> From: jimarona@ihug.co.nz 
> As far as I can see, the nature of the 
> observer(s) and 
> their number is not addressed in either version of the spell, 
> nor need it be.

It is vital to the spell being suspended, rather than dissipated (like Invis
is when you whack someone)

"they will become detectable
until they can conceal themselves from all observers
at which time the spell comes into effect again."

"subsequently manages to conceal themselves
from all observers"

In both proposals, the spell stops having any effect once _any observer_
spots (perceives?) you (this makes the mechanics much more manageable, just
like stealth) , and only comes back into effect when no observers can see
you.


Finding anywhere were there are absolutely _no_ observers (mice, insects,
lots of stuff which we obviously don't want to count) is next to impossible.
So try writing down what is meant, rather than something that can mean
different things to different people.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: jimarona@ihug.co.nz [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, 27 September 2001 21:32
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Stealth & Mind Stuff
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > I don't think everyone who has an opinion has had a 
> chance to respond 
> > > yet. But I am going to now propose two versions of this spell for 
> > > comment anyway. 
> > 
> > Thanks. One comment on both proposals:
> > What is meant by 'observer'? Clearly not minor random 
> wildlife on the
> > vicinity, but where do you draw the line? Dogs? Horses? 
> Perception above x?
> > 'Sentient observer' is probably clearest, but having 
> characters running
> > around corners to get out of sight of the guard dog set on 
> them has appeal.
> > Then there was the Guard's badger that got a spec grev 
> biting the backside
> > of a PC, and just wouldn't let go!
> 
> I'm failing to see what your point is, I'm afraid. I don't 
> see what difference 
> it makes whether or not there are sentient observers, 
> non-sentient observers, 
> one or three million. As far as I can see, the nature of the 
> observer(s) and 
> their number is not addressed in either version of the spell, 
> nor need it be.
> 
> Have I missed something,
> somewhere?
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

On Thursday, September 27, 2001, at 09:31  PM, jimarona@ihug.co.nz wrote:

>>>
>>> I don't think everyone who has an opinion has had a chance to respond
>>> yet. But I am going to now propose two versions of this spell for
>>> comment anyway.
>>
>> Thanks. One comment on both proposals:
>> What is meant by 'observer'? Clearly not minor random wildlife on the
>> vicinity, but where do you draw the line? Dogs? Horses? Perception 
>> above x?
>> 'Sentient observer' is probably clearest, but having characters running
>> around corners to get out of sight of the guard dog set on them has 
>> appeal.
>> Then there was the Guard's badger that got a spec grev biting the 
>> backside
>> of a PC, and just wouldn't let go!
>
> I'm failing to see what your point is, I'm afraid. I don't see what 
> difference
> it makes whether or not there are sentient observers, non-sentient 
> observers,
> one or three million. As far as I can see, the nature of the 
> observer(s) and
> their number is not addressed in either version of the spell, nor need 
> it be.
>
> Have I missed something,
> somewhere?

I have to agree with Jim. Observers are whoever the GM decides are 
observers. This probably doesn't include insects and probably does 
include all sentient entities.

We don't have to tie down *every* tiny detail - give the GM and players 
some chance to be inventive.

clare


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

>> Thanks. One comment on both proposals:
>> What is meant by 'observer'? Clearly not minor random wildlife on the
>> vicinity, but where do you draw the line? Dogs? Horses? Perception above
x?

>I'm failing to see what your point is, I'm afraid. I don't see what
difference 
>it makes whether or not there are sentient observers, non-sentient
observers, 
>one or three million. As far as I can see, the nature of the observer(s)
and 
>their number is not addressed in either version of the spell, nor need it
be.

In Clare's 2nd proposal, she says "if the target is detected and
subsequently manages to conceal themselves from all observers".
Additionally, a multiple of the highest PC of the observers is dedected from
the stealth chance. We need to know which observers matter.

Obviously, the angels are always watching, and there are insects everywhere.
Both can be ignored for stealth. The GM makes a call on relevant observers.
If a horse is likely to react or warn someone, it is an observer, otherwise
it is a piece of mobile scenery. This applies to all stealth rolls. This
means that with some GMs you can ignore the street urchin watching you
curiously, or put a finger to your lips when they see you, and sometimes you
ned to drop their body into the sewers - just like real life.

Andrew


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> > From: jimarona@ihug.co.nz 
> > As far as I can see, the nature of the 
> > observer(s) and 
> > their number is not addressed in either version of the spell, 
> > nor need it be.
> 
> It is vital to the spell being suspended, rather than dissipated (like Invis
> is when you whack someone)
> 
> "they will become detectable
> until they can conceal themselves from all observers
> at which time the spell comes into effect again."
> 
> "subsequently manages to conceal themselves
> from all observers"
> 
> In both proposals, the spell stops having any effect once _any observer_
> spots (perceives?) you (this makes the mechanics much more manageable, just
> like stealth) , and only comes back into effect when no observers can see
> you.
> 
> 
> Finding anywhere were there are absolutely _no_ observers (mice, insects,
> lots of stuff which we obviously don't want to count) is next to impossible.
> So try writing down what is meant, rather than something that can mean
> different things to different people.

I'm pretty good at writing down what I mean, and most people don't seem to have 
a problem penetrating it. 

It would take a dedicated effort of will to miss the intention of what I wrote, 
here.

There is no point in writing so exhaustively that you cross every 't', and dot 
every 'i'.  Not only would it be extremely difficult to write, it would be 
incredibly tiresome to read.

If you like, I can refer you to a whole library of books on technical writing, 
which is the particular species of literary endeavour that you are discussing. 
There have been examples of technical writing which try to be all-encompassing, 
and they almost always are tedious and difficult to read. Read almost any 
Microsoft manual on something like Access, for example.

Bearing that in mind, you raise the point that there is always someone or 
something around, which may affect the workings of a spell that enhanced 
Stealth. I suppose that that is true. It also doesn't matter. 

In real life, it seems to me that you cannot use Stealth while under 
observation. Stealth is a skill that is aimed at entities that you don't want 
to spot you. If you are not sneaking with respect to a small boy, then you are 
not concealed from him.

Concomitantly, it's hard to sneak around someone that you don't know is there. 
You don't know how to take advantage of the available cover with respect to 
their line of sight. On the other hand, if there are a couple of guards 
standing in front of a gate, and an Invisible person standing next to them to 
whisper things into their ear, then an attempt at Stealth versus the Invisible 
entity is reasonable, since they share pretty much the same sight line and 
position as the guard.

When I have said that Undetectability does not allow an attempt at Stealth, 
while under direct observation, I meant that you cannot conceal yourself from 
someone who KNOWS that you're there, until you have done something to distract 
their attention away from you. Breaking line of sight by going around a corner, 
perhaps. Making a loud noise that pulls  everyone's attention away from you 
might work, although I wouldn't like your chances of pulling it off.

That is how I see Stealth working in real life.

It seems to me that it is entirely possible that other people consider Stealth 
to work quite differently. Perhaps they think it's a kind of mundane Walking 
Unseen spell, where, once you are sneaking, you are concealed from observers 
provided you have cover, etc.

The advantage that this particular system has is that it is cognitively easy to 
administer. It works until it fails, at which point everyone can detect the 
Stealthed entity.

 My view of Stealth means that the DM has to make decisions about who the 
sneaking entity is trying to conceal themselves from. It can lead to a 
situation where someone who notices the sneaking entity doesn't reveal them to 
the rest of their friends, for whatever reason.

The disadvantage is that it lacks a sense of difference from other concealment 
spell effects. In effect, this would be no different from having a spell that 
gave you the same effect, using the same numbers.

Again, it's a question of flavour, I suppose. Also, situations may obtain where 
one or the other method may be used by the same DM in the same game, within 
five minutes of each other. This is more a way of thinking, rather than any 
special collection of rules, and, from a player's point of view, the particular 
means you use is invisible.

Ultimately, it comes down to value to the story, the nature of the players and 
their characters. It may be that a particular nicety of detail in terms of 
Stealth is necessary in a given situation. Five minutes later, it may not 
matter a jot.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --