From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: how to imprison a psionicist ?
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:16:13 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd3.cis.pitt.edu

In article <1992Dec17.134852.1@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> engf002@csc.canterbury.ac.nz writes:
>A few black/white examples of various DND spells and rules follow and 
>Seawasp ripostes them with his heavily modified spells and rules...

>But now you are not really playing DND anymore? Your 
>But then you could argue that the DND rules are exactly what the 
>DM says and that noone plays DND totally "by the book" - this
>I totally agree with you. But let us continue...

	Actually, to be precise, I'd say that I modify ALL game systems I
encounter according to my requirements, so if a game manages to retain even
a vague outward semblance to its original form, it's what I call the
game I'm playing. In the case of D&D, I use many of the spells and definitions
and character classes and saving throws... the basic concepts are all there.
The precise operating rules and such, however, get changed.

>>	That's not a case for game balance. The reason I don't do such 
>>things (in general... I recall one first level fighter with 75 HP
>>a few years back, but he happened to have rolled well and was lucky
>>enough to be playing a dragon) is that I require a REASON. 

>Point taken, I now agree Game Balance is not in itself a reason 
>for a rule, but what is your definition of "REASON". I could
>come up with ten "reasons" why psis cannot wear helmets.

	You give some good examples. Basically I require a consistent rule
which extends beyond merely an instance, and which interlocks with basic
principles of the world. For example, saying "a psi can't wear a helmet
because it interferes" isn't a good reason from my point of view. Saying,
"metal helmets interfere because the energy the psi uses will get absorbed
by the psi and heat the metal up" is a perfectly good reason... as long as
that also means that a psi can purposely use this phenomenon to his own 
advantage.

	In short, all I require is that the reasons given be there because
of a principle of logical operation, not because someone felt that the
rule was needed just to "balance" something. Ergo, I got rid of the
rule requiring mages not to wear armor; all the justifications I could
think of were either very, very thin ("interferes with gestures" -- maybe
plate does, but even that gives you a pretty good range of motion) or
carried ramifications I didn't like at all (if metal interferes, you
get all those nasty corrolaries, like a simple metal coating on a coach
makes the damn thing magic-immune; I like my magic to be MAGIC.).

	Thus, the consistent reasoning of a prior poster, having metal
helms interfere, also having metal rooms interfere, but having windows
in the metal room allow operation and so on, is perfectly fine with me.
I personally won't do it that way -- thought energies, in my world, are
not directly affected by simple materials -- but it's a good, logical
reason. It also means that the psi can wear a leather or ceramic helm
if he/she wants, and still allows the use of the "helm restraint system"
on the psi.
 

                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd