Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9619433" data-attributes="member: 7025508">Alarm spell is fine. It is quite clear about how it functions, and its reasonable use is to block the only entrance to a space. When used sensibly, it cannot easily be overcome, and the sensible way is apparent to the players. But yes, how the spell is used matters. If you use it on an empty field where the enemy could approach from any direction, it doesn't do much. So how it is used actually matters. This seems to be the fact that bothers you for some reason. To me this is preferable to the effectiveness of the spell being purely random as seems to be the case in TB.What I said would be bad practice, is for the GM to concoct after the spell is used an enemy that can easily overcome it, or other weakness to the position of the PCs. (So inventing a magic detecting and dispelling assassin or an undetected secret passage to the cam via which enemy enters after the PC has used the spell.)I think we have examples of that in this thread. I think your preferred method of randomising magical defences denies the players the agency of choosing the method of deployment of such defences to matter. I also alluded earlier Blades in The Dark being too random for skilled play, and this is very similar to what I said above. (Which is not a criticism of the system as such, as it is not intended for that, but it nevertheless means that randomness inhibits that type of agency.)Then we touched upon social mechanics, and we had a long thread about them a while ago. In many of them random determination of reactions erodes the player agency over the behaviour of their character.Yes, several times.I am not at all confident about that, which is why I'd very much like someone to post the rules in question!Right. So this is what I see as the difference. In my method the setting details determine whether things go poorly (or at least affect the odds of it.) In yours the randomiser determines it, and the setting details merely provide the flavour for the potential complication.</blockquote>

Verification