Eamon Zink wrote:
>
> Jim wrote:
> >It has previously been suggested in this forum that we should curtail rules
> changes. It is regularly suggested. Even in the face of glaring inadequacies,
>
> I have no problem with the last version of undetectability, all this arguement
> is a product of someone finding it a glaring inadaquacy, which seems like a
> waste of everybody's time. Undetectability was a mutch loved spell which it
> seems has gone forever... people have spent years developing their characters
> so that they have these special powers and they work in this special way and
> then arbitrarily someone who knows better comes along and fixes it for them
> so that their character can no longer do this, and it is the fix that is a shame
> and a problem.
Insofar as the particular line of discussion is running, people DO seem
to think that Undetectability is a problem. And, it always was a
problem.
One DM passed the comment (in my hearing) that if players didn't use
Undetectability, THEY wouldn't use it either.
Another DM said to me directly that whenever Undetectability was used in
a game, then he made sure that NONE of the players made their Perception
checks, while the NPCs all made theirs.
Both of these comments tell me that there is a problem with the spell,
although I only ever needed to have to DM it once to know what a
tortuous pain in the arse it was to administer. And, frankly, I don't
CARE if a player has spent years building their character around a
particular spell, if it's going to be that difficult to administer. It's
not worth my time and lost braincells trying to work out who can see
whomever.
DMs are in this to have fun, too, and Undetectability was a major
antidote to fun for whoever has to run the game.
As far as the justification for knowing better is concerned, then, yes,
DMs are in a better position to know what's better for a game. A player
who has a Mind Mage character has too much to lose to be able to be
objective. I was surprised when I encountered the attitude. I had
expected that people would be more interested in the game. But,
experience has corrected me.
It is simply naive to believe that most players are disinterested. This
is not to say that all of them are. But, I dare say that the majority of
the loudest voices who oppose change are people who are protecting
characters, at the expense of the game in general.
This is not a preserve for protecting players so that they can do the
same thing over and over again. Role playing games are story telling
events, and there must be SOME change of SOME kind, simply to prevent
stagnation. We should embrace change as part of the story telling
experience. Not every change will be positive. Much of the change will
probably be crap, but now and again, some changes will be interesting,
even useful. The alternative is too stultifying to worry about.
>
> >people agree that a given rule is a problem, but that NOW is not quite the
> time to do anything about it.
>
> I don't agree that this rule needs changing.
You're entitled to feel that way. I'm entitled to differ.
>
> >This forum, like many others, is a platform for procrastination and pettifogging.
>
> If you truely beleave this then please stop wasting out time.
Shan't.
>
> >The largest and loudest proponents of keeping the rules unchanged seem to me
> to be people who are only interested in advancing their characters.
>
> Everyone in the game has characters. The largest and loudest proponents of keeping
> the rules unchanged seem to me to be people who have two legs two arms and a
> brain.
This isn't true. Most players couldn't give a rat's arse about the
rules, so long as they got to play their character. If a rule changed so
that they couldn't do what they had been able to do, they would work
within the existing rules frameworks, or find a way around it, say be
questing for something.
>
> >I don't believe the assertions of people who say they represent the 'playership'.
>
> If you refuse to ackowledge that other people could know the opinionof their
> parties then we have to refuse to aknowledge that you know better! Both arguements
> are based on the same knowledge.
Actually, Eamon, I think that you're WAY off base on this one.
Experience gives people credibility. If you have DMed a lot, and
listened to a lot of different people's comments, then you can offer an
opinion that is soundly based.
This forum, and God's Meetings are places where people with grievances
go to air their peeves. In this case, you tend to hear a lot of people
saying that they're not happy about a given rule. But, this doesn't make
it widespread throughout the playership. I'm not saying that a
legitimate concern was never aired here or at God's Meetings, but I am
saying that they don't provide any certainty of veracity.
>
> >In my experience, players want to have fun.
>
> Ref. above statement.
Refer in what way? Do you seriously doubt that players want to have fun?
>
> >By and large, it matters not a jot to them how most of the rules work, beyond
> the sufficiency it takes to work out what your character is supposed to be able
> to do.
>
> Exactly so stop changing them for no good purporse.
There is no point in not changing rules, because they will change to
good purpose, bad purpose or indifferent purpose. Change is the only
certainty.
However, in this particular instance, I am not the one proposing change.
I proposed changes some time ago...Years, in fact, and it was ignored.
Without any prompting from me, people have recently mentioned an
alternative I suggested.
Nevertheless, I am confident that Undetectability will change, and will
not matter how unhappy you are at the prospect, or how many players
agree with you. The simple fact is that the spell is too difficult to
administer.
In fact, it doesn't matter if the rule isn't changed on paper. It is
already administered in wildly different ways by different DMs who
simply refuse to play it the way that it was written on a piece of
paper. The issue is no longer WHETHER Undetectability should be changed.
Rather it has become in what WAY will Undetectability be changed.
If some 'official' rule isn't established, then a variety of versions of
what Undetectability does will be played by DMs in their games. Your
choice is simply this:
Develop a version of Undetectability that is DM friendly and that
doesn't destabilise the game.
OR
Complain bitterly as the inevitable overwhelms you.
>
> >Players are very flexible. In fact, to play a role playing game, you have to
> be flexible. No DM plays the same rules as another, however much they might
> cleave to some perceived role playing dogma. So much of a game is based around
> basic assumptions about the way the world works, and how people behave. We simply
> cannot shed all of our preconceptions.
>
> Exactly, so changing the system which we all work within because an inflexable
> GM has a problem with a spell is clearly redundant.
No, Eamon, if you're accusing me of inflexibility or having a problem,
then you're seriously way off beam, AGAIN. I didn't raise this issue,
other people did. You can look back over the exchanges and see what was
said, if you like. Neither am I one of the people who used such
draconian methods to control Undetectability that I mentioned above. I
just happened to know them. Neither do I agree with that kind of DMing,
as it happens.
I think it's fair to say that, as a DM, I am NOT a democrat. But, I'm
not interested in using negative reinforcement to make my point. I would
simply tell the players that I was changing the spell, and tell them how
it worked now, if I thought it wasn't good for the game, or if I didn't
want to administer it for some reason.
>
> >I think we should stop treating the 'playership' as if they were somehow fragile
> or retarded, and let them get on with playing the best game that can be offered.
>
> Except that as we settle down to a new session we also have to be interuped
> in our gaming by analysing the ramifications of new rules.
My heart pumps custard for you.
Really, it's just not that big a deal. Undetectability changes in some
way. You read the spell, and adjust. Your objection to this must be the
amount of work involved in working out what your character must do, and
you think that's unfair, somehow...Whereas, the amount of work that a DM
may have to do BECAUSE of Undetectability...That's okay? Why? Are DMs,
by some divine right required to serve the demands of players? Because,
if that's the case, when are you DMing next? I have so many demands that
only you can service, Eamon.
I like my coffee with a little milk, and LOTS of sugar.
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
|