RE: Re: 'Active' Magic in defence?

From: Mike Holmes <homeydont_at_...>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:11:11 -0600


>From: "flynnkd2" <flynnkd_at_...>

>My players are not the most narrative, so my fears of using such a
>system are based around them using the numbers to obtain a result.
>Eg if I am an archer I can shoot everything that tries to attack me
>before they can attack me, so I can use archery to defend against
>everything... if I extend my 'exchange' idea.
>
>Once this idea sinks in they basically just spend HPs to improve one
>skill and rely on this for everything. Which is of course not a
>good thing.

But, again, I'm not saying that one shouldn't use Improv modifiers to enforce the idea of avoiding specialization. That is, if players are just using archery for "everything" then have them get into a contest about debating philosophies. Sure, I'd still allow the archery response, but I think that the natives are going to find that a tad harsh as a way to win a debate, don't you? If the person wanted to oppose the debater in terms of winning the argument, then I probably wouldn't even allow archery at all. I might allow it as a form of intimidation with a large penalty...

The point is that the key to making players diversify is not to narrow their skill selections down, but to vary the sorts of contests that they come across. Things that archery isn't too good for:

-Disarming most traps.
-Bartering.
-Finding the way to a destination.
-Romancing a date.
-Leaping chasms.
-Getting to the magic stone first.
-Determining if somebody is telling the truth.
-Winning mutton eating contests.
-Eavesdropping.
-Looking well dressed before the council.
-Preparing pheasant properly.
-Escaping a raging river.
-Maneuvering your horse up a steep incline.

You get the picture. And this isn't to say that you should avoid combat - just that it should be, oh say, one of every five contests.

Yes, in combat, the player should probably be able to get away with any one skill, IMO. Combat is such a small part of what can happen in play that requiring more seems nasty to me. In any case, if you really want to, have a combat occur in a hedge maze where bows are penalized because all encounters occur at point blank. Whatever. You can always come up with a contest that makes a character have to use some ability that's not their best. Which'll make them think about diversifying.

OTOH, there's nothing at all wrong about stacking on one and only one ability. That's just the player saying that he wants to be tops in that ability, and this is where they're protagonism comes from mainly. As such, allowing them to use that ability in more diverse ways is catering to their desire. If you have an archery character, think in terms of Hawkeye from Marvel in terms of what he should eventually be able to do.

Lastly, keep in mind the scale. If a player thinks that they can rapidly climb to excellence, just have them come across a master archer for a contest. Somebody with a 10W2 should put them in their place fairly easily. Squash the PCs regularly if that's what it takes to put them in perspective (done correctly, this makes the squashed character cooler, not less cool). This might get them to realize that their characters are human, and that no amount of short term pumping is going to make them superhuman. Then they might think about diversifyuing in the name of developing a more reasonable human being.

I'm not saying that all abilities should be used at full strength at all times for all contests. Just that if the player can come up with a plausible use for an ability it's better to reward them by saying yes, than to say no based on the idea that it's abusive. If they really are being "abusive" then I do think that they might see the game as something other than it is - that is, it doesn't support player challenge at all. If the players are worried about becoming more powerful in any way other than to make their characters more interesting, then HQ may be problematic and require even more adjustments than you've come up with so far.

>Although I like the idea of allowing 'exchanges' I think the best
>balance is that one side has control of the trigger and the other is
>responding, and that appropriateness is important. If someone is the
>active player and they are casting a spell it is generally at range
>so a defence of 'run at him with my spear' may not be totally
>appropriate, but a 'shoot him quickly with my bow' may be.

Cool. Again, it's all about making the play look "right" in the heads of the players.

>All of the following should be true:
>'Attack him with my sword' vs 'defend with my sword and shield'
>'Attack him with a spell' vs 'defend with appropriate magic'
>'attack him with my sword' vs 'defend with appropriate magic'
>'attack him with magic' vs 'defend with appropriate mundane skill'
>
>With some of them it is an easy mental step to replace 'defend'
>with 'attack back', and to my mind this is appropriate. I think the
>appropriateness depends not so much on the action selected but the
>circumstances under which they are used....

Amen. Try this out in the future. Narrate, "You're pretty far from him, too far to close before he can easily get a spell off." As long as you make the state a condition of the challenge, you won't get the player asking for actions that seem "wrong" to you. In this case he'll say, "I use my combat ability to advance tactically, and hopefully demoralize him." And you'll assign an appropriate penalty if you think it should get one. Etc, etc. The players have to realize that you and they aren't in competition, but that it's your job to establish cool situations for them to be engaged in.

>'I cast a spell at him from 50ft away' makes an 'attack him with my
>sword before he can' somewhat inappropriate. And, 'shoot him quickly
>with my bow' loses appropriateness if you are locked in a melee. In
>both cases use a heavy improv penalty...

Probably. I'd probably do the same. OTOH, depends on the spell. I might just rule that it's not something that can be flung with the flip of the wrist. There are no "casting times" so the only important thing is to make sure that the ruling is consistent from contest to contest.

>I am really attracted to the imagery of dueling opponents exchanging
>magics at range (and after all melee does this already in its own
>style). Lets see how my players handle it tho ... ))

It's pretty cool. I had this one fight between a priestess of a death cult who was trying to suck the soul out of her opponent, while her opponent used his raw Destruction affinity to respond with an improvised bolt of black energy. With a HP and a good roll, the Black Bolt disintigrated the priestess - very colorful descriptions all around.

It's very hard for me, personally, to see why people would want to disallow this sort of thing based on the idea that it's somehow not "right". In play it was perfect. There's an aesthetic to HQ that's very cool when you really get into it that I can only hope everyone else enjoys.

Mike



Check out MSN PC Safety & Security to help ensure your PC is protected and safe. http://specials.msn.com/msn/security.asp

Powered by hypermail