From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Oct 9 00:16:49 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id AAA14594; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:16:49 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id AAA14591 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:16:47 +1300 Received: from mandos (jenny@p282-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.136.42]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id AAA24949; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:13:02 +1300 Subject: RE: Damage from double and triple effects... Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:16:45 +1300 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 From: "Mandos D Shadowspawn Esq" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > How about an extra point of damage/Rank for double effects and a second > point for triples? > This is still a lot of damage but prevents the automatic death of a > character if a successful resistance role is made. > > Bonus damage calculated this way would also bring this damage down to the > same level as that from spells that do only +1/Rank. I suppose the idea of removing resist for half spells is a bit too radical? Mandos /s -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Oct 9 00:47:54 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id AAA14634; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:47:54 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id AAA14631 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:47:52 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p286-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.136.46]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id AAA28413 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:44:07 +1300 Subject: Re: Damage from double and triple effects... Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:45:21 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf1182$9a38d620$2e886dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz George wrote: >I suppose the idea of removing resist for half spells is a bit too radical? Yes. In a game where the average player can get as much as a 51 pt bonus that stands aside from any other bonus they may have from the expenditure of ep, I would say that getting rid of half damage spells is a little radical. I believe that the central problem with the combat system is the way that it allows Defense to outstrip Strike Chance. This is another variety of that effect. Remember, that a player can protect themselves from the magic of one entire college with two counterspells. Such a change as George suggests would mean that spells that have no resistance option would become critical, and damage spells would become nearly useless. In general, half damage spells do all of the right things. The only occasion where they don't is where the damage calculation means that no pc has a chance of surviving, regardless of whether or not they resist. Two solutions make themselves obvious to me. 1) Redefine critical damage calculation from 2 or 3 times, to adding an additional 1 or 2 points of damage per rank. 2) Remove the FT cap. Removing the FT cap, it seems to me, does all of the right things, and with one change to the rulebook (which never explicitly limited endless FT purchases), elegantly measures the toughness of an experienced character and obviates the need to moderate a spell whose raw damage may be necessary elsewhere in the game system. However, I realise I'm a lone voice in the wilderness on this one. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Oct 9 03:30:23 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id DAA14761; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 03:30:23 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id DAA14758 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 03:30:22 +1300 Received: from dworkin (p97-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.245.97]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id DAA21009 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 03:26:32 +1300 Message-ID: <000a01bf0797$8e159b20$4301a8c0@dworkin.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Damage from double and triple effects... Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 08:50:07 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Dworkin" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >George wrote: >>I suppose the idea of removing resist for half spells is a bit too radical? > > >Yes. In a game where the average player can get as much as a 51 pt bonus Unfortunately most dont. This is a roleplaying game and not an exercise in chartered accountancy. >that stands aside from any other bonus they may have from the expenditure of >ep, I would say that getting rid of half damage spells is a little radical. >I believe that the central problem with the combat system is the way that it >allows Defense to outstrip Strike Chance. This is another variety of that Defence actually cannot exceed base chance. I've done the numbers. However this is a game and not a calculator love-fest. >effect. Remember, that a player can protect themselves from the magic of one >entire college with two counterspells. So all you do is ensure you resist and die under the current system. NPCs having a high MR is a product of these spell effects, not a cause. Such a change as George suggests >would mean that spells that have no resistance option would become critical, >and damage spells would become nearly useless. >In general, half damage spells do all of the right things. The only occasion >where they don't is where the damage calculation means that no pc has a >chance of surviving, regardless of whether or not they resist. >Two solutions make themselves obvious to me. >1) Redefine critical damage calculation from 2 or 3 times, to adding an >additional 1 or 2 points of damage per rank. >2) Remove the FT cap. >Removing the FT cap, it seems to me, does all of the right things, and with >one change to the rulebook (which never explicitly limited endless FT >purchases), elegantly measures the toughness of an experienced character and >obviates the need to moderate a spell whose raw damage may be necessary >elsewhere in the game system. >However, I realise I'm a lone voice in the wilderness on this one. >Jim. Actually I have a third suggestion. It involves the concept of quality roleplaying with a lesser adherence to easily manipulated numbers. So the PCs or NPCs can incinerate their opposition. Gosh wow. Who cares. A clever GM (and are not we all) devises scenarios where overwhelming firepower is not the best solution. Games where cunning, diplomancy, intrigue, problem solving, daring and personal development are involved have been amongst my best DQ experiences. I mean it when I say I can roll dice with the best of them so a straight combat is a bit of a bore. Combat is there to provide tension, not a win/loss situation. Most other games (I'm thinking of the modern/SF genre) have instant death weapons and yet somehow survive as popular concepts. I personally think heroes should have zorching capability and so should some of thier enemies. It is not the rules which need changing but instead the way we get people to play. If characterisation was more important than firepower than most problems in the game would cease to be of issue. We need better games. Not better rules. With respect William. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Oct 9 05:06:25 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id FAA14824; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 05:06:25 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id FAA14821 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 05:06:24 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p134-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.245.134]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id FAA28655 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 05:02:32 +1300 Subject: Re: Damage from double and triple effects... Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 05:03:50 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf11a6$b6b7b7c0$86f56dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Jim wrote: >>Yes. In a game where the average player can get as much as a 51 pt bonus William wrote: >Unfortunately most dont. This is a roleplaying game and not an exercise in >chartered accountancy. Neither do I expect them to have that much. However, it is bootless to say that a PC cannot get a 45 point bonus to MR versus a single college. And, while roleplaying isn't an excercise in chartered accountancy, the game aspects of roleplaying GAMES are there for everyone to take advantage of. Therefore, if it is legal, and within the realms of the 'possible' for a player character to get their hands on a high ranked Enchantment, and to learn a counterspell or two, or buy them invested, then why won't they? If William's point is that the game is about being part of a story, then it is also about making use of the accepted products of story elements. It is an excercise in creating suspension of disbelief that npcs and pcs take advantage of such parts of the story that would reasonably be available to them. >>that stands aside from any other bonus they may have from the expenditure >of >>ep, I would say that getting rid of half damage spells is a little radical. >>I believe that the central problem with the combat system is the way that >it >>allows Defense to outstrip Strike Chance. This is another variety of that > >Defence actually cannot exceed base chance. I've done the numbers. However >this is a game and not a calculator love-fest. Well, I've just had another go at working it out, but I can't see how you calculate it any other way, and get a result where SC exceeds Defense. You'd have to show me how you worked it out, William. >>effect. Remember, that a player can protect themselves from the magic of >one >>entire college with two counterspells. > >So all you do is ensure you resist and die under the current system. NPCs >having a high MR is a product of these spell effects, not a cause. No idea what you mean, here, William. I don't have a specific beef against resisting a spell, and still dying because of the hideous amount of damage. The problem I have is where ALL of the player characters die as a result of an unusually low roll on the dice. This is why I think it would be good to either reduce the amount of critical damage spells like Hellfire, Necrosis and Whirlwind Vortex do (i.e. when they double or triple effect) or allow pcs to advance their FT 1 pt per game or season, whichever is less. As far as I can see, all that making damage spells resistible for none means that counterspelled npcs are going to almost impossible to hurt with damage. You might as well use effects that are entirely binary in nature, like Sleep, Whitefire, Incinerate, Mental Attack, because they only require one failed resistance to have overcome the target. There is no sense of 'whittling away' at the npc. They are either completely healthy and kicking twelve kinds of shit out of you, or they're a pulsating pile of goo on the floor. There is no sense of movement toward an end...It's just a waiting game to see which instant death effect gets the NPC first. > >Actually I have a third suggestion. >It involves the concept of quality roleplaying with a lesser adherence to >easily manipulated numbers. So the PCs or NPCs can incinerate their >opposition. Gosh wow. Who cares. Well, William, frankly, I do. A spell like Necrosis, Hellfire, or Whirlwind Vortex can take out an entire party of pcs, generating so much damage that the party cannot survive. So, then I am faced with having to fudge the die roll, or wipe out the party. I prefer that the game not require that kind of demand on a DM. >A clever GM (and are not we all) devises >scenarios where overwhelming firepower is not the best solution. Games where >cunning, diplomancy, intrigue, problem solving, daring and personal >development are involved have been amongst my best DQ experiences. I mean it >when I say I can roll dice with the best of them so a straight combat is a >bit of a bore. Combat is there to provide tension, not a win/loss situation. >Most other games (I'm thinking of the modern/SF genre) have instant death >weapons and yet somehow survive as popular concepts. I have not seen one science fiction game that has had the kind of longevity that fantasy roleplaying games have. I have spent a lot of time looking at what games survive over time. Fantasy roleplaying games that don't put too much of an emphasis on historical accuracy are the ones that last the longest. AD&D, DQ (in the Guild's special condition), EarthDawn have some claim to long life. On the other hand, Traveller in it's various incarnations never seems to last longer than a couple of months, as does Star Wars. The Star Trek rpg was an extremely strange game with a few interesting ideas, and provided proof positive that the Prime Directive was written by a neurotic cretin with a bowel condition, and is almost unplayable as a game. I would like to know which science fiction games you refer to here, William. > I personally think >heroes should have zorching capability and so should some of thier enemies. >It is not the rules which need changing but instead the way we get people to >play. If characterisation was more important than firepower than most >problems in the game would cease to be of issue. The ability to characterise well, and an interest in firepower on the part of a player have no logical connection. What you seem to be saying is that characterisation is a natural restraint that can be applied to firepower. I don't agree. I think that you might find that SOME characters might have internal constraints that resist firepower at whatever level. I think there are more characters that have an honest and obvious interest in firepower, to wit, pouring destruction down on your enemies has been known to keep you alive (if you do it fast enough and in big enough lumps). > >We need better games. Not better rules. We always need better games. Always. We also need a good environment in which those games can be played. Some of that environment comes from rules. If we address a part of the game that is flawed, and try to correct it or otherwise bring it to a more useful condition for the way that the game is played, then I don't see that any harm is caused. It is, after all, a free world, and we don't need to march to the beat of a single drum in the hopes of conquering Western Europe and driving the mongrel races out of our pure, Aryan gene pool. Others may not see this part of the game as being a problem, or they may consider the solutions offered innappropriate ones. Or they may agree with some or all of it. Whatever else is happening, I don't think that the amelioration of the game is threatened in any way by this discussion. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Oct 9 11:32:51 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA15081; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:32:51 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id LAA15078 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:32:50 +1300 Received: from paul (p27-max14.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.227.219]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id LAA28016 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:28:48 +1300 Message-ID: <002001bf11dc$72d4f6e0$6564640a@paul> Subject: Re: Damage from double and triple effects... Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 11:27:43 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Paul Schmidt" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: "Paul Schmidt" , dq@dq.sf.org.nz Jim snip >2) Remove the FT cap. This is probably a better soloution than a rule change to 1/2 damage spells. It does two things elegantly and well 1) it addresses the issue of 1/2 damage spells quickly and easily 2) simulates experience vs inexperience in combat - somehow the vets live longer 3) provides a second type of magic resistance - additional fatigue can be viewed as a type of magic resistance that is earned by the hard knocks of life. Cheers Paul -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --