Can the spell Fanaticism be used to boost Archery skills?

[Zit]

5 hours ago, Puck said:

Whoops, yep, that was my mistake.  I think I may have been thinking of a different version of the game.  (I swear that I remember at one time a Dex SR of 1 allowed 3 shots).   That will make a bit of a difference.  

 

No, you were right. With DEX 19+, DSR=0. You shoot at SR 0, 5 and 10. Many Elfs can do it, or many humans with a coordination spell.

Fanaticism for missiles may not be clearly forbidden by the rules, but for game balance, we always limited it to hand weapons. I think it was in the "spirit" of the rules, when not in the exact wording. It would be helpful to clarify it either way in the new version. Generally speaking, every time there is a debate on this forum, there is a corresponding obscure point of rule. Even it is clear to the authors, the most important is that it is clear to the readers.

[Yelm's Light]

8 hours ago, David Scott said:

I can’t see where “hit probability” or “chance to hit” defines the weapon doing the action. Yet all of a sudden you seem to see that this particular spell doesn’t apply to archery (probably slings, darts, etc too).

RQ2 (Classic)

"All of a sudden" because I'd never had that situation come up in game, nor had anyone asked the question until now.

8 hours ago, David Scott said:

RQ3

Irrelevant, other than that the text is substantially the same as the RQG version.  No one even brought up RQ3 until now.

8 hours ago, David Scott said:

RQG (Final draft)

Did the authors consider the possibility of using it for archery when writing/editing this?  Or did they assume it would be exclusively for melee?

Regardless, I will run the game as I see fit.  And that interpretation is headed for HR hell.

[BWP]

19 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

To attack it from another angle, don't you think the game's creators would have been more explicit if they meant to include archery?

Huh?  They were explicit.  Absolutely nothing in any of the spell writeups says "melee only" or otherwise distinguishes the weapon (or attack) types affected by the spell in any way.  To paraphrase your statements, now suddenly you're adding exclusions?  To be precise: "chance to hit" is three words; which of those three words means "melee weapons only, of course"?

It's your game, you can play it however you want.  Don't start quoting your interpretations as if they were holy writ, though, when the published text does not support your assertions, at all.

 

[BWP]

17 hours ago, Zit said:

but for game balance, we always limited it to hand weapons.

I think it was in the "spirit" of the rules, when not in the exact wording. It would be helpful to clarify it either way in the new version. Generally speaking, every time there is a debate on this forum, there is a corresponding obscure point of rule. Even it is clear to the authors, the most important is that it is clear to the readers.

"Game balance" is bollocks.  Who is it not "balanced" for?  If it seems to give the players unexpected strength, then any GM worth his salt will find ways to lessen the effect.  If it's the GM who gets too much power, then he needs to adjust how he sets up combat situations!

As for "clarification" in the new version of the rules ... of course they can make the write-up as specific as they want, it won't hurt.  But the existing versions of the spell are already completely clear -- it's just that some people don't like the end result.  If the new version of the spell explicitly states "melee and ranged" will those people like it more than they do now?

 

[Zit]

Fact : if so many players have different interpretations, it means that the rules are not clear enough, whatever YOU think. And the game editors have to consider this. It is more a question of form. From my side, I never even thought about applying this spell to missile weapons before this thread. It may have been a kind of unconscious game balancing. Yes, I'd like to have it written "melee and ranged" or "melee only", even if I may change it anyway.

Speaking about game balance, players shall not have to adjust anything themselves : a rule has to propose something which works, moreover in a professional game design. That said, every group is of course free to change the rule as wished, and we all do it. And nobody's perfect, so no rule is 100% flawless and we accept this, but any improvement is welcome.

[Jeff]

26 minutes ago, Zit said:

Fact : if so many players have different interpretations, it means that the rules are not clear enough, whatever YOU think. And the game editors have to consider this. It is more a question of form. From my side, I never even thought about applying this spell to missile weapons before this thread. It may have been a kind of unconscious game balancing. Yes, I'd like to have it written "melee and ranged" or "melee only", even if I may change it anyway.

Speaking about game balance, players shall not have to adjust anything themselves : a rule has to propose something which works, moreover in a professional game design. That said, every group is of course free to change the rule as wished, and we all do it. And nobody's perfect, so no rule is 100% flawless and we accept this, but any improvement is welcome.

I disagree. Rules are often written in a manner to allow different GMs to interpret them in a manner better suited for their style of gaming. You'd be amazed how often that we designers deliberately write things so that you can have the interpretation you prefer.

[Grievous]

I'll have to respectfully say that I think that's a rather bad policy. Writing in vague language that results in gaming groups having uncertainty and actual arguments, not to say anything about forum wars and so on, is - I'd say - bad policy, when all of that could be avoided by clear language. That may sound trivial at fist glance, but we're talking about literally hours of people's time and effort (and emotion), all of which reflects on and gets associated with the product being discussed (and despite a persistent saying to the contrary all publicity is not good publicity). 

Of course, that said, not everything in every situation can be made explicit considering limitations on length of text.

However, if something needs to be established as a thing that can be taken in two, or multiple different ways depending on preference, then that is something that a sidebar, note, or something along those lines should accomplish. There is a huge difference in something being vague and something being optional, even if it is a case of a writer employing sleight-of-writing. 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

2 hours ago, Grievous said:

However, if something needs to be established as a thing that can be taken in two, or multiple different ways depending on preference, then that is something that a sidebar, note, or something along those lines should accomplish. There is a huge difference in something being vague and something being optional, even if it is a case of a writer employing sleight-of-writing. 

Yes , thats my feeling too. Particularly with a crunchy game like RuneQuest. A side bar explanation is very helpful in this instance, as it helps players across the board to feel comfortable with their interpretation of the rules, and comfortable with the game. Particulary relevant if the RAW rule is open to differeing interpretations 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[MJ Sadique]

1 hour ago, Grievous said:

1/ ... Writing in vague language that results in gaming groups having uncertainty and actual arguments, not to say anything about forum wars and so on, is - I'd say - bad policy, when all of that could be avoided by clear language. ...

2/ Of course, that said, not everything in every situation can be made explicit considering limitations on length of text.

3/ There is a huge difference in something being vague and something being optional, even if it is a case of a writer employing sleight-of-writing. 

1/ Finding some rpg write before 90s as open, efficient and simple than RuneQuest is almost impossible. ... Forums wars are just a way to sharpen yourself and your games. A clear language is Lhankor Mhy quest and one of Eurmal Nightmare... (I'm a pro-Eurmal)

2/ Everything is said. Like boardgames 2 extreme rules usually apply : Everything not authorized is forbidden OR Everything not forbidden is authorized ! I prefer the first for board game but never choose any for rpg

3/ Your playing in Glorantha man ... GLORANTHA, have you ever heard of a guy named Greg Stafford ? Ask some grognards about his T-shirt and habits. Being vague is an euphemism if you speak about Glorantha, About the system Like JEFF said : YGMV ie Your Gaming May Vary... (work well with Glorantha, GM also with grognard, gorp, gag ...)

[ThornPlutonius]

It looks to me like they should find a different word than "fanaticism" since the meaning has shifted over time and usage.  Or, provide a definition of the word with the spell to remove confusion.  In other words, tell the reader EXACTLY what the rule designer means when s/he uses the word "fanaticism".

[Ah, I was on page 1 of the thread when I posted, didn't see there is a page 2.]

Edited January 4, 2018 by ThornPlutonius

[Yelm's Light]

14 hours ago, BWP said:

Huh?  They were explicit.  Absolutely nothing in any of the spell writeups says "melee only" or otherwise distinguishes the weapon (or attack) types affected by the spell in any way.  To paraphrase your statements, now suddenly you're adding exclusions?  To be precise: "chance to hit" is three words; which of those three words means "melee weapons only, of course"?

It's your game, you can play it however you want.  Don't start quoting your interpretations as if they were holy writ, though, when the published text does not support your assertions, at all.

We appear to be operating under different definitions of explicit.  Explicit means you say it.  And they did not.

[jajagappa]

1 hour ago, Yelm's Light said:

Explicit means you say it.  And they did not.

By RQ3, it is explicit.  The inclusion of ranged magic spells (which Disruption and Mindblast certainly are) means that ranged attacks are acceptable and not excluded.  What's excluded is defensive action (parry, defensive and protective spells) and halved ability to Dodge.

[Grievous]

2 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

1/ Finding some rpg write before 90s as open, efficient and simple than RuneQuest is almost impossible. ... Forums wars are just a way to sharpen yourself and your games. A clear language is Lhankor Mhy quest and one of Eurmal Nightmare... (I'm a pro-Eurmal)

2/ Everything is said. Like boardgames 2 extreme rules usually apply : Everything not authorized is forbidden OR Everything not forbidden is authorized ! I prefer the first for board game but never choose any for rpg

3/ Your playing in Glorantha man ... GLORANTHA, have you ever heard of a guy named Greg Stafford ? Ask some grognards about his T-shirt and habits. Being vague is an euphemism if you speak about Glorantha, About the system Like JEFF said : YGMV ie Your Gaming May Vary... (work well with Glorantha, GM also with grognard, gorp, gag ...)

I appreciate your viewpoints and I don't entirely disagree - but I guess I disagree enough.

Let's put it this way. I think the rules of an RPG intended for Gloranthan play are supposed to give you the tools to "heroquest" in the mythic realm of Glorantha. The provider of the rules is the community facilitating this. If the result is division and discord, not play, then the community has failed. Of course, you can't avoid all conflict and Chaos will rear its ugly head (hah, either in a Gloranthan or Petersonian meaning), and you'll handle it when it does, but you really shouldn't build for it, either.

[DavetheLost]

OpenQuest closes the window on this spell stating that it applies to close combat and unarmed combat attacks. But adds that the target may not attempt to parry, dodge or cast spells.  The last point is clearly different to the RuneQuest version.

In reading the text of the three RuneQuest versions given above there is nothing that specifically speaks to ranged combat, such as archery, but given that the weapon skill examples are all close combat weapons and reference is made to an inability to parry, which is only relevant n melee combat, I think the intention is that the spell apply to melee combatants. But the window is there.

[jajagappa]

5 minutes ago, DavetheLost said:

In reading the text of the three RuneQuest versions given above there is nothing that specifically speaks to ranged combat

The spells do.  Both Disruption and Mindblast are ranged magic.

[g33k]

1 hour ago, jajagappa said:

By RQ3, it is explicit.  The inclusion of ranged magic spells (which Disruption and Mindblast certainly are) means that ranged attacks are acceptable and not excluded.  What's excluded is defensive action (parry, defensive and protective spells) and halved ability to Dodge.

It is arguably implicit in RQ2, as well (quoting David's excellent comparative texts):

Quote

... It also prevents the Fanatic from parrying or casting protective spells... 

Because the ONLY magics prohibited are defensive -- and many (offensive) magics are ranged -- it is implicit that ranged attacks are OK under the Fanaticism spell... even if closing to melee is an option, you are allowed to attack at range.

I see that there are arguments to be made on both sides; I think it's a mistake to claim that it's "clear" or "obvious" that the rules "clearly" allow or disallow Fanaticism to skill-buff missile weapons.

Decide how YOU want to run it, and don't worry about those Poor Benighted Fools who are obviously Doing It Wrong.

 

That said, I too agree that a few words clarifying the intent (including "GMs should decide whether or not Fanaticism covers missile and melee weapons both") would be better than the ambiguity.  I have seen real rage at a table when one player designed a PC to one assumption (such as an archer who uses Fanaticism & other magic-buffs) and the GM invaldated that assumption because of a different interpretation of the rules.

 

[DavetheLost]

   2 hours ago,  DavetheLost said: 

In reading the text of the three RuneQuest versions given above there is nothing that specifically speaks to ranged combat

2 hours ago, jajagappa said:

The spells do.  Both Disruption and Mindblast are ranged magic.

I was less clear than I meant to be. I meant ranged weapon combat.   Yes, the spells are ranged attacks and specifically stated as allowed. 

[jajagappa]

2 minutes ago, DavetheLost said:

I was less clear than I meant to be. I meant ranged weapon combat.   Yes, the spells are ranged attacks and specifically stated as allowed. 

From my GM perspective, that's sufficient to indicate you can attack from range.  The spell doesn't cloud your mind, just focuses you all out on attack.

Other GM's may play differently, however, in all my years running RQ I never recall the issue coming up.

[DavetheLost]

I have never been one to let nit pick parse every word for possible lawyerly meaning analysis destroy the fun of playing the game. I go with what the GM (usually me locally) says and play on.  In this case, I think for RQ as long as you are attacking you are good,  at least by the rule as written

Besides, that archer who cast Fanaticism on himself can be dealt with in the same manner as .other archers, get under cover, return fire or charge him. The spell is just as scary in close combat.

[MJ Sadique]

48 minutes ago, g33k said:

1/ I see that there are arguments to be made on both sides; I think it's a mistake to claim that it's "clear" or "obvious" that the rules "clearly" allow or disallow Fanaticism to skill-buff missile weapons.
...

2/ That said, I too agree that a few words clarifying the intent (including "GMs should decide whether or not Fanaticism covers missile and melee weapons both") would be better than the ambiguity.
...
3/  I have seen real rage at a table when one player designed a PC to one assumption (such as an archer who uses Fanaticism & other magic-buffs) and the GM invaldated that assumption because of a different interpretation of the rules.

 

1/
Fanaticism as a spirit magic spell have a name and a description.
-The Spirit magic name imply that the spell put you in a violent state of mind which is incompatible with a greater performance of a ranged weapon. A better shooter need to be calm, concentrated to adjust his shoot. (Main argument against the boost)
-The Spell description imply an attack oriented spell and don't forbade nor authorized the use of a melee weapon. (Main argument in favor of the boost).

The Rules mechanic about melee and ranged weapon as well as spells list differ also :
-In term of rules and spells list, All melee spells and ranged spells are different and separate (fireblade/firearrow, bladeshart/speedart, Berserk/Arrow trance); why fanaticism should be able to boost melee and ranged fighters ? (Main argument against the boost)
-Every melee spells have an equivalent one in ranged spells (fireblade/firearrow ... etc) but as Fanaticism is the counter part of Demoralize, you cannot find a ranged spell that do the same thing. (Best argument in favor of the boost).

2/ As I Already said, you usually found 2 rules against and in favor : Everything not authorized is forbidden OR Everything not forbidden is authorized ! .............YGMV... !

If you strictly follow the rules, no need for a second spell, you can just stick to the original definition of fanaticism "divinely Inspired" and the rules despite some illogic part of the system.

If you follow the spirit of the rules and some logic, you have to create/modify a spell having fanaticism + berserk for melee fighter and another_spell + arrow trance for ranged fighter.

I personally choose the later and change farsee spell form "+5% to search by" in "+10% to search and +5% to ranged weapon" for each MP and limit fanaticism to melee boost but halving defence skills (parry or dodge alike).

[Yelm's Light]

4 hours ago, jajagappa said:

By RQ3, it is explicit.  The inclusion of ranged magic spells (which Disruption and Mindblast certainly are) means that ranged attacks are acceptable and not excluded.  What's excluded is defensive action (parry, defensive and protective spells) and halved ability to Dodge.

You (and everyone else) are drawing conclusions from text, not what the actual text is.  Do I really need to post the definitions of explicit and implicit?

Edited January 4, 2018 by Yelm's Light

[David Scott]

31 minutes ago, MJ Sadique said:

The Spirit magic name imply that the spell put you in a violent state of mind

The English definition of Fanaticism does not imply violence and if you look at the Antonyms, they really don't imply it.

fanaticism | noun | the quality of being fanatical:

fanatical | adjective | filled with excessive and single-minded zeal

The thesaurus provides us with

1  zealous, extremist, extreme, militant, dogmatic, sectarian, bigoted, rabid, maniacal, radical, diehard, activist; prejudiced, chauvinistic, intolerant, narrow-minded, single-minded, partisan, blinkered, illiberal, inflexible, uncompromising. ANTONYMS moderate; open-minded.

2 (informal): enthusiastic, eager, keen, fervent, ardent, fervid, passionate, devoted, dedicated; over-enthusiastic, obsessive, obsessed, infatuated, fixated, compulsive, immoderate, frenzied, frenetic; informal wild, gung-ho, nuts, potty, dotty, crazy, hooked. ANTONYMS  indifferent.

 

[MJ Sadique]

17 minutes ago, David Scott said:

The English definition of Fanaticism does not imply violence and if you look at the Antonyms, they really don't imply it.

Oh man, I just hate quoting myself XD...

56 minutes ago, MJ Sadique said:

... If you strictly follow the rules, no need for a second spell, you can just stick to the original definition of fanaticism "divinely Inspired" and the rules despite some illogic part of the system.

And please copy paste two line of synonym and said it's a definition...it's boring. Historical and modern french standard definitions of fanaticism are :
A- Behavior, state of mind of one who believes himself inspired by Divinity
B- Behavior, state of mind of a person or group of people demonstrating for a doctrine or cause a passionate attachment and an excessive zeal leading to intolerance and often to violence

A lotof  people associate fanaticism with the semantic field of  "fierce, madness, fury, hate, violence" instead of "self-denial, self-sacrifice, dedication, generosity, heroism, sacrifice". The two choices are true and all-right but at the exact opposite. Like people in this thread... (me include)

[David Scott]

16 minutes ago, MJ Sadique said:

Historical and modern french standard definitions of fanaticism are

I can't really argue with the French definition, but I'm pretty sure none of the authors of RuneQuest were French.

You might like to widen your definition: 

Edited January 4, 2018 by David Scott

[BWP]

5 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

You (and everyone else) are drawing conclusions from text, not what the actual text is.  Do I really need to post the definitions of explicit and implicit?

Which part of "attack", implicit or explicit, excludes ranged attacks?  If I am making a ranged attack, am I not making an attack?  Explicitly or implicitly?  Where in the spell description(s) is the explicit statement "this spell only works for melee attacks"?  Are you sure you know what "explicit" means?

If you, as GM, want the spell to exclude ranged attacks (for whatever reason you want to make the exclusion), you are entitled to make that declaration.  I don't think anyone here would say otherwise.

If you, as someone who claims to read and understand English, state that the spell description "obviously and/or explicitly" excludes any form of attack that isn't melee, and/or that it "obviously and/or explicitly" includes elements of being a berserker (to any degree), and/or believe that "obviously and/or explicitly" the game designers meant anything not actually written in the text, then you are reading words that do not exist in the spell description(s), and are instead trying to pass off your personal opinions as if they were objective facts.

Heck, if I was running a game and somehow a character had (legitimately) acquired a skill of "make hurtful remarks", I'd be happy to let the spell increase the chance of that working, too!  Ultimately, it's all about game fun and (in the case of Glorantha) emphasising the magic parts of the world (i.e., the myriad ways in which it differs from our own).  YMMV.