From: langsl@hhcs.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.games.roleplay
Subject: Comments on Ashraf's Ideas
Date: 24 Nov 92 09:17:36 +1100
Organization: Aust. Dept. Health, Housing and Community Services

In article <1durnaINN4nt@csc2.anu.edu.au>, axg708@anu.edu.au (Ashraf) writes:
> Ok people. Here goes.
> 
> 1) I have had this ongoing argument with other people in regards to
>    undead critters, especially the not so nasty ones eg zombies and
>    skeletons. These entities have a very limited intelligence (note 
>    I am not saying stupid) and usually work for a being that can control
>    them eg a Vampire or Lich BUT their main driving force is what?
>    Can they detect life in as much a way a Paladin can detect evil?
>    If so, do they wish to destroy the life source. Remeber, skeletons
>    and zombies do not (always) have eyes, or a significantly working
>    nervous system, or at times a brain as we know it. So are they magical
>    created creatures and if so could a dispell magic affect them? If it
>    is a curse rather than magic, would a remove curse affect them and 
>    how?

  I am currently playing in a RuneQuest (2nd Edition) campaign, and I think you
could get some good inspiration from the way RQ2 handles spirits for describing
undead.  I don't have the rules with me and I am not an RQ2 guru in any way, but
some suggestions are given below.  RQ3 may also help, but I don't think it
handles spirits in quite the same way.  In the end it comes down to what you
want for your campaign - if the rules are vague you can just define things to
be a certain way to suit your own views. Your players might like to be
consulted too - but in the end it is still your call.  But I do think RQ2 
provides one good model for how you can handle all of this stuff.
 
  Undead could be made by binding a spirit to an undead body.  Part of the
enchantment on the body provides the ability for it to move, less if the body
is basically whole, more if the body is somewhat decomposed.  However it is the
bound spirit which provides the life force to animate the body and give it
limited intelligence.  Perhaps stupider undead are made by binding stupider
and less capable spirits: maybe the process does unfortunate things to the
stats of the original personality whose spirit gets bound into a skeleton, or
zombie, or whatever.

  Using RQ2 as a model, spirits sense the physical world through the physical
senses of the host body.  Also, spirits in this state can sense POW, ie 'life
force' or 'aura', so 'detect life' might be reasonable power to give them.  If
the body has deteriorated then so would the physical senses.

  In RQ2 you can encounter spirits who are malign and attack as soon as you
meet them - so perhaps by the end of being turned into undead the spirit
animating the body is malign, hates what it is, and hates even more to be
reminded of what it was, e.g. by real living people.

  In RQ2 I don't think dispel magic affects a spirit which has possessed a body
- you really need something extra for this.

  

> 
> 2) Why should demi-humans stop advancing in a level just because they

  It all sounds good to me.  If you and your players like it, go for it.  I
don't particularly like such limits either.

> 
> 3) Character death. This is a big one. At times, this happens and as a
>    DM the player tends to take it personally. How do people handle this?

  I have encountered 3 main styles of campaign relating to character death.

  #1.Character death likely.

  In these campaigns encounters were often deadly.  So were traps.  You
typically had to do the right thing first off.  Some campaigns were handled
well, with plenty of warning of the style, and a lot of info provided so you
mostly always had all you needed to make the right choice.  I found these to be
ok occasionally, but in the longer term they were frustrating.  Characters just
didn't last long enough to be satisfying - worse than not developing a
character was to have it take on life and then get cut down.  Campaigns of this
type not handled well were _much_ worse in the long term.

  #2.Character death unlikely.

  These have been typically AD&D campaigns where characters who made mistakes
at low level were given a much greater chance to live and learn from the
mistakes.  When higher levels were achieved the characters were much more
survivable because a grotty 1st - 3rd level character or monster generally
wouldn't snuff your character in 1 blow - you had a chance to realise you had
made a mistake and get out of there.  With character death no longer looming
over everyone's shoulder more attention seemed to be paid to roleplaying, with
PCs and NPCs becoming more developed.  I think people enjoyed these campaigns
much more.  However sometimes things became too easy because of the apparent
safety of the characters: several times the universe became more deadly
overnight without warning to PCs, and they didn't appreciate characters
suddenly being snuffed out.  So if a safe campaign is becoming too safe, don't
change it too drastically.  Either warn players explicitly, or have the change
in tone of the campaign do that - e.g. with a few encounters where PCs get hurt
a bit and maybe a few NPCs of some power are found seriously injured, in a
coma, etc.

  #3.Character death possible.

  Very much like #2 above, except that at any level encounters are possible
which may cause serious injury, or even fatalities.  It occasionally reminds
PCs that the world can be a dangerous place for them too.  This can add spice
to a campaign - resorting to violence isn't just good clean fun: you could lose
a character you've become attached to.  Often violence is a result of
considered choice - and the things accomplished as a result are often valued
much more because of the risks faced in achieving them.

  The RQ2 campaign and Flashing Blades campaigns I play in are like this. 
Character death does occur - and I think it adds to the campaign.  You still
have a much better than even chance of developing a character to a reasonable
level before he/she gets the chop.
 
>    I sometimes kill off a favourite NPC just to remind the party of the
>    danger invovled and this gets them to start to think. However I have
>    complained of and been complained to about the situation being too
>    hard to handle etc etc etc. The DM has everything in front of him, the
>    play does not. If they are in deep shit, I sometimes (not always) make
>    an intellegence roll for a party character. Now since the mages 
>    character probably has an IQ of 170 and the player (and this is being
>    nice) about 110, I give them what some people have called 'freebies'.
>    I am not saying I do this ALL the time, what would be the point. Hell
>    sometimes, these guys come up with a better solution to the problem than 
>    the one I thought of and I let it ride. Is this wrong? Am I spoon
>    feeding?

   If the campaign is working - ie you and the players enjoy it then no, you
are not doing anything wrong.  Injuring NPCs is nicer than killing them -
easier to bring them back.  Perhaps they are in a coma, or dying of some
mysterious sickness which needs an adventure to find the cure for, as well as
deal with whoever did the foul deed.
> 
> 
> Well there are a few questions/ideas. Please feel free to comment.
> 
   Thankyou, I have. 8-)

> 
> 				Ashraf
-- 



-------------------------------------------------------------------
! Alistair Langsford        langsl@hhcs.gov.au                    !
!-----------------------------------------------------------------!
! Systems Software,                     !    this                 !
! Commonwealth Dept of Health, Housing, !    space                !
! and Community Services,               !    intentionally        !
! Canberra Australia                    !    left                 !     
! Phone: (06) 289-7870(w)               !    blank                !
!_________________________________________________________________!