This is my opinion on how disbelief of illusions should occur. Consult the
following scenario:
A group of characters are chasing down a mage,thought to be an illusionist,
as they get close, a knight in plate mail armor, astride a horse comes
charging directly at them with lance lowered. One player shouts out, I'm
going to disbelieve, and of course the rest of the party follows suit.
Assume a few make successful rolls, and see that it is in fact an illusion.
A few other characters fail their roll. A character who sees that the
charging knight is in fact an illusion, yells to his party members, "Its an
illusion!", and will be able to see through the knight. Those that failed,
are thinking to themselves, "Like hell its an illusion, thats a real
knight!"
At this point, the characters who see a "real" knight can decide to continue
to disbelieve, or react in some other fashion, such as preparing to dodge
out of the way, or ready a weapon. The sound of pounding hooves would be an
important part of a charging mounted knight illusion, and if the illusion
was purely visual, I would give those characters deciding to try and
disbelieve again, an addition of +5 for being warned of an illusion, as well
as a +10 for lacking a major component of the illusion (sound). Those that
were preparing weapons, etc. would receive a much smaller chance to notice
the lack of sound, such as a flat perception roll. Those who failed the
roll, but continued to disbelieve anyway, would have to make a willpower
check with the same multiplier as the original Illusion check. If they fail
this roll, the character really truly believes that it is real, and will
take some type of action at the last second, to avoid being impaled on a
lance. No further attempts to disbelieve can occur, so long as the illusion
is within melee range of that character. If the Illusion chases after a
different character, a willpower check must again be made before disbelief
attempts can be continued. Those that succeed in the willpower roll, will s
tand their ground, and so long as the illusion does not have a tactile
component, will remain unnaffected, and will be able to continue to attempt
to disbelieve.
If the illusion does have the audio component of the pounding hooves,
characters who chose to continue to attempt to disbelieve, receive only the
+5 bonus of being forewarned of an illusion. Those who do not attempt to
disbelive, would not receive an additional roll.
Once contact is made with the illusion and it does not have a tactile
component, those still attempting to disbelieve (the ones who didn't fail
their willpower check) will do so automatically. Those who treat the
illusion as real, by swinging at it, or coming in contact with it in some
way, (including firing an arrow through the illusion) will be given another
disbelief check, without the player haveing to make a disbelieve attempt.
This would occur every time that character somehow made contact with the
illusion.
If the illusion does have a tactile component, and a character that still
believes in the illusion (whether they made their willpower check or not) is
hit with the lance, they will lose 1/3 of original fatigue and become
stunned, as they will have believed themselves to have been severly injured
(unless, of course, the illusionist controlling the spell avoided a direct
hit). A successful stun check will give the character an immediate
disbelieve check. A failed stun check will leave the character stunned, and
must continue to check for stun recovery every pulse. Any additional hits
by the illusion on a character who "believes" will continue to do 1/3 of
original fatigue and cause a stun. All success stun recovery rolls result in
an automatic disbelieve check.
If a character has no fatigue left, any hit will cause 1pt of Endurance
damage, and the character will fall unconscious (faint) unless they make a
successful stun check. An unconscious character will remain unconscious for
D10 pulses, or until awakened by other party members. Once a character has
become unconscious, they are unaffected by the illusion, and hence, a
character can only be reduced to 3 Endurance by an illusion, as they will
fall unconscious at this stage.
Of course a character can be killed by stepping onto an illusionary floor,
which actually covers a 30 foot deep spiked pit. But in that case, the
illusion is only a contributing factor to the character's death, not the
direct cause of it.
First the disbelieve roll
>>
>>> It's hardly any kind of drawback at all, really.Knowing something is
>>an
>>> illusion is no source of comfort at all when it's tearing your
>>throat out.
>>Ah, but that means it doesn't require disbelief to resist illusions,
>>it takes some nebulous 'magic resistance' or 'willpower check' or
>>whatever.
>>So then disbelief means nothing and has no reason to even be mentioned.
>>They way I read the rules, if you disbelieve it cannot affect you, the
>>only roll being whether you *really* disbelieve. That's why I enforce
>>the 'ignore it' rule; if its tearing your throat out and you say I
>>don't believe it and saying you are getting up and ignoring it, if its
>>an illusion, it ceases to hurt you. BUT if its not, you die.
>
>I consider this too binary a solution for long term play. What you seem to
>be saying is that if an Illusionist has highly trained war dogs, and
>Illusions of war dogs, the players are at an appalling disadvantage. They
>can be attacked by Illusionary dogs, that only do damage to them if they
>react to them as real dogs, and they can be attacked by real dogs that do
>some serious damage because they completely ignore them until they're
>climbing down their throats...At which point, it might be too late.
>This seems to me to be an hideous double bind, from the players' point of
>view.
>>
>>> Again, only if you assume it is some kind of mental invasion. And
>>even if it
>>> is, only two colleges get Mind Cloak, and they're self only spells...
>
>>Which can be invested into an object and sold/given to other
>>characters like any other spell, and would quickly become a valued
>>commodity.
>>
>I think that very likely. I also think that it introduces a new, and I
>think, unnecessary rule into the game.
>
>>> The point is, you would have to do something like it to balance the
>>college.
>>> What you seem to be saying is that the Illusion College is fine, if
>>you make
>>> a few adjustments to the game. I don't have an objection to doing
>>so, but I
>>> don't see this as a refutation of the initial point. Illusionists, as
>>> written, are not a great college.
>
>>Dragon Quest as written, is not a perfect game. I have never played
>>any game that didn't need tweaking. DQ just needs less than most.
>>
>Really? Have you looked at EarthDawn? The ruleset in that game is superb.
>Many games have interesting ideas to offer, and it is a matter of some
>choice which you prefer, but I don't think that DQ needs less tweaks than
>most. It seems to me that you have spent a great deal of time and effort
>'tweaking' the Illusion College, and that it is still wanting, if only in
>the game balance area.
>
>>> The players must trust the information you give them for over 99% of
>>> occasions, otherwise they spend a lot of time expecting to be
>>decieved.
>>> Sometimes, rarely, you may be forced by the exigencies of your story
>>to give
>>> the players false information, and sometimes they may put a
>>construction on
>>> something you describe that you hadn't intended, and you let it lie.
>>> If you only describe things that you think the players would sense,
>>then
>>> they miss out on the other information that would be an expectable
>>part of
>>> any interaction. Body language, for example, position in the room,
>>> micro-momentary expressions, and other things of that nature.
>>> As a game master, you're in the business of providing information.
>>When you
>>> clamp down on it, and only provide simple, sense based information,
>>then you
>>> distance the players from your game. They have less traction on the
>>game
>>> world, and they start to feel powerless.
>
>>So you prefer a game where the players get to sleepwalk through the
>>adventure until the GM announces 'You sense danger' or 'Roll 2 tens,
>>what's your PC?' at which point they tense up and prepare even if they
>>fail their rolls? Sorry, sounds like a Disney movie to me.
>
>I will thank you not to make a judgement about my game when you have had no
>opportunity to play or observe it. I find it impolite at the least, and
>importunate with hardly any effort at all.
>I prefer the players to have as much information as they can deal with.
>There are enough opportunities in such games to obfuscate and confound
>players. I don't have any need to add to their problems in that direction.
>No, I do not want my players spoon fed information, if that is what you are
>saying. Neither do I want them bumbling around in the game world, wondering
>what the hell's going on.
>An informed player is an involved player. An uninformed player is just
>furniture inside a game, that things happen to.
>
>
>I prefer
>>the characters on their toes. They should be just as cautious rounding
>>the 100 bends in the road that contain no ambushes as the 1 that does.
>>Make them work for it, otherwise you might as well be telling a story
>>to children.
>
>It is not telling a story to children. Their characters are highly trained
>people who have an eye for the sort of thing that might get them killed.
>Unfortunately, their players are usually sedentary, middle-class, and
>completely divorced from the kind of world they choose to excercise their
>imagination in.
>>
>
>>> Illusionists make people doubt the information the players give
>>them. An
>>> experienced player in our campaign said to me that he had never seen
>>an
>>> Illusionist who wasn't a good fighter, and a poor caster. I took it
>>upon
>>> myself to investigate why, and it turns out that most game masters
>>won't use
>>> high level Illusionists against parties, because they kill them so
>>quickly,
>>> and without much effort. The players believe you when you say the
>>floor is
>>> paved with stone for 50 or 60 paces. They don't know the truth until
>>one or
>>> two of them have stepped into the pit.
>
>>And the same is true of illusions. Why is it any different because its
>>magic instead of camoflage? Why should players be told the 'truth'?
>>They don't get it in reality, just what their senses tell them.
>
>Because you have a chance to detect traps, but you must actively disbelieve
>Illusions. You might add another rule amendment, saying that part of trap
>detection is active disbelief. But then, as I've said above, it seems to me
>that you are constantly adding to the ruleset, however reasonable that may
>be.
>
>>> They don't need to create Sherman tanks. They just need to create
>>something
>>> from their genre. And they can. Are you seriously suggesting that my
>>point
>>> isn't valid?
>
>>>Ok, then: how many characters in your game have actually seen a dragon?
>>In mine its very few. Yet if the illusionist who tries to 'create' a
>>dragon from their description in a book, anyone who sees his illusion
>>will not be fooled by it.
>>
>Quite a few characters will have seen elephants, and oxen...That's all you
>really need to use.
>And can you stop making references to my game. You haven't been a part of
>it, or watched it. As it happens, I've never, as in NEVER, used a dragon in
>DQ. Not that it has any bearing at all to the point.
>>> >
>>> >Also remember that an illusionist's magic has no real effects. The
>>> >party cannot be flown to safety by the illusionist making them think
>>> >they are flying, as an air mage can do for real. He cannot make an
>>> >illusionary fire keep them warm, or make illusionary food that will
>>> >actually feed them.
>>>
>>> A Namer can't do either of these things. It's still a usefull
>>College to
>>> have around.
>
>>I never said it wasn't. Those were just examples. Actually, a namer
>>is a pretty good defense against illusionists. They can see auras.
>>Illusionists can't and so their creations should not have auras at all
>>or have wrong ones. Any decent Namer should be able to see that and
>>tell his party to ignore it.
>>
>Where is it written that Illusions don't have auras? They would at the
least
>have magical auras.
>
>>> That is spurious, and the kind of argument that says that 'Enchanged
>>Sleep'
>>> is a pathetic spell, not the lethal hassle it really is. How much
>>time does
>>> it take to kill an unconscious foe?
>
>>That is spurious and it seems now you are saying Enchanters are too
>>powerfull. How long does it take to kill a foe who is already dead
>>from a fireball?
>
>Are you trying to say that Enchanted Sleep is weaker than Ball of Fire, as
>an attack spell? I'm afraid I find this a little hard to follow. The way I
>see it, you would have to have almost no FT or EN, to be killed by a Ball
of
>Fire. Maximum damage is (D-4)+10, excluding doubles and triple, or none if
>you resist. Even if you failed your Magic Resistance, you'd have to be
>pretty badly hurt to be killed by it. On the other hand, if you fail your
>Magic Resistance against Enchanted Sleep, you have no opportunity to do
>anything else except lie down and snore. Snoring people have very little
>defence, and are usually considered prone. If the spell is Rank 10 or
>higher, repeated stabbing won't even wake you up...
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
>Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home:
http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com