Martin,

>That said, your question about perception does have something going for 
>it.  There has always been a perception that one of the aspects that makes 
>it broken it that some of the crowd of Peasants will see Mind Invis, but 
>none would see the much weaker Walking Unseen, i.e. its effectiveness is 
>inversely proportional to the number of observers. Whether this is an 
>unplayable defect, or a reasonable limitation of the spell may be a matter 
>of perception.

The simple solution to that problem is to limit the perception checks to 
those who are actively observing. Thus unless the crowd of peasants are all 
looking for trouble, they will not find it. The guards on the gates however...

The other problem - the buckets of dice problem - has the elegant solution 
of making the spell a passive concentration spell with multiple targets. 
Thus there is only one effect to be dealt with, and if that guard detects 
one person, he will detect the entire group. Given that, it's also 
reasonable that all persons under the same effect can detect each other - 
which solves third major problem.

The other problem I've seen cited is the lack of predictability - however, 
I really don't see that as a problem. Unpredictability is generally 
desirable in my opinion - makes things interesting.

>Overall though, I'd tend to say that Mind Invis has been broken as long as 
>I have known it; in my opinion it has never "worked fine".

I can recall one adventure run by Phil, several years back, where we used 
the spell extensively and to good effect. We were searching for a stolen 
seal (seems to happen with Phil) and in the climatic assault on the house 
where it was hidden the entire party was indetectable. It was great fun, 
and very effective.

But then, there was also the incident, on one of Parkie's adventures, where 
Engleton shot and killed one indetectable Starflower...

The spell has certainly fallen into less and less use. Even when it seems 
like a good call to use it, there are too many objections, many of them 
seemingly knee-jerk reactions.

>And, as I mused a little earlier, I think one reason for this has been 
>that as it was written and re-written it was with a different paradigm for 
>the Mind college than other Colleges.  Basically I think people have been 
>too focused on the "Mind" and not enough on the "Sorceries".  It's 
>completely OK for spells to work in different and varied ways (and it 
>would be terribly boring if they did not), but they must adhere to a 
>consistent rule framework.  Too much focus on the Mind College as being 
>like psionics and not enough on how their magic fits with all the other 
>magic, can leave the Mind Mages out on their lonesome.

You can say that about most Colleges to some extent. Necromancers have 
magic that messes with dead bodies. Mind Mages have magic that messes with 
people's minds. And as long as we remember that it IS magic, then all is well.

And that explains why I'm less than keen on the "Hide Aura" spell that some 
have proposed. It seems to be messing with magic and not with minds - thus 
feeling more like a Namer thing than a Mind Mage thing.

Jacqui


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

Jacqui Smith wrote:

> The simple solution to that problem is to limit the perception checks 
> to those who are actively observing. Thus unless the crowd of peasants 
> are all looking for trouble, they will not find it. The guards on the 
> gates however... 

Hi Jacqui,

That might be possible though it introduces more grey-ness into the 
whole thing... what does actively observing mean?  If the guards are 
looking for... I don't know... bandits or gypsies are they actively 
observing for hidden guidl members... if you walk Undetected in the 
marketplace and walk right between a peasant and the merchant they're 
haggling with do they have a chance of seeing you?  This can all be 
sorted out... it just means more rules and guidelines... and it would be 
nice if at all possible to avoid this.

> The other problem - the buckets of dice problem - has the elegant 
> solution of making the spell a passive concentration spell with 
> multiple targets. Thus there is only one effect to be dealt with, and 
> if that guard detects one person, he will detect the entire group. 
> Given that, it's also reasonable that all persons under the same 
> effect can detect each other - which solves third major problem. 

Maybe, yes.  It also changes the balance and power of the spell, 
particularly against crowds of NPCs.  In past some of them would see 
some or other of the PCs... with this a few will see everyone and the 
rest would see no-one.  Not sure if this makes it stronger or weaker... 
but certainly differernt.  Just something to think about.

>> And, as I mused a little earlier, I think one reason for this has 
>> been that as it was written and re-written it was with a different 
>> paradigm for the Mind college than other Colleges.  Basically I think 
>> people have been too focused on the "Mind" and not enough on the 
>> "Sorceries".  
>
> You can say that about most Colleges to some extent. Necromancers have 
> magic that messes with dead bodies. Mind Mages have magic that messes 
> with people's minds. And as long as we remember that it IS magic, then 
> all is well. 

Yes, but at no point has anyone (that I know of) considered Necromancy 
to be anything _but_ magic.  There has at various times been a 
consderation that Mind Mages do mind stuff -- what a SciFi game or 
novelist might call psionics or metapsychic powers, etc -- rather than 
mind magics.  This, IMO, is a bad thing as it leads into the "way of 
doing magic" rather than a "flavour of magic" area.  Why shouldn't mind 
mages have Pyrogenisis?  Cryogenesis?  These are both purported 
paranormal abilities.  That kind of problem.  Focusing on mind flavoured 
magics... rather like elementalists in some ways.. seems a better plan. 
 (Dean and I worked on Necro partially from a principle of death 
elemental magics... sort of).

> And that explains why I'm less than keen on the "Hide Aura" spell that 
> some have proposed. It seems to be messing with magic and not with 
> minds - thus feeling more like a Namer thing than a Mind Mage thing. 

Namer, or Illusionist.   I agree.  Not a Mind Mage ability.

Regards,
Martin

-- 

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401


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

[...]
> >it.  There has always been a perception that one
> >of the aspects that makes
> >it broken it that some of the crowd of Peasants
> will see Mind Invis, but
> >none would see the much weaker Walking Unseen,
[...]
> The simple solution to that problem is to limit
> the perception checks to
> those who are actively observing. Thus unless the
> crowd of peasants are all
> looking for trouble, they will not find it. The
> guards on the gates however...

Not true, if there is *any* reason why the undetectable
person would stand out of the crowd, then there WILL be an
appropriate reaction from the crowd or other elements of it.
E.g.,
Peasant #1: Watch out for that surly sod with the big sword
Peasant #2: What sod? what sword?
[Exeunt all peasants severally & rapidly, creating a
disturbance, ...]
E.g.,
Respectable burgher: Chartreuse in the daylight, really! ...
[After a brief confab amongst accompanying retainers or
associates, someone stops/tails/roughs-up/ ... Wally the
Undetectable who is clearly up to no good.  Or shouts "stop
thief," or summons the guard, ...]
E.g.,
Naturally any thief with a knowledge of magic will be
*strongly* tempted to pick the pocket of someone identified
as invisible (to others).  Especially since 80-90% of the
witnesses will see no crime whatsoever.  Also, if Wally
approaches the authorities, he has have a lot of explaining
either why they were using wicked magics,
or how so many honest townsfolk failed to see someone so
distinctive at the time & place they claim they were robbed.


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

It should be noted that the only thing actually proposed so far is that
Undetectability should be removed from the Mind Collage

The proposal has been done specifically in this fashion so that we can solve
the immediate issue by getting rid of the spell and then at some point in
the future (not in ten minutes time) we can discuss potential additional
spells that might fit in well with the mind collage.

We should not at this time be discussing replacements, alternatives or
changes to the spell. The sole proposal is that we get rid of it.

Arguing as we are will only cloud the issue and mean we will still be
arguing about this bloody spell in another two years.

Mandos
/s


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

Mandos wrote:

>It should be noted that the only thing actually proposed so far is that
>Undetectability should be removed from the Mind Collage
>
>The proposal has been done specifically in this fashion so that we can solve
>the immediate issue by getting rid of the spell and then at some point in
>the future (not in ten minutes time) we can discuss potential additional
>spells that might fit in well with the mind collage.
>
OK, counter proposal then:

That the current version of Undetectability (S-11) be withdrawn, and 
characters with the College of Sorceries of the Mind revert to the 
previous version of the spell, in line with the standard method for 
handling probationary changes.

---

This proposal solves the immediate issues of getting rid of the 
significantly broken current version of the spell by reverting to the 
previous version (DQ rules v1.1 6 June 1997), a version which may have 
been sub-optimal but was deemed playable enough to have been in use for 
some years.  It is made with the intention of having least impact on 
characters with this College, requiring no re-working of time or EP.   
It is also in line with the standard disclaimer published against 
probationary College changes.

While the v1.6 of the Mind College was (in theory) a clean-up and not a 
re-write, and the probationary disclaimer was omitted, this spell in 
particular was completely re-written.  It seems therefore fair that if 
it is found unplayable it be withdrawn, and, as for other probationary 
changes, "characters may revert to the previous version".  As it is 
doubtful that any characters have been built on the singular desire to 
have the v1.6 of Undetectability, it is unlikely that any characters 
will need the option of having "the EP and time spent in this College 
refunded, to be re-spent freely in another college as if that College 
had been their original choice".

-- 

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401


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

> Arguing as we are will only cloud the issue and mean we will still be
> arguing about this bloody spell in another two years.
> 
> Mandos
> /s

Agreed, lets zorch the sucker. I think Mandos is being optimistic on the 
timeframe. I forsee our descendants arguing this as they ascend to beings of 
pure energy :.-)

William


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