Re: Move Through (take 3)

[Jevan Furmanski <furmansj@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Steve Ames wrote:

> I'm reposting this because it would appear that some comentators
> didn't bother to actually read it :)
> 
> I also figured I'd break it down and explain it a little better
> for the logic and english impaired. Please read this entire message
> carefully, its not that lengthy and it'll let you speak in an
> informed manner going forward. I expect to have my ideas and logic
> bit apart. So far its been disapointing as people have attacked from
> the standpoint of complete ignorance of the actual proposal. Now if
> that wasn't cocky enough to challenge you to read this I'm out of
> practice.
> 
> > Alrighty then. We've kicked this one around a bit and the responses
> > I've seen indicate that a combination of 4 and 1 sounds best. So I'm
> > going to sum that up in a new writeup and we can kick the hell out
> > of that for a week before the next meeting (Sep 5th, 6PM).
> > 
> > Move Through. OK. There's two parts to this. The first part is to
> > modify the general ruleset that handles movement:
> > 
> > I'm picturing this as an errata on section 2.5.1 (movement):
> > 
> > | It is often necessary to maneuver during combat. Each adventurer has
> > | a _movement rate_ that is the distance he may move in a round when
> > | not attacking or spell casting. 
> 
> Everyone clear up to this point? When not onvolved in attacking or
> spell casting (and in my mind spell casting and thought triggering
> are the same thing as far as movement and concentration) you have a
No.  thought triggering requires no hand movements, no channeling of
magical energies which is where the concentration comes from.  I had a
thought about multi-tasking the other night.  Playing a wind intrument is
the most difficult task for the brain to accomplish, using 11% of the
organ.  However people march and improvise this.  It does not require the
channeling of forces invisible through human will though.  While a mage
could easily dictate or demonstrate a spell while running the mile, he
could hardly cast.


> defined movement rate. I hope so far this is pretty much in agreement.
> If you want full movement you can't be: attacking, casting a spell or
> thought triggering an item. There may be other things as well, but at
> least these, agreed?
> 
> > | An adventurer may only move up to 1/5 
> > | of this distance if he is attacking, spell casting or involved in a 
> > | melee (moving into, out of, or through a melee). 
> 
> Here we defined that if a person is doing any of the above things (spell
> casting, attacking, thought triggering, moving _through_ a combat, etc...)
> they move at 1/5 movement rate. This number is consistent with a later
> section in the manual that says concentrating on a spell limits you to
> 1/5 movement rate. Be consistent.
> 
No again.  Not the same.  Concentrating on a spell is the second round of
a stone jet, etc.  Yet again no channeling, but mild concentration on the
parameters of the spell, hence 1/5.  


> This sentence should be the crux of one argument as its actually what
> changes from the current status-quo. This is alwo where this message
> starts getting lengthy. Here are the reasons for introducing this
> change:
> 
> 1) Its a building block. The change itself really doesn't change much
>    in game terms. Someone wearing robes has a base movement of 50 so
>    they would have a movement of 10 during any of the above activities.
>    This is consistent with the sphere of melee range. However the change
>    does loosen up the movement mechanics to allow for a lot of future
>    building.
> 
> 2) Increase in realism. This is a definate increase in realism without
>    sacrificing any playability. In fact it enhances playability by allowing
>    more intuitive options and hence decresing the ruleset learning curve.
>    In other words I, as a new player, would expect to be able to move a
>    little and still get an attack. When the GM says no I'd have to say
>    "that's stupid". 
> 
>    And there's the "why can't I catch up with someone" scenario. Even if
>    you run 10'/round faster you won't catch someone until you get an
>    initiative flip-flop. The above rule does not stop this from occuring
>    but it does make it easier to catch someone if you move faster.
> 
> 3) Decrease in rule complexity. This is not a "newer, more complex" rule.
>    This actually decreases the complexity of the game. If players have to
>    ask questions than there is either a complexity or unclarity in the
>    rules. How many times have I heard the question "can I move and attack".
>    I say no and a good player looks for a way to do it anyway, "can I
>    sacrifice some attacks from a multi and get some movement?". This rule
>    completely clarifies this. 
> 
> > | This distance may be
> > | modified by your GM according to terrain, obstacles, or circumstances.
> 
> Stock disclaimer saying the GM can fuck with you if the circumstances
> say he's in the mood to.
> 
> > OK. So now you can move 1/5 movement and still take an attack or
> > cast a spell. The last bit concerning melee is important. You
> > _CANNOT_ run full tilt through a combat area and expect to utilize
> > full DVs. Insane. If your path takes you to within 5' (melee range)
> > of an opponent or ongoing melee than you become subject to the above
> > rule and can only take fifth movement.
> 
> That last sentence maybe needs some explanation. In my, admittedly
> twisted, mind attacking someone isn't about A -vs- B its about melee
> range, sphere's of influence. If I am holding a sword ready to kill
> you then I have a spere of influence. You cannot just run through this
> sphere (ie get within 5 feet of me) without becoming subject to the
> fifth movment rule. If you are already beyond your 1/5 movement you 
> end your round at the point of my sword.
> 
> This is added complexity and as I said it mostly exists in my mind
> since the exact wording above doesn't necessitate this implementation.
> However it is logical and does lend toward realism.
> 
> If this becomes a sticky point, I'll drop the issue in a heart beat.
> In fact lets consider "Spheres of Influence" a seperate topic and
> move on (now that your confused).
> 
> > So that's step one. A simple but far reaching change allowing an
> > aerodraco to move 120 and take an attack.... a torgon only 35' but
> > thats the difference between a rate 38 creature and a rate 200 
> > draco :) The next step is:
> > 
> > Using option 1, we add a weapon subclass where a 2d6 check would
> > let you move up to half your movement rate instead of the normal
> > quarter. I believe this is the way people were thinking. So in the
> > normal case you can always move 1/5 and get one attack (or more if
> > you make your skill check) but with the subclass you can move 1/2
> > and get your one attack (or more if you make a multiattack and we
> > allow split dice).
  > 
> More formalized (and a couple of options):
> 
> A) The "move through" subskill allows you to extend the distance you
> can move and still attack with your chosen weapon. A 2d6 check -vs-
> your weapon skill will allow you to move up to half your movement
> rate and still get an attack.
> 
> B) The "move through" subskill allows you to extend the distance you
> can move and still attack with your chosen weapon. For every die
> you roll against this skill you may move an additional 1/5 movment
> rate, not to exceed your maximum movement rate.
> 
> Lets call split dice a seperate topic and not discuss that right now
> either.
> 
> Why make it a weapon subskill and not a skill in its own right?
> 
> 1) Eventually I do want to talk about split dice and that will allow
>    simultaneous move-through and multi-attack. This couldn't happen if
>    it was a seperate skill because you cannot use two skills in one
>    round. With split dice you _will_ be able to utilize more than one
>    subskill in the same round. Planning ahead.
> 
Not using 2 skills in a round is not in the book.  If it is, please
correct me.

> 2) I've no desire to increase the movement rate of 1/5 for mages 
>    casting spells, people thought triggering, etc...
> 
> > And that should be that. One rule change involving movement and
> > the introduction of the "move through" weapon subclass (which I
> > would add to combat and missile) and voila... more dynamic combat
> > system that takes many more variables into account.
> > 
> > Someone, I forget who, voiced an objection to mages moving while
> > casting. If we can get a solid argument from them on this topic
> > we can scratch "spell casting" from the movement redefinition
> > also. Otherwise I'd vote it stays. Its part of the fantasy genre
> > for mages to jump under a table while tossing a lightning bolt,
> > or to be running away (or in this case walking away) while 
> > using magic to cover their parties retreat.
> 
> I still vote it stays. No one has voiced a real objection other than
> "thats not the way its been ruled before". Well of course not. Things
> change.
> 
You wound me... :)

> > Thoughts, criticisms, etc... bring 'em on. Got a weekend coming
> > up so I'll have lots and lots of time to argue :) And (hopefully)
> > bring the Centrali' Times up to current game date (always the
> > goal).
> 
> Didn't even get to work on the 'Times. Busy weekend. My adventure writup
> was mostly finished on sunday however and should be completed tonite.
> Adventure lasted about 12 hours (thats for you Greg). 
> 
> I don't have a whole weekend to argue. But I will absolutely read the
> complete text of every message sent to me on this topic.
> 
> Thanks for listening.
> 
> 					-Steve
> 


I read the message just like the first time, lets get it on.

Jevan