[Bronze] magic and 'magic items'

[stefoid]

I wish you could edit posts.  I forgot.  intuition...  noticing human cues to work out emotions, lies, motivations etc..   awareness is a 'noticing physical stuff not readilly apparent' skill

[lumpley]

Well...

Maybe that's enough to work with. If it's not, we'll hit a dead end in a couple of posts and we'll have to come back to it. That's fine.

So. For your game, do you want magic to be a) a tool you can bring to bear in any arena of conflict; b) a tool you can bring to bear in only certain arenas of conflict, like the political arena or the war arena; or c) an arena of conflict all its own?

(a) might look like this:

SHAMANIC MAGIC
In the political arena:
- DEER backs uncompromising positions, strongly backs avoiding confrontation, and is vulnerable to threats.
- BEAR strongly backs compromise enforced by strength of arms, and is vulnerable to flattery.
- WOLF backs alliance, strongly backs loyalty and royalty, and is vulnerable to treachery.
etc.

In the sexual arena:
- DEER backs flirtation and coyness of all kinds, strongly backs playing hard-to-get, and is vulnerable to Cassanovas.
- BEAR backs sex for fun, strongly backs family devotion, and is vulnerable to infidelity.
- WOLF backs arranged marriages, strongly backs marriage to cement alliances of power, and is vulnerable to lovelessness.
etc.

In the war arena:
- DEER strongly backs stealth, deception, and refusal to engage, and is vulnerable to flanking and cornering.
- BEAR backs shows of force, strongly backs cutting your losses, and is vulnerable to provocation.
- WOLF backs all kinds of direct assaults, strongly backs hit-and-run, and is vulnerable to poor morale.
etc.

And you'd continue on for each of the arenas of conflict.

You'd mechanically define "backs," "strongly backs," and "is vulnerable to" - like when I've invoked a spirit into myself, maybe I get +4 when I do things the spirit backs, +8 when I do things the spirit strongly backs, and my enemies gets +6 when they do to me things the spirit's vulnerable to.

Then you'd go on to theistic magic and sorcery. There, instead of spirits backing things, you could have wholly different rules. Maybe for theistic magic it's all a matter of making sacrifices to particular gods:

THEISTIC MAGIC
In the political arena:
-Sacrifice a bull to Polla for three +2 bonuses, to apply as you see fit to future political action.
In the martial arena:
-Pledge your child into military service for a +3 bonus to every military action you take.
-Pledge one third of the spoils to the temple of Miches for a +2 bonus to every action you take in the battle.
In the sexual arena:
-Sacrifice 3 doves to Aes to reroll on the conception probability chart.
etc.

And then again for sorcery: in the political arena, what does sorcery give you? In the martial arena, what does sorcery give you? In the sexual arena etc.?

(b) would look the same, except that for each kind of magic you'd choose some of the arenas of conflict and leave others out. Like maybe:
Shamanic magic is good in the sexual, war, and cultural arenas, but not the mercantile, political or religious.
Theistic magic is good in the cultural, political, mercantile and religious arenas.
Sorcery is good in the sexual, war, and religious arenas.
Or whatever suits your vision.

(c) looks entirely different. I'm not going to describe it yet; I'm not sure you've got what I'm talking about when I say "arenas of conflict," and if you don't, it'll just be noise.

So are (a) and (b) making sense to you?

It'll help you A LOT, by the way, if you let go your misperception that situational resources aren't the game designer's job.

-Vincent

[stefoid]

Maybe that's enough to work with. If it's not, we'll hit a dead end in a couple of posts and we'll have to come back to it. That's fine.

So. For your game, do you want magic to be a) a tool you can bring to bear in any arena of conflict; b) a tool you can bring to bear in only certain arenas of conflict, like the political arena or the war arena; or c) an arena of conflict all its own?

(a) might look like this:

interesting, but not what Im thinking of.  So definately b).  in fact the general applicability of magic is one of the things that I didnt like about my first cut. 

(b) would look the same, except that for each kind of magic you'd choose some of the arenas of conflict and leave others out. Like maybe:
Shamanic magic is good in the sexual, war, and cultural arenas, but not the mercantile, political or religious. 
Theistic magic is good in the cultural, political, mercantile and religious arenas.
Sorcery is good in the sexual, war, and religious arenas.
Or whatever suits your vision.

Im looking at it from the point of view that the ancients used gods and spirits and demons as a way to explain the world.  Therefore Im looking at a very literal interpretation of what the domain of a diety or spirit is.  The god of winds does wind.  thats it.

So Spirits and deities each have their own spheres of influence, so in that respect, I guess I could simply categorize those, and whatever arena the player can find them helpful in, then thats great.

Shamanism:  two general types:
nature spirits:  physical skills, perception skils, divination skills (powerful spirits know stuff, but they dont neccessarily communicate in a straight forward way)
ancestor worship: divination, protection from spirits such as evil/disease, personality and skill adjustments dpenending on ancestor's personality and skill

Theurgy (Theistic magic):  I like that name I got from a website somewhere.  It rolls off the tongue better than 'divine magic or theistic magic, dont you think?)
many 'types', depending on the deity in question.
god of winds:  all wind-related stuff
god of war:  fighting
god of fertility: crops, growth, conception etc..
god of magic: this is the one most interesting to me at the moment, because it leaves a door open for sorcerors.  I have been leafing through a book on the daily lives of babylonians and assyrians and it mentions that certian gods were associated with magic.  Perhaps sorcerors are merely self-serving worshippers of whatever entity that they can derive supernatural power from?  i.e. can a deity of magic or a demon or whatever grant a man the power to work magic on his own behalf?
god of ....:

there will be many different types of gods so the arenas that they influence will be fairly broad I imagine.  I havent got time to sit down and work out all the domains that they will cover, but your point is that I should think about what domains I want magic to be able to cover before I do that.

(c) looks entirely different. I'm not going to describe it yet; I'm not sure you've got what I'm talking about when I say "arenas of conflict," and if you don't, it'll just be noise.

So are (a) and (b) making sense to you?

yep

It'll help you A LOT, by the way, if you let go your misperception that situational resources aren't the game designer's job.

take 'the queen is in love with the character'  from an ealier post.  Are you suggesting that 'love of the queen' be something that the game can grant the character without the character going through the situational process fo trying to win the love of the queen?  what, can I just roll up a character that has this  up hi sleeve?

[Tommi Brander]

Having "gods of" is generally a bad idea. Have gods that did something, that were children of something, fought with something, loved something, etc. That is how it was.

what, can I just roll up a character that has this  up hi sleeve?

How is it different from the character having an artifact of great power, or Herculean strength?

[lumpley]

take 'the queen is in love with the character'  from an ealier post.  Are you suggesting that 'love of the queen' be something that the game can grant the character without the character going through the situational process fo trying to win the love of the queen?  what, can I just roll up a character that has this  up hi sleeve?

Sure. Why not?

More to the point, though, "the queen is in love with me" has to have rules-supported significance, which makes it your job as the designer of the rules.

I wish I thought you'd be receptive to me suggesting some rpgs for you to read and play. Your approach to design is pretty underinformed.

Im looking at it from the point of view that the ancients used gods and spirits and demons as a way to explain the world. Therefore Im looking at a very literal interpretation of what the domain of a diety or spirit is. The god of winds does wind. thats it.

So Spirits and deities each have their own spheres of influence, so in that respect, I guess I could simply categorize those, and whatever arena the player can find them helpful in, then thats great. [my emphasis]

How do we know, as players and GM of your game, how helpful the player can legitimately find, say, wind powers in a political conflict? For instance, say that you're a player and I'm the GM, and you say "I use my wind powers to smash the barbarian queen's flagship on the rocks, and I tell her that if she doesn't marry my son I'll do her whole fleet that way." As GM, how much sway do I give your character's threat? We're rolling dice to see if you break her will - how big a modifier on the roll is your use of wind magic?

As designer, you need to answer that question, for every possible case. "For every possible case" just means that you need to answer the question in principle. Here's a well-known and artful example, using die pools: every success you roll in your wind magic roll gives you a bonus die to your roll to break her will. The principle is: if one roll follows on the success of another, each success in the first roll gives you a bonus die in the second.

That's how Ron Edwards' Sorcerer works.

there will be many different types of gods so the arenas that they influence will be fairly broad I imagine. I havent got time to sit down and work out all the domains that they will cover, but your point is that I should think about what domains I want magic to be able to cover before I do that.

Not domains. The question you need to answer is about arenas of conflict, not domains.

If that distinction doesn't make sense to you - if you're like, "domains, arenas, what's the diff?" - you need to let me know.

-Vincent

[Calithena]

Just to give a concrete example of what Vincent is talking about here:

More to the point, though, "the queen is in love with me" has to have rules-supported significance, which makes it your job as the designer of the rules.

Characters in the game I'm working on have Connections on their character sheet: these are people who are significant to the character. Putting a connection on your character sheet has two mechanical effects. The first is, a card for that character goes into the World Deck, from which adventure elements are drawn, so you're guaranteed that sooner or later the people you care about will get into the game. (Queen Lyrania is in love with me; I'm in love with Jyslin Rainsong, a minstrel from Sarmis; my crippled uncle comes to me for money; that sort of thing are your connections list. When their cards come up, they'll be in the adventure in some important way.)

The second effect is that if, during an adventure, you elect to preserve a connection instead of achieving an adventure goal, you get the experience either way. With someone you care about the standard scenario here is "the evil priest has my lady love strapped to the table, if I rescue her the temple will be awakened and I probably won't get the gold: what do I do?" Either choice gets you the adventure experience if you are successful (leaving her and getting the gold successfully or rescuing her and fleeing with the gold forever out of your grasp). With enemy connections, the choices are reversed: e.g. letting Nefario live even though it means you won't be able to save the village would get you experience either way. If you kill Nefario you have to save the village to complete your adventure goal, but if you let him go you're set either way and the adventure plays out to the point where you get experience either way.

This is pretty straightforward stuff which is why I thought I'd share it: it doesn't really take much to take these things into account once you start thinking "how do I want these choices to matter to people playing my game". The trick is to see why you'd want to include rules like this at all. Now, if I wanted to do more, I'd have rules for the GM on what it means to get these elements into the adventure in an important way: that would in one way make my design better if I could figure that out. But you don't have to solve all the problems in every game; it's just that the more of them you solve the more reliable a play-experience your game will tend to provide.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Steve, I still don't understand what magic is for in your game.

Game rules are there to give kick to the words people say that determine what's real in the game. How do your rules, magic included, give punch to what the players are doing?

Give an example of play. I really don't understand.

[stefoid]

Having "gods of" is generally a bad idea. Have gods that did something, that were children of something, fought with something, loved something, etc. That is how it was.

agreed.  I dont want to push that angle too far because its not my main focus, but certainly there should be some colourful mythos associated with varous deities that explains their domain of influence.  However for the purposes of this discussion, 'god of wind' is OK.

what, can I just roll up a character that has this  up hi sleeve?

How is it different from the character having an artifact of great power, or Herculean strength?

Id say that it isnt too different to having an unique artificat of great power.  There is only one 'sword of the heavens' , just as there is only one barbarian queen.  I dont see why that type of boon should be built into the character.  Those types of things should be stuff that characters work towards achieving - winning the love of the barbarian queen, obtaining the sword.  If you were talking about a 'sword of OKishness'  or 'the love of a good woman', then sure, build them into your character.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Again, I feel like we are talking about a critical time in the overall arch of human history. And that there was, in fact, a lot of magic involved in peoples everyday life.
  I don't want to put you on the defensive, but I think minimizing player's access to magic is counter to your premise of a fairly realistic/faithful depiction of the Bronze Age.
  In order to put it in perspective, maybe think of it as a tool. For instance, if I said "There should be a spell that you can cast to burn a house down" Your gut reaction might be to say no. That effect is too dramatic and too powerful for what you can do without magic. But in fact, you can burn a house down with a torch...
  Also, you can adapt the power levels by guiding magic's impact on people's daily life. for instance, Weather, Agriculture, Healing, Love/Emotions, Luck/Grace and Divination. These are the areas where a magically adept character would be most advised to study.
Example
Sorcery - Character's domain is Weather and Agriculture
Shamanism - Healing and Emotions
Thurgey - Divination and Luck
  As you can see these powers have real impact on the game world, but don't give these characters a huge combat advantage...
  It's just an idea. But I think in order for you to be satisfied, you need to ignore the rules ramifications for a moment and define what magic is in this world (regardless of what it is for you). How do Peasants relate to that, how do Nobles relate to it?
  A tool, you can use to get an idea of what I mean is, to be Objective. Describe what Magic means to a Medieval chinese Peasant. Describe what Magic means to a Voodoo witch Doctor. Describe what Magic means to a Native American Shaman. Then Describe what Magic means to a Bronze Age peasant. Then Describe what Magic means to a Bronze Age noble. If you do all these steps, in this order, then you might be in the right frame of mind to look at Magic objectively, define what it is and then, you can make rules that match that definition.
  I understand your concerns, you want to avoid making a D&D clone, you want to make a game that your Western Audience can relate too and you don't want Magic to take center stage or unbalance your game. But you have to realize that it is an appropriate element of your proposed setting, so take a step back from those other concerns and try and craft a set of rules that makes sense. Then you can just tweak them to become what you need it to be.
  I know this post is kind of long, but I hope it helps push you in the right direction...

[stefoid]

take 'the queen is in love with the character'  from an ealier post.  Are you suggesting that 'love of the queen' be something that the game can grant the character without the character going through the situational process fo trying to win the love of the queen?  what, can I just roll up a character that has this  up hi sleeve?

Sure. Why not?

see my reply to tommi -  it seems like the designer intruding on the GMs job.  If the GM wanted to come up with a scenario that started with the premise that one of the characters was in love with the queen, so maybe thats why he was chosen by the emporor to go on this mission, then sure, thats not a bad little premise from which to start a scenario.  go GM.   But the player starting deciding to start with the love of the queen in his pocket, nah, it doesnt work for me.  By all means enter the barbarian capital, sweet-talk the queen, shower her with gifts and go on long private hunting trips with her -- win her love.  go player.

More to the point, though, "the queen is in love with me" has to have rules-supported significance, which makes it your job as the designer of the rules

okay, thats somewhat different, however I dont understand "has to" have rules supported significance.  why does it have to?  surely the various implications of that situation are obvious to all?  the GM modifies the queens behaviour based on that fact, the player modifies the characters behaviour based on that fact, and gets to think about what it means to the character, perhaps based on the characters perceived personality - is he a cold heartless bastard with strong sense of honour and duty, or is he a caring, compassionate type of guy who is conflicted or possibly acting under duress?

maybe the problem is I dont have any idea of even how I would go about reinforcing those types of decisions in the way I think youre suggesting.  which brings us to your next point.

I wish I thought you'd be receptive to me suggesting some rpgs for you to read and play. Your approach to design is pretty underinformed.

fair enough.  I am wading through various articles and so on but it takes time.  love your blog on GMing by the way.

Im looking at it from the point of view that the ancients used gods and spirits and demons as a way to explain the world. Therefore Im looking at a very literal interpretation of what the domain of a diety or spirit is. The god of winds does wind. thats it.

So Spirits and deities each have their own spheres of influence, so in that respect, I guess I could simply categorize those, and whatever arena the player can find them helpful in, then thats great. [my emphasis]

How do we know, as players and GM of your game, how helpful the player can legitimately find, say, wind powers in a political conflict? For instance, say that you're a player and I'm the GM, and you say "I use my wind powers to smash the barbarian queen's flagship on the rocks, and I tell her that if she doesn't marry my son I'll do her whole fleet that way." As GM, how much sway do I give your character's threat? We're rolling dice to see if you break her will - how big a modifier on the roll is your use of wind magic?

As designer, you need to answer that question, for every possible case. "For every possible case" just means that you need to answer the question in principle. Here's a well-known and artful example, using die pools: every success you roll in your wind magic roll gives you a bonus die to your roll to break her will. The principle is: if one roll follows on the success of another, each success in the first roll gives you a bonus die in the second.

yes, I need to quantify things - no doubt.  what is the extent of magical effect that can be achieved and what is the required level of effort that might achieve that effect?  

there will be many different types of gods so the arenas that they influence will be fairly broad I imagine. I havent got time to sit down and work out all the domains that they will cover, but your point is that I should think about what domains I want magic to be able to cover before I do that.

Not domains. The question you need to answer is about arenas of conflict, not domains.

If that distinction doesn't make sense to you - if you're like, "domains, arenas, what's the diff?" - you need to let me know.

no, I understand what youre saying.  But it gets fairly rubbery.  for instance the god of wind affects winds.  directly.  it seems fairly obvious that this has major utility in the area of war - smash the boat, destroy the crops,disrupt the archers, blow sand in the face of the gaurds, etc...  And I can understand the need to quantify that.  In your example above, it effects the political arena - indirectly.  Im not specifying how powerful the wind is, im specifying how threatening it seems.  The number of variables involved in that calculation make it impossible to quantify in anything but the most general terms.  

I suppose that is one way of accomplishing what you ask anyway - specifying whether it has a direct/indirect influence on a particular arena.  I dont even think I could concieve in advance of all possible indirect influences, however.  so thats probably the way to approach the writeup- quantify the direct effects under magic and the indirect effects under their own banner.

[stefoid]

Hi!
  Again, I feel like we are talking about a critical time in the overall arch of human history. And that there was, in fact, a lot of magic involved in peoples everyday life.
  I don't want to put you on the defensive, but I think minimizing player's access to magic is counter to your premise of a fairly realistic/faithful depiction of the Bronze Age.
  In order to put it in perspective, maybe think of it as a tool. For instance, if I said "There should be a spell that you can cast to burn a house down" Your gut reaction might be to say no. That effect is too dramatic and too powerful for what you can do without magic. But in fact, you can burn a house down with a torch...
  Also, you can adapt the power levels by guiding magic's impact on people's daily life. for instance, Weather, Agriculture, Healing, Love/Emotions, Luck/Grace and Divination. These are the areas where a magically adept character would be most advised to study.
Example
Sorcery - Character's domain is Weather and Agriculture
Shamanism - Healing and Emotions
Thurgey - Divination and Luck
  As you can see these powers have real impact on the game world, but don't give these characters a huge combat advantage...
  It's just an idea. But I think in order for you to be satisfied, you need to ignore the rules ramifications for a moment and define what magic is in this world (regardless of what it is for you). How do Peasants relate to that, how do Nobles relate to it?
  A tool, you can use to get an idea of what I mean is, to be Objective. Describe what Magic means to a Medieval chinese Peasant. Describe what Magic means to a Voodoo witch Doctor. Describe what Magic means to a Native American Shaman. Then Describe what Magic means to a Bronze Age peasant. Then Describe what Magic means to a Bronze Age noble. If you do all these steps, in this order, then you might be in the right frame of mind to look at Magic objectively, define what it is and then, you can make rules that match that definition.
  I understand your concerns, you want to avoid making a D&D clone, you want to make a game that your Western Audience can relate too and you don't want Magic to take center stage or unbalance your game. But you have to realize that it is an appropriate element of your proposed setting, so take a step back from those other concerns and try and craft a set of rules that makes sense. Then you can just tweak them to become what you need it to be.
  I know this post is kind of long, but I hope it helps push you in the right direction...

hey.  for me its not really the point of: can a house be burned down with magic?  the answer is it can.  Whats been bugging me is the idea that a character can point his finger at the house and intone some mumbo jumbo and have the house instantly burst into flames.  I havent decided yet whether that kind of thing will be possible.  Im leaning away from it.  What I am leaning more toward is that huge effects need to be invoked in special ways, via lengthy ritual, or with the aid of magic props, or in favourable circumstances.  Lets say the character spent half an hour hiding behind the tree chanting in order to effect the cooking fire flaring intensely and catching the thatch on fire?  to obtain the desired effect here is a combination of a small ritual with a slightly favourable circumstance - there is already a fire present, so to some extent, the god of fire already is present in this house.  But the magic user needs to make the deity more present...  Like Lumpley says, this type of stuff needs to be quantified.

As for how the characters view magic as part of their lives, yeah I am on  that.  I think I will post some culture related stuff tha I have developed for the setting so far.  Im getting scared that people wont even be interested and that Im wasting my time.

[stefoid]

Just to give a concrete example of what Vincent is talking about here:

More to the point, though, "the queen is in love with me" has to have rules-supported significance, which makes it your job as the designer of the rules.

Characters in the game I'm working on have Connections on their character sheet: these are people who are significant to the character. Putting a connection on your character sheet has two mechanical effects. The first is, a card for that character goes into the World Deck, from which adventure elements are drawn, so you're guaranteed that sooner or later the people you care about will get into the game. (Queen Lyrania is in love with me; I'm in love with Jyslin Rainsong, a minstrel from Sarmis; my crippled uncle comes to me for money; that sort of thing are your connections list. When their cards come up, they'll be in the adventure in some important way.)

The second effect is that if, during an adventure, you elect to preserve a connection instead of achieving an adventure goal, you get the experience either way. With someone you care about the standard scenario here is "the evil priest has my lady love strapped to the table, if I rescue her the temple will be awakened and I probably won't get the gold: what do I do?" Either choice gets you the adventure experience if you are successful (leaving her and getting the gold successfully or rescuing her and fleeing with the gold forever out of your grasp). With enemy connections, the choices are reversed: e.g. letting Nefario live even though it means you won't be able to save the village would get you experience either way. If you kill Nefario you have to save the village to complete your adventure goal, but if you let him go you're set either way and the adventure plays out to the point where you get experience either way.

This is pretty straightforward stuff which is why I thought I'd share it: it doesn't really take much to take these things into account once you start thinking "how do I want these choices to matter to people playing my game". The trick is to see why you'd want to include rules like this at all. Now, if I wanted to do more, I'd have rules for the GM on what it means to get these elements into the adventure in an important way: that would in one way make my design better if I could figure that out. But you don't have to solve all the problems in every game; it's just that the more of them you solve the more reliable a play-experience your game will tend to provide.

I understand your examples.  What I dont understand is why they are an issue for the game designer, as opposed to just being the sort of situations that the GM presents and players decide how to deal with? 

[stefoid]

Steve, I still don't understand what magic is for in your game.

Game rules are there to give kick to the words people say that determine what's real in the game. How do your rules, magic included, give punch to what the players are doing?

Give an example of play. I really don't understand.

OK, this is directly from my setting stuff on a particular type of forest dwelling barbarian culture.

So this warrior wants to step out of the shadow of his older brother who is a respected and successful warrior within the clan.  He is sick of having to follow his brother on a raid - he wants to organize his own raid .. select his own followers and come back to receive the accolades of the clan for his martial prowess and his generosity in distributeing the booty to the poor and needy.

But he has yet to prove he is capable of pulling it off - unlike his brother who the sprits obviously favour, because he has attracted the attention of a spirit helper.  All his raids have been successful so far, and with the aid fo the spirit helper, much booty has been got, and many enemies humiliated and killed.

so he has a few tasks ahead of him:

1) attract a spirit helper, or at least some supernatural guidance as demosntration of his favoured status amongst the spirit world
2) use this to help persuade other warriors to follow him in a raid
3) use his spirit helper or knowledge to help the raid succeed.

an example of how a spirit helper might be of use? we can go back to the deer spirit as one example.  lets say that it gives our hero extra perception, speed and endurance bonuses.  perception:  detecting and avoiding guards, speed and endurance:  perhaps he can use this to lead pursuers away from the main party when they are escaping with their booty?

supernatural knowledge?  armed with such information as  the best time to make the raid isnt for another 3 days, or the raid might only be successful if big john comes along, or that if he searches out and finds the feather of a red eagle and uses it to perform the moon dance on the night befoer the raid, then the spirits will look favourable on the venture (reward with extra favour points).

[Calithena]

stefoid,

What's the game designer doing?

The players (including the GM, if any) are sitting down to do one or more of the following: make a story, explore an imaginary world through a kind of shared daydreaming, achieve some imaginary goals in a satisfyingly effective manner, and maybe some other stuff.

The game designer is there to help them.

If you have a traditional GM, there are a whole host of responsibilities that come up for that person. Some people like taking all this on; others don't; some do it well; others don't. Any tools you can provide to help that person do his or her thing enhance the game experience for that person and so, insofar as it is a group thing, for everyone.

[stefoid]

stefoid,

What's the game designer doing?

The players (including the GM, if any) are sitting down to do one or more of the following: make a story, explore an imaginary world through a kind of shared daydreaming, achieve some imaginary goals in a satisfyingly effective manner, and maybe some other stuff.

The game designer is there to help them.

If you have a traditional GM, there are a whole host of responsibilities that come up for that person. Some people like taking all this on; others don't; some do it well; others don't. Any tools you can provide to help that person do his or her thing enhance the game experience for that person and so, insofar as it is a group thing, for everyone.

I agree in principle, but specifically, some of the examples we have been talking about dont seem to me to fall under that umbrella.  With your own game example, for instance, I understand how your proposed rules work, but I dont understand why the players need this 'help'.  Dont take my ignorance persoanlly.