a civilian and backed-up with the power
to kill at range, plus often carrying the greatest weapon in LARP: a
long-range melee weapon). They play them for what they think they are in TT
(weak and having to conserve power).
> If spells like flash and blackflash are "game-breaking", WHY do the
> mages hide when there's danger, rather than standing proud in the middle
> of the bar with their alleged invulnerability?
They should - they're as hard as anyone else, they can turn off a fighter's
ability to attack with one word and they can use a quarterstaff (long range
melee weapon available to anyone).
> WHY do mages spend a lot of adventures tramping along with almost nothing
> to do?
Because the player isn't playing a mage the way the mage is designed.
They're playing the mage the way it looks like a DnD mage would act in the
TT world.
> WHY is almost exactly every fight on an adventure solved with raw
swordpower,
> rather than the mages using their "game-breaking" spells to just walk
through?
Because the mages *let* *it* *happen*.
> Because mages aren't over-powered at all. There's no need to remove any
> spells. Maybe old flash and blackflash were overpowered but now they're
> not really. Even when I was playing a mage I used to carry a stick, and
> I found that half the time it was easier to "half" things to death than
> waste my precious mana and even more precious health by using magic.
That's your opinion but I've pointed out my opinion and backed it up with
two examples of how my pure mages acted, with the consequences associated
with them. As you can see, a pure mage taking only a few levels of health
can last a long time and use their power to the full.
Can we now see an example of the type of mage you are describing, please?
Zoė
--
"You can't stop being dead just because you're a different
colour!" - Saruman to Gandalf, 'Dead Ringers'
Tag
> "Tag" <T.S.P...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:bvotrj$di4$1...@sirius.dur.ac.uk...
> <Cut>
>> Maybe one of the reasons you don't see mages rushing for the most
>> dangerous situations much is because they're not actually that hard.
> You didn't meet
It wasn't actually me who commented that you don't usually see mages
rushing into the dangerous situations - I think it was Marcus. It does
appear to be true of most mages, though, from rough experience in the
bar.
> Boren Kanly (Water mage who converted to Darkness,
> eventually got the Ring of Ultimate Power and set-off the Crisis) or Jacques
> (pure Darkness mage), did you?
<snip descriptions>
Oh, I didn't say it wasn't possible to play mages who get into the heart
of things. Ditto Vespus, my main mage character. He was usually at the
heart of the fight, had a habit of walking 50 feet in front of the rest
of the party (not scouting, just walking blithely down the path looking
for trouble - about as effective as any other scouting method to be
honest), and lasted a couple of years. He only died when he
inadvertantly raised Hengist and an army of death knights (it seemed
like a good idea at the time).
On the other hand even with him I spent a lot of time feeling like,
well, I could do something useful, but to be honest it was easier to
leave it to the fighters. The majority of encounters I didn't get
involved at all; I knew I could deal with it, but then I wouldn't have
mana for the rest of the event. On the other hand, the fighters could
probably just bash it to death and go on unharmed. He got involved more
when I picked up a warmetal sword he could do halves with...
<snip>
>> If spells like flash and blackflash are "game-breaking", WHY do the
>> mages hide when there's danger, rather than standing proud in the middle
>> of the bar with their alleged invulnerability?
> They should - they're as hard as anyone else, they can turn off a fighter's
> ability to attack with one word and they can use a quarterstaff (long range
> melee weapon available to anyone).
Mmm, to do halves... you don't get to do singles with it even with Melee
1, which at least used to be the maximum socially acceptable level for
mages. I'd feel a bit guilty about using one with any competence while
in posession of absolutely no relevant skills. Carrying one at all is a
deviance from proper 'pure mage'. Pure fighters don't carry a bit of
magic with them to back them up when it gets hairy.
>> WHY is almost exactly every fight on an adventure solved with raw
> swordpower,
>> rather than the mages using their "game-breaking" spells to just walk
> through?
> Because the mages *let* *it* *happen*.
Indeed. Because they know it will happen. The mage can get involved,
and it's terribly nice for the poor dears to get a chance to do
something, but it would really be just as quick most of the time if they
just left it to the fighters.
(Anything requiring brainpower, of course, will immediately be picked up
by the curiously intelligent fighters and half the time the mage won't
get a chance to do anything there either...)
>> Because mages aren't over-powered at all. There's no need to remove any
>> spells. Maybe old flash and blackflash were overpowered but now they're
>> not really. Even when I was playing a mage I used to carry a stick, and
>> I found that half the time it was easier to "half" things to death than
>> waste my precious mana and even more precious health by using magic.
> That's your opinion but I've pointed out my opinion and backed it up with
> two examples of how my pure mages acted, with the consequences associated
> with them. As you can see, a pure mage taking only a few levels of health
> can last a long time and use their power to the full.
> Can we now see an example of the type of mage you are describing, please?
I'm not sure. Stand in the bar, shout "danger", then enumerate the
mages who don't rush out to fight it. You'll find it to be
approximately equal to the number of mages in the bar. Admittedly
that's often zero, as people seem to have realised that fighters are
usually more fun...
The mage class isn't *horribly* broken; yes, of course, you can do a
_lot_ of stuff. If you couldn't, they would literally never be played;
and yes, my two favourite old characters were mages (never quite *pure*
mages, though - a pure mage really is cannon fodder if they use up their
mana, or next to useless if they're not willing to use up their mana; I
count a mage who carries a stick as not really being a pure mage
though). And no, what I've said above mostly isn't how I've ever played
mages, because that's simply no fun.
Nevertheless, in the majority of situations where a mage is good, a
fighter would be even better. I don't see a lot of fights broken by
flash and blackflash, and if they are then it's more than made up for by
the number of encounters which should have been an opportunity for
creative use of magery, but the fighters found it easier just to wander
through them killing everything instead...
--
----------( And oft between the boughs is seen )--- fudge@
Tag ------( The sly shade of a Rural Dean . . . )--- durge.
----------( )--- org
Huggietag - Htag.pl 0.0.17
Marcus Rich
yes, it was me who commented that a lot of mages don't seem to leave the
bar (hey, I was guilty of this when playing my mage so I'm living
proof)...
And Zoe, I was actually trying to make the point you made in response to
Tim's post, that mages *are* pretty hard, and *can* do loads of stuff if
they so wish, but simply aren't played that way...
As I see it, there are two options with regard to the mage "class"...
1) leave it as it is and hope people start playing mages the way they were
intended and that common sense prevails.
2) downstat mages to the point where they *are* as weak as they are
all-too-often played...
I personally don't like the latter option, and would prefer a compromise
whereby mages kept their significant powers (and I really wish we could
have a linear mana-gain as was suggested at last AGM so that low level
mages aren't crippled by a lack of mana although I understand the
arguments against this), but lose some of the poorly specified and truly
disgusting stuff they do have but shouldn't...
flash is just a single example and sadly one that has in the past been
used to brutal effect by many mages, where the nature of the spell has led
to its use in a way that was not intended...
Anyway, that's my 2p on it as the debate stands...
Marcus Rich
Dear Tim,
I agree entirely with your last point, that mages all too often are
superceded in a situation by fighters... Unfortunately giving mages a real
opportunity means monsters that are partially or totally immune to
physical damage, or are immensely weak to magical damage (water-based
monsters, darkness based monsters, etc) which always has the potential to
wipe out a character party...
It'd be really nice to see the fighters in a party willing to give a mage
a chance, but again as you said it's all too easy to simply walk into the
offending monsters and deal out death with nasty pointy teeth...
It's just a fact of the system that most things encountered by characters
tend to be aggressive or easily intimidated, or simply not important
enough to keep alive, and therefore are fighter-fodder, where a few
encounters set up to be more fun for mages and priests would be really
cool but run the risk of alienating the fighters since they didn't get to
kill it...
Some of the best adventures have a good balance of these types of
encounters, and work very well, usually with the entire party coming away
happy and with some great anecdotes of "remember when X's mage did
this/Y's fighter got into a convo between two mages" etc...
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if mages aren't getting the
opportunities to roleplay, then either they can force it upon everyone
(not popular) or they can be given the opportunity, which adventure refs
frequently are able to do and when it is done it works really really
well...
And being on the receiving end of a well roleplayed mage is a real treat
as a monster, when you have to remember spell effects you thought were
never used, or have just the right thing done to you (besides flash) to
make an encounter end perfectly...
Same for priests, all the non-fighter characters can work really really
well in an adventure if the opportunity is there :)
j d mcgettrick
Marcus Rich wrote:
>> On the first 3YGB of the term, the entire character party were
>>saved by the use of Flash. And the party used it in a very, very
>>disorganised fashion - we were rarely attacked when we were flashed,
>>generally there was time for us to run away, taking only one or two
>>blows before it wore off.
>
>
> Try leaping from defensive to offensive in heavy armour wearing a
> shield... plus the entire character party had *something* wrong (weak
> legs, lingering illness, etc)... We *could* have organised better and
> co-ordinated our attacks better, but didn't have the muscle to get away
> with it for the most part...
>
> Anyway...
>
I don't think he was criticising your organisation. Merely pointing out that in spite of it flash
saved the day.
--
Jimbob!
*hyperfluffiness is a state of mind*
j d mcgettrick
Paul Townend wrote:
> marios richards (marios....@durham.ac.uk) wrote:
>
> : The issue here - and part of my dislike of Flash/Blackflash is that it
> : is very badly defined.
>
>
> In my LARP naivety, I at first assumed that you just shut your eyes if
> you'd been flashed (either by Marios' underwear or the spell) and
> continued as normal via your memory of your surroundings. I still don't
> see why this is in itself a problem, although I would think that if you'd
> been temporarily blinded (which is what flash is, isn't it?) then you'd
> have a moment or two of complete shock. Unless it happened to you on a
> reasonably regular basis, in which case you could more or less instantly
> flee.
>
> What I'm trying to say is that a second or two of disorientation is
> reasonable, but after that, movement (and indeed, parrying/flailing with
> weapon) also seems reasonable.
>
> What I'm really trying to say is: ditch flash/backflash!
>
>
> *Paul has been well trained by Marios and Si*
>
I agree. With all of it!
--
Jimbob!
*hyperfluffiness is a state of mind*
James McGettrick
Vacation: 48 Park Road, Redhill, Surrey RH1 2AH
Phone (01737) 767352
Department of Chemistry
University Science Laboratories
South Road, Durham
DH1 3LE
United Kingdom
Marios
>None of those were meant as realistic suggestions, what they were intended
>to do was put up the idea of creating a replacement, which they did :P
Replace the death spell that it is or replace the get away
spell that it was?
Marios
renaud van-strydonck
Flash is a good idea: it's the good idea of allowing a weak mage a 3
second chance to leg it. I've used it like that and found it to be
entirely worthwhile. I appreciate that it can be missused.
If people honestly think that removing Flash will mystically improve a
mage's already weak chances; I'm willing to go along with it for a while.
But consider this: over these discussions, we have downstatted mages and
scouts with inexorable enthusiasm. I suspect the only reason priests
have been left in their box is because fighters get scratched.
What I'm trying to say is that there are people in the society who don't
like to fight... quite a few of them as it turns out.
In response to the "if we have to make someone immune to a level 1
spell" trail of thought: we don't, but it's a considerable idea to allow
people with blindfighting not to feel cheated when they get level-oned
and allow mages not to feel like they're getting flayed a little thinner
once again.
Furthermore; making a few people immune to flash as a skill isn't as
dumb an idea as you are trying to make it sound. Consider.
I know we're trying to fix mages, and I know that it's not easy.
A possibility might be to say that Flash requires both hands free to
cast; to deterr from its combat usage.
Or how about a spell called Glimmer; that causes the target to avoid the
caster for 3 seconds... it would retain its defensive usefulness (since
the mage could still get away) but the monster could still pummel other
characters freely.
Better still might be a version that causes the Monster or Player to
choose 'another target' for three seconds; maintaining's the potential
team aspect of the spell since it can be used to give someone else a
chance to run out of the way...
See what you think; but I think the trend of tearing down to rebuild is
likely to solve the problem by discouraging mages to be played entirely.
I think that would be a pity.
Renaud
renaud van-strydonck
Okay, pickpocketting does work like that, but not very well: You'd
almost certainly notice. The reason people cut the purses is because
it's relatively easy to do so without tugging too obviously.
Not to mention the fact that it would probably lead to people keeping
non-looter friendly purses to avoid getting looted. It's a tricky idea
but I doubt it can be implemented.
Marios
>OK, first point: common sense has indeed been applied, in situations where
>complete OOC physrepping is not an issue, what you are suggesting though
>is a completely OOC theft, done the way a real thief in the real world
>would do it, and if common sense were applied in this situation people
>simply wouldn't try since common sense negates about 80% of the chance of
>success of the theft...
Exactly - that's what being a thief is all about - waiting and
watching for your moment. Much like scouting really, it relies on
patience.
Thieving has - up 'til now - been completely OOC phys-repped
for years. I haven't heard of anyone using Light Fingers.
The problem with thievery isn't that it's too hard, it's that
there's nothing to thieve. Without a money system and phys-repped
items moving around, what's the point?
Anyway, so does this mechanic:
"The character may steal items in easy reach from a character or
monster. The item need not be visible but must not be being held.
To use this skill the character must tell a Ref in advance and then
get within pickpocket distance within the next 10 minutes (simulating
the furtive behaviour - not just sitting down for a chat!). If the Ref
judges that the thief has shown clear opportunity for the theft, they
will remove the item from the target and give secretly to the thief.
If the Ref judges that the target has become alerted, they may inform
the target of the thiefs attempted actions. "
>Second point:
>
>It is accepted in combat you will get hit by weapons, this is somewhat
>different to turning around in your seat and feeling someone's hand at
>your hip, where it would land if they were nicking your pouch say...
Is it? If that happens to you will you think "pervert!" or
"thief!". Whichever you shout, they are still going to go away.
This has never come up as an issue - despite the minimal
number of female and hordes of unattached males. If it did come up as
an issue then we'd need to go around and fiddle _all_ of the hand
contact rules - shocks, heals, causes. The most immediate form of
contact most people have is "first aid I" - you get knocked out,
someone rushes over and lays hands on you, does a bit of role-play
'looking for holes' and says 'first aid I'. Ditto, looting.
If anyone was inclined to cop a feel, it would have come up
already.
Given that it's not happened in 6 years (?), the likelihood
that it will happen in the future is so low that it can be dealt with
on a case by case basis.
Anyway, I think you're getting hung up on the word
"pickpocket" - it doesn't always mean pocket. In fact, it very rarely
means pocket. Generally, we don't keep IC items in thin trouser
pockets - we keep them in accessible areas like pouches, wide open
jacket pockets, canvas bags.
If you really thought that 'hands in the pocket' was a really
problematic scenario simply tell people not to put IC items in their
trouser pockets/underwear.
>> If there's something in someone's pocket that you can't reach
>> without serious physical contact then (i) you shouldn't be able to
>> steal it with pickpocket, because you would not be _able_ to
>> pickpocket it, (ii) you would never attempt to pickpocket it OOC,
>> because they would immediately notice and (iii) you'd never be able to
>> get a sticker on it either.
>
>OK, so it's in their pocket and therefore you can't see it, but a pouch is
>another matter and still poses IC problems with real theft...
Does it? Why? You're suggesting that it poses the problem of
_real_ theft, potentially witnessed by anyone looking, of IC stuff?
>> Poked where? Somewhere they couldn't poked during a fight,
>> with people running around the bar, landing a spell effect?
>
>If there's commotion going on, like a fight or something, people who don't
>want to be touched generally get into a corner or otherwise prepare
>themselves for it... What I'm describing is completely unexpected contact
>that is easily misinterpreted...
Generally, when a fight (particularly one with confused
running and panicking) kicks off there's no time to move anywhere. If
you're in any larp scenario, you've got to accept the possibility or
getting run into/knocked over.
The only exceptions occur when we have someone with crutches
or a musical instrument - and they always find themselves a piece of
wall to play/stand against and don't move around much - everyone knows
not to run their. And they still have to deal with a moderate amount
of pushing.
>> If lascivious groping were a problem then why hasn't it come
>> up with all the 'first aid I' checking or checking for concealed
>> weapons or any of a number of situations where people are searched?
>
>Not *DELIBERATE* groping... The interpretation of an act of pickpocketing
>as groping.
Why not interpret the phys-repping of first aid I or looting
as groping?
If you feel someone touching you and you're unconscious, you
assume you are being tended to, checked for wounds or about to be
carried. If you feel someone fiddling with your belt, shout "thief!".
>> Generally, people know where other people don't/won't want to
>> be touched and don't touch them there. I don't see how pickpocketing
>> would change this (unless people are stupid and hide vital plot item
>> in their underwear - heat metal!).
>
>Where do I not want to be touched? Can you tell me? Can you tell most
>members where they don't want to be touched?
Yes - open any general psychology textbook (Lynda!) and it has
a load of diagrams.
There's a list of polite places you can touch people - upper
shoulder, upper arm - places family members touch you - top of head,
upper back and so on.
You are asking me for a list of places where you should try to
avoid touching people? Well, it's pretty obvious - genitals and chest
and nearby areas. If you touch someone's inner thigh, they are
probably going to be offended, if you touch someone's outer thigh,
they are just going to wonder why.
If you have an unfortunate 'hand touching' psychosis then (i)
tell everyone before you start, (ii) suck it up or (iii) don't play.
>I don't think it can be assumed that a budding thief will *know* their
>victim doesn't mind OOC, and that the victim won't scream bloody murder if
>it's done.
The same goes for _anything_ in larp. There are some people
who really don't like being hit with a weapon in a certain location.
Tough. It's up to them to communicate any non-immediately obvious
facts to everyone else.
There is _no one_ in the society who is less tactile than me.
I _really_ do not like contact with other people. But it's simply part
of the hobby - you can't play LARP unless you are willing to accept
that you are going to come into contact with people. The moment you
enter the game, you become an object in the game. If people kill you
and leave you in the middle of the bar, then that is where you must
stay.
How often do you stop to ask a corpse if they want to be
carired out? Maybe they don't want you touching them? Maybe they don't
want to stand up and walk out?
What you do is, you start to pick them up (and not by their
genitals!) and if they want to properly carried (e.g. if there's two+
of you) they don't help. If they want to 'assist' your carrying them
out, they put their feet underneath and take most of the weight.
If they've got some issue/problem with being carried they can
always walk out on their own with you standing next to them. Although
it looks naff.
Marios
Marios
>> On the first 3YGB of the term, the entire character party were
>> saved by the use of Flash. And the party used it in a very, very
>> disorganised fashion - we were rarely attacked when we were flashed,
>> generally there was time for us to run away, taking only one or two
>> blows before it wore off.
>
>Try leaping from defensive to offensive in heavy armour wearing a
>shield... plus the entire character party had *something* wrong (weak
>legs, lingering illness, etc)... We *could* have organised better and
>co-ordinated our attacks better, but didn't have the muscle to get away
>with it for the most part...
It wasn't a dig - there weren't many of you, you weren't
experienced in your roles and you hadn't worked together before. It's
usual to not be 'simpatico' on your first few outings.
Marios
David Leach
"Marios" <mar...@richards9196.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4020199b...@news.freeserve.net...
Ok, but then they tend to be a bit useless for carrying much in in case they
just break......
Tag
> Furthermore; making a few people immune to flash as a skill isn't as
> dumb an idea as you are trying to make it sound. Consider.
Oddly, most mages would give an awful lot in order to be immune to the
simple level 1 skill "Melee 1"...
Tag
=-=
--
oOoOo And oft between the boughs is seen oOoOo
oOoOo The sly shade of a Rural Dean . . . oOoOo
oOoOo oOoOo
oOoOo oTago
Marios
>mages got 2/level, priests 3/level, fighters 6/level and
>barbarians/berserkers 8/level but no metal armour. So really, the
>warrior skill set should have a fourth health skill which is not
>compatible with metal armour (probably would be if a fourth was added
>and armour is bumped to 10XP per buy).
Fourth? Why not just alter the third?
Marios
renaud van-strydonck
>
>
>>Furthermore; making a few people immune to flash as a skill isn't as
>>dumb an idea as you are trying to make it sound. Consider.
>
>
> Oddly, most mages would give an awful lot in order to be immune to the
> simple level 1 skill "Melee 1"...
>
> Tag
> =-=
:0D - No; a skill that makes you immune to Flash. Blindfighting.
Tag
>> In dur.dsu.treasure-trap renaud van-strydonck <renaud.van...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Furthermore; making a few people immune to flash as a skill isn't as
>>>dumb an idea as you are trying to make it sound. Consider.
>>
>> Oddly, most mages would give an awful lot in order to be immune to the
>> simple level 1 skill "Melee 1"...
> :0D - No; a skill that makes you immune to Flash. Blindfighting.
I know what you meant; but I see no reason why it should be considered
so unreasonable that a mage with a level 1 skill be dangerous to
fighters (to the extent that they need another skill that makes them
immune, when a fighter with a level 1 skill is terribly dangerous to
mages (and they largely can't afford the expensive armour skills that
would protect them)...
Marcus Rich
> spell that it was?
> Marios
the first, definitely, the latter, probably...
when you really get down to it a mage is still a human and can *always*
run, the question is really whether or not they should have access to a
spell to aid them...
Marcus Rich
> there's nothing to thieve. Without a money system and phys-repped
> items moving around, what's the point?
This situation still exists even with a money system since most people
don't carry IC money on them, or if they do they carry it in a wallet in
their pocket...
If the IC money system was enforced then it'd be worth nicking stuff, but
as it stands weapons are about all there is...
Marcus Rich
> already.
You're still missing the point, I'm not saying anyone would "cop a feel",
I'm saying that the victim of the theft would quite possibly misinterpret
the contact as this.
First Aid etc are used in a sensible fashion, and the target is fully
aware of what is going on, theft requires the target be completely
unaware...
Marios
>> Try leaping from defensive to offensive in heavy armour wearing a
>> shield... plus the entire character party had *something* wrong (weak
>> legs, lingering illness, etc)... We *could* have organised better and
>> co-ordinated our attacks better, but didn't have the muscle to get away
>> with it for the most part...
>>
>> Anyway...
>>
>
>I don't think he was criticising your organisation. Merely pointing out that in spite of it flash
>saved the day.
Yes and after the flashes, it was Marcus' practice with shield
fighting that stopped the party getting picked off, one by one.
Marios
Marios
>>> In dur.dsu.treasure-trap renaud van-strydonck <renaud.van...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Furthermore; making a few people immune to flash as a skill isn't as
>>>>dumb an idea as you are trying to make it sound. Consider.
>>>
>>> Oddly, most mages would give an awful lot in order to be immune to the
>>> simple level 1 skill "Melee 1"...
>
>> :0D - No; a skill that makes you immune to Flash. Blindfighting.
>
>I know what you meant; but I see no reason why it should be considered
>so unreasonable that a mage with a level 1 skill be dangerous to
>fighters (to the extent that they need another skill that makes them
>immune, when a fighter with a level 1 skill is terribly dangerous to
>mages (and they largely can't afford the expensive armour skills that
>would protect them)...
Do you really think the other level 1 spells are balanced
compared to Flash?
Firedart? I think you've got to go up to Magic Missile before
you've got a reasonable comparison (and only in 1v1 situations - Magic
Missile doesn't get better the more people you have on your side,
Black/Flash does).
I'm not looking at this from "they'll kill my character" point
of view, more as a "do you _really_ want this in the game".
3s 10 ft range paralysis can be used to win any fight where
the target is not immune. Now, you can continue to fiddle about with
the definition (it used to be 10 seconds, then 5, now 3 - Blackflash
used to have an (other) undefined 'stun' effect - some people claimed
that they happened too fast to be dispellable and that you couldn't
cast under the effect...), but unless it ceases to be effective/near
paralysis (or even 'optional' paralysis - only works on
non-munchkins), it's going to be a problem.
There's a crucial difference between deadly and dangerous.
As standard, mages deal Halves, fighters deal Singles. If they
engage in melee, the mage either has to fight really well, be really
lucky, or they will slowly lose the fight, or they can run away.
Unless we redefine _exactly_ what blind means Black/Flash is
paralysis + (non-damaging) thrashing. Yes, it's not a perfect death
spell - but it's closer than any of the other mage spells.
Marios
daniel prebble
Marios wrote:>
>
>
> This is something that people can - and have! - applied common
> sense to, like the many of other parts of the game where you are
> likely to end up touching someone.
> (unless people are stupid and hide vital plot item
> in their underwear - heat metal!).
> Marios
Marios, on numerous occasions when you've been monstering for me, you
have been somewhat reticent with the loot. You have often had treasure
wedged in unspeakable places. Yes its more entertaining to find, but
not necessarily acceptable to find. There is an issue there and its
wrong to trivialise it. I agree that there is an element of common
sense involved but ultimately, the system is not designed as, or
functions as , a 'hard' reality larp system where you do have to find items.
Just thought I'd bring up your filthy hypocrisy.
Dan
daniel prebble
alice macklin wrote:
> As I said above, can we start the AGM about five hours early this year?
> Otherwise we'll be there until the next one rolls round, at this rate!
> It's all very well saying that arguing on the net gets it done and out
> of the way, but since when did Larpers ever say anything once when it
> could be said many times, at great length, in ever louder voices? (I
> cite all of the above discussions on skill amendments as proof of this!)
>
> Liss.
>
It doesn't really matter, we'll all vote the way the secret Inner Circle
tells us to anyway.
I said too much.
Marios
>> Furthermore; making a few people immune to flash as a skill isn't as
>> dumb an idea as you are trying to make it sound. Consider.
>
>Oddly, most mages would give an awful lot in order to be immune to the
>simple level 1 skill "Melee 1"...
Well, they used to be with Plate Self. But that made for
really naff adventures and lower monster turn-outs.
As did Flash in it's hey day.
<Rant: Where did all the monsters go?>
When the SBS came in we had a year or so of people
Firedart-gunning monsters (double-buying Elemental Skill/Power). Not
terribly exciting, but even with 100+ mana you still won't nearly
enough to take down all but a small fraction of the monsters. And, at
least, you get to scream, twitch and die with Firedarts.
Then we had a year of two of Flash Dominance. If ever you were
a threatening monster that had got close to the chatacter party and
were in danger of hitting someone you suddenly went blind and died.
Then we had a year or so of Platelocks (Spirit Armourers, as
well, to a much lesser extent) - up goes plate self, down goes the one
monster dealing doubles, the rest of the character party backs off to
the treeline to watch one player chase down all the remaining
monsters.
Ever since the Age of Flash, monster numbers have been
dwindling. I was one of the few who made it through to the Age of
Plate and I gave up pretty soon after that and started going to game
soc instead or sleeping in on Saturdays.
It's not that monstering is all about fights. But -
non-linear's aside - it's about 75% fights.
Basically, role-play encounters vary wildly from ref to ref or
adventure to adventure. Sometimes they are naff, sometimes they are
good. When they are good, they are generally only good for one or two
of the monsters (ok for the rest, but not worth turning up for on
their own). When they are naff, you spend the encounter thinking about
the other things you could be doing.
Generally, entertaining fights provide a baseline of enjoyment
from adventure to adventure, irrelevant of who's actually writing it.
Note : people who don't like fights don't tend to monster. Not because
they think they'll be forced to fight, but because without the fun of
fighting monstering involves a 20% chance of an (actually)
entertaining roleplay role and a high probability of some drudging kit
around, being someone's passive statue or corpse encounter.
When fights cease to be fun - either because of
machine-gunning, Flash or Plate Self - then monster turn-out drops off
drastically. By 'fun' I don't mean hacking the party to pieces in
encounter 1, but being (i) able to effect the characters - not have
all your blows bounce off the Singles-immune character, (ii) being
able to reach the characters and trade blows without suddenly going
blind and being pummeled to the ground (still preferable to bouncing,
though) and (iii) being able to conflict with a character/s. Conflict
can be many things - trying to sneak through woods, and find the other
person without them finding you - trying to outrun the other person -
trying to out think the other person (very difficult to set this one
up fairly) - trying to out fight the other person, doens't matter what
combination of weapons you are using, as long as it's a contest of
skill, not just somone running up to you, standing on your toes and
drum-rolling on you head.
So, yes I'm biased against Black/Flash, because they simply
aren't fun or interesting to be hit with. Having been hit with them
for years, I've not come up with a clever way of dealing with them
which doesn't involve pushing the interpretation of 'blind'
drastically in my favour or counting very fast.
You get flashed and either the character party are organised
enough to kill you while you are flashed or not. If they weren't
organised enough the first time, they might have to do it again.
It's very boring - much less interesting than being blown away
with direct damage. You know that if the mage is using up large/medium
amounts of mana to blow you away (i) it's their big moment, scream,
drop your weapon and fly across the encounter (even if it was only (!)
half your hits) and (ii) they won't be able to do it very often, so
you can afford to really act it up.
This last year, it's not been used much - which is to say that
only 1/2 to 2/3 of mages mana has turned into Black/Flash on
adventures. There haven't been so many mages or fighter-mages (the
really bad ones!) on adventures, so it hasn't been too annoying.
Still, almost every major fight that I remember has been decided by
Flash.
More over, I can see that a lot of mages don't actually like
using Flash to obliterate stuff. It doesn't feel 'magey'. A lot of
them try to use more interesting effects. But, generally, they can
only keep that up during the early parts of the adventure when they
have lots of mana to burn and the encounters haven't got too
meaningful yet.
I don't think mage players _want_ to be Flash Cannons, but
when the pressure is on they have to be, because - 8th+ lvl spells
aside - it's the most powerful combat spell they have.
I think that if you remove Flash/Blackflash, mages will
finally get to cast more fun spells, refs can then be a lot kinder to
mages (send in lots of monster with physical armour, but not many hits
- e.g. 6 hits per loc, 3 physical, 3 armour is a tough monster - doing
doubles say - but it still goes down to one fireball).
Splurge.
Marios
alice macklin
Marcus Rich
> fighting that stopped the party getting picked off, one by one.
> Marios
my boots are clean enough Marios :P
To be honest what saved us on that occasion was tons of leniency from the
monsters, who sportinly ran away frequently when a concerted attack would
have finished us :)
Thanks guys,
Alasdair MacLeod
> Ever since the Age of Flash, monster numbers have been
> dwindling.
Logic error: initially Xflash lasted 10 seconds and Plate bounced all
singles. If monster numbers have been dwindling since the changes, surely
these should be re-instated, not further crippled?
> More over, I can see that a lot of mages don't actually like
> using Flash to obliterate stuff.
More to the point, it's too easy to burn mana that way. Six monsters, one
flash each - even a sixth level mage can only take out six encounters if
they start getting happy wid da flashy. Leaving no power for the Demon
Flangebeast you were actually hired to kill.
And that's assuming all your flashes are effective. And you don't need to
gate anywhere. Or disintegrate anything. Etc.
> Splurge.
Not on the carpet.
Al .-.
--
Sig missing. Reward for capture. Thanks.
http://www.north5.demon.co.uk/al/
Alasdair MacLeod
>> > Ever since the Age of Flash, monster numbers have been
>> > dwindling.
>>
>> Logic error: initially Xflash lasted 10 seconds and Plate bounced all
>> singles. If monster numbers have been dwindling since the changes, surely
>> these should be re-instated, not further crippled?
> I think this referred to when they were originally instituted as that
> powerful, monster numbers since the change to their current form has been
> ok, with a few exceptions (due to crap weather)...
Hmm, OK.
>> More to the point, it's too easy to burn mana that way. Six monsters, one
>> flash each - even a sixth level mage can only take out six encounters if
>> they start getting happy wid da flashy. Leaving no power for the Demon
>> Flangebeast you were actually hired to kill.
> Indeed... we should encourage use of more interesting spells to conserve
> mana...
Yes. More useless spells! :)
>> And that's assuming all your flashes are effective. And you don't need to
>> gate anywhere. Or disintegrate anything. Etc.
> Feel free to try to gate, if you want your mage to go splat :)
Sorry, out of touch these days. When did that happen?
>> > Splurge.
>>
>> Not on the carpet.
> How about on the Lino?
Yes, that's fine. Wipe clean, you see.
Marios
>> Replace the death spell that it is or replace the get away
>> spell that it was?
>> Marios
>
>the first, definitely, the latter, probably...
>
>when you really get down to it a mage is still a human and can *always*
>run, the question is really whether or not they should have access to a
>spell to aid them...
Abused spells aside (Flash/Blackflash/Globe of Darkness/Plate
Self - Globe of Darkness and Plate are pretty much dealt with), Mages
have always been very weak.
Part of the problem is that it's not very clear what they are
for. What are they supposed to bring to an adventure? If it's raw
killing power then - even if they were to have a level 1 kill-spell -
they still wouldn't have enough mana to compete with the fighters. The
only way for them to compete is to have a 'Polymorph to Warrior' spell
- Plate Self. Funnily enough, plating up and beating through monsters
with your staff doesn't feel much like playing a mage.
I've looked at a couple of other systems and I think it comes
down to this. Fantasy mages should be (i) knowledgable - they know
about things that no one else knows about - if you find a magical
item, only the mage will know what to do with it or if it's safe - if
you don't bring a mage with you on an adventure then you'll suffer if
you find/meet anything magical and (ii) scary - they aren't warriors,
skilled at killing and hacking their way through enemies - they can
just point at you and you die - the real power of this isn't being
able to do it again and again, it's the fact that you _know_ that they
can - a man with a sword is a potential risk, a mage is certain death.
The best sort of mages rarely casts magic at all (using the
system mechanics) - because spells are actually unimpressive - when
you say Fireball, there's no actual Fireball. Simply walking about and
acting as if you can just blow people away is more impressive. It's
much more fun to threaten someone with a spell than it is to use that
spell (the end of Gimby third-term adventure last year - threatening
Tasumi). It's like a gun - firing the gun is actually an anti-climax
for everyone - the less you have to fire the gun, the more people fear
you.
Realistically, people should fear and hate mages as much as
common fighters hated enemy bowmen. As much as men with knives, fear a
man with a gun. Yeah - men with guns die just as fast as everyone else
- in fact, up close, considerably faster than trained knife fighters.
But the point is, he's got a gun.
Now, imagine if only some people had guns and they couldn't be
(i) understood by anyone else or (ii) taken away. Think about how
you'd react to someone who always had that capability. How could you
ever trust someone like that?
You don't pis* off men with guns, but you don't get friendly
with them either.
Knowledge encounters? Difficult - really requires other
characters to work with you - play a bit dumb, let the mage be the one
to say "Ah! These are creatures of ice - only fire can truly destroy
them!".
Rituals, mysticism, that sort of thing. Of course, it's tricky
and requires a lot of people 'working together' - character-chacter,
charcter-ref. It's hard to do much or handle many mages.
Part of the problem is that the part of the essence of being a
mage is isolation and rarity. It's difficult to maintain that when
magic is so popular.
Also, it's difficult to discern between people with 1 level of
magic and 7 levels of fighter and pure mages.
Marios
j d mcgettrick
daniel prebble [acoylte of peons of the inner circle (hypothetical)] wrote:
> It doesn't really matter, we'll all vote the way the secret Inner Circle
> tells us to anyway.
>
> I said too much.
>
If there was an inner circle - which there isn't - then this (purely hypothetical) inner circle
would (I suspect but have no way of knowing as it does not exist and I am not a member) be very
displeased. Hypothetical inner circle indeed! You'll be *FNORD* suggesting next that it meets every
Friday night in my front room... which obviuosly it doesn't. It doesn't exist and is angry.
--
Jimbob!
*hyperjusticar of the inner circle*
daniel prebble
Er, I think you may have given too much away. There are no meetings of
any nature ever. Except the Circle Off-Balance, which meets on a friday
in your living room. I would have to concur that the Circle would be
likely to be angry but that it would respect disinformation being
propogated by its hypothetical members.
And in future I would expect you to use my real titles. Not that I have
any or that they're Stale Dan, Amenible Face of Impending Doom and
Scourge of Darness.
Marcus Rich
> Marios <mar...@richards9196.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Ever since the Age of Flash, monster numbers have been
> > dwindling.
>
> Logic error: initially Xflash lasted 10 seconds and Plate bounced all
> singles. If monster numbers have been dwindling since the changes, surely
> these should be re-instated, not further crippled?
I think this referred to when they were originally instituted as that
powerful, monster numbers since the change to their current form has been
ok, with a few exceptions (due to crap weather)...
> > More over, I can see that a lot of mages don't actually like
> > using Flash to obliterate stuff.
>
> More to the point, it's too easy to burn mana that way. Six monsters, one
> flash each - even a sixth level mage can only take out six encounters if
> they start getting happy wid da flashy. Leaving no power for the Demon
> Flangebeast you were actually hired to kill.
Indeed... we should encourage use of more interesting spells to conserve
mana...
> And that's assuming all your flashes are effective. And you don't need to
> gate anywhere. Or disintegrate anything. Etc.
Feel free to try to gate, if you want your mage to go splat :)
> > Splurge.
>
> Not on the carpet.
How about on the Lino?
Marcus
Marcus Rich
was a ref decision (i believe)... they finally decided to prevent gating,
as i understand it the elemental lords look upon you and say "no", then
smack you into the elemental plane until your protection runs out, or
something far, far worse...
Marios
>> The problem with thievery isn't that it's too hard, it's that
>> there's nothing to thieve. Without a money system and phys-repped
>> items moving around, what's the point?
>
>This situation still exists even with a money system since most people
>don't carry IC money on them, or if they do they carry it in a wallet in
>their pocket...
They shouldn't - a wallet isn't a sensible place to put your
IC phys-rep. A wallet to keep money is a recent invention and you'd
tend to assume that a wallet was an OOC object.
If people don't have pouches, we can always knock a load up £1
a bash. Even _I_ can make pouches out of leather!
>If the IC money system was enforced then it'd be worth nicking stuff, but
>as it stands weapons are about all there is...
Yes - it will in time. When I have time I'll chase up the
metal phys-rep money, since I reckon it'll work better than paper
money.
Marios
Marios
>You're still missing the point, I'm not saying anyone would "cop a feel",
>I'm saying that the victim of the theft would quite possibly misinterpret
>the contact as this.
I get the point but, we've been stealing stuff without using
the Light Fingers mechanic for 6 years (and probably long before I was
here too) and it's not come up.
Why do you assume it will suddenly come up now?
>First Aid etc are used in a sensible fashion, and the target is fully
>aware of what is going on, theft requires the target be completely
>unaware...
Not usually/always - if someone is using first aid it's
because your hurt. The most serious/rushed times are because you are
unconscious. The best way to phys-rep unconscious is to shut your
eyes. Generally, the times I've had first aid used on me is when I've
been unconscious lying on the Greedy Goblin floor. I only knew who it
was 'checking me for wounds' when I heard them say 'first aid I'.
Marios
Marios
>Okay, pickpocketting does work like that, but not very well: You'd
>almost certainly notice. The reason people cut the purses is because
>it's relatively easy to do so without tugging too obviously.
Yes, but it's better than (i) using knives or (ii) not doing
it at all.
>Not to mention the fact that it would probably lead to people keeping
>non-looter friendly purses to avoid getting looted. It's a tricky idea
>but I doubt it can be implemented.
I don't think it matters really - I was just offering a way it
could be done. I certainly don't think it's something you can do with
Light Fingers that you couldn't with OOC theft. If you can't untie it
in reality, how the hell would you be able to steal it?
Bottom line - if people don't want to play the game, then you
can't play. If people don't bring their money to the bar, then you
have nothing to steal. If they bring money, but keep it in their
underwear then even the lightest of fingers coulnd't remove it (or
want to...). If they bring money, but keep it in a purse from which it
can't be removed and which can't be removed from their belt, then you
can't take it.
It's all a matter of playing along.
Marios
Marios
Not really - we're talking small pouches like mine. If you
filled them with lead and jumped up and down, you still wouldn't break
the thongs (well, probably not), but you could snap them using two
hands.
If it's really a worry, make the pouches very small - large
enough to carry money, but not large enough to need very strong ties.
It's rather academic until it's tested, anyway.
Marios
ora...@hotmail.com
> caster for 3 seconds... it would retain its defensive usefulness (since
> the mage could still get away) but the monster could still pummel other
> characters freely.
great idea!
does exactly what flash was supposed to do and solves all the bad
stuff.
include in duration "...unless struck by caster"
has nice options for higher level versions too (increased duration of
effect - 10s, 30s)
> Better still might be a version that causes the Monster or Player to
> choose 'another target' for three seconds; maintaining's the potential
> team aspect of the spell since it can be used to give someone else a
> chance to run out of the way...
Level 1: 'glimmer self'
Level 2: 'glimmer other'
x
si
Marcus Rich
Because it's safer to assume that, prepare for it, and avoid the problem,
than wait until it happens and *then* try to fix it..
Marcus Rich
> magic and 7 levels of fighter and pure mages.
I believe someone made a comment earlier about proper dress for characters
such as priests...
If monsters and characters dress to match what they are, it's bloody easy
to tell the difference between them, a priest will have robes and an
obvious holy symbol, a mage will have robes/cloak and could reasonably be
assumed to predominantly colour by their chosen lore...
fighters wear armour and lots of weapons
scouts wear camoflage and short weapons
alchemists will be carrying bottles and have a curious interest in every
plant they find...
Is it so hard to tell the difference between the brick fighter and the new
mage, i think not, unless people insist on dressing their fighters as
mages (ok so no armour then) or vice versa (mages in chain.... not gonna
happen)...
Marios
>> Ever since the Age of Flash, monster numbers have been
>> dwindling.
>
>Logic error: initially Xflash lasted 10 seconds and Plate bounced all
>singles. If monster numbers have been dwindling since the changes, surely
>these should be re-instated, not further crippled?
Flash got dropped to 3 seconds and plate stopped bouncing
singles last year and monster numbers have been up since then.
To be honest - since the monster party is primarily (80%)
first years, the numbers are more reflective of that years intake. But
the 20% 'regular' crowd can be depleted, when adventures drop below a
given level of entertainment.
>> More over, I can see that a lot of mages don't actually like
>> using Flash to obliterate stuff.
>
>More to the point, it's too easy to burn mana that way. Six monsters, one
>flash each - even a sixth level mage can only take out six encounters if
>they start getting happy wid da flashy. Leaving no power for the Demon
>Flangebeast you were actually hired to kill.
Bah! Demon Flangebeasts are rarely effected by anything so
puny as spells! Only plot items and unpulled blows can truly defeat
them!
But, yes.
>> Splurge.
>
>Not on the carpet.
No, on the newsgroup. And you loved it.
Marios