From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Oct 13 11:58:03 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA25078; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:58:03 +1300 Received: from fep2-orange.clear.net.nz (fep2-orange.clear.net.nz [203.97.32.2]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id LAA25067 ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:58:01 +1300 Received: from qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz ([203.97.23.141]) by fep2-orange.clear.net.nz (1.5/1.9) with ESMTP id LAA12400; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:51:50 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:52:44 +1300 Message-ID: <15A7D8BC5E3ED2119E2E0000F82150FC010975@qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz> Subject: Fumble/overPS simple-ish proposal Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:52:34 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain From: Stephen Martin To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. A simple-ish proposal... When rolling an un-modified 100 on a strike check there is a potential fumble. Sub-standard weapons (Bronze, Bone, etc) also fumble on 99. When there is a potential fumble, the player rolls on the fumble table. (D100 - High is bad for the player, low is good. In brief something like this, if we use it then it can be expanded to add detail, flavour, and humour.) 01-20 An embarrassing fumble, no game effect. 21-25 An embarrassing fumble causing minor damage to self. 26-55 Weapon dropped or thrown away. 56-65 Weapon dropped or thrown away and some damage to self. 66-85 Weapon Damaged. 86-90 Weapon Damaged and damage to self. 91-95 Weapon Severely Damaged. 96-99 Weapon Severely Damaged and damage to self. 00 Weapon damaged and thrown away, injuring self in the process. The player may modify the dice roll by up to: (Rank in weapon + Weaponsmith rank of weapon + Warrior rank + MD above minimum required for weapon + PS above minimum required for weapon - PS used in over-strengthing + 10 for Steel weapons) ** Yes this is a lengthy sum but apart from the overPS it is a static number for each weapon. OverPS For every point of overPS +1% Strike Chance For every 5 full points of overPS +1 Damage (MAY be combined with bonus for rank) For every point of overPS -1 IV on next action. ...plus exclusions on weapons that may not be over strengthed and most of points C to I from Brent's proposal. ********* As Michael pointed out 1 per 5 for damage isn't a lot, but it is a nice simple number to work out. The bonus to SC makes it more worthwhile. The penalty to IV means you won't necessarily do it all the time. Top line fighters may have +25 SC and +5 damage with every blow (assuming WoS or SoS), but when that drops their IV from 65 to a (possibly) beatable 40, some of them will think twice. Cheers, Stephen. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Oct 13 19:34:02 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id TAA25410; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:34:02 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id TAA25400 ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:34:01 +1300 Received: from [206.18.102.43] (p43-max21.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.102.43]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id TAA18210 ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:28:12 +1300 Message-Id: <199810130628.TAA18210@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: flamis@pop.ihug.co.nz (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 19:28:38 +1300 Subject: GMs are Players, too... From: flamis@pop.ihug.co.nz (Jacqui Smith) To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. >You may have a point about the insult. I offer my apologies for it...But I >would like you to know that I find self-interested argument in roleyplaying >very annoying, particularly when it promotes the interests of players over >DMs. Apology accepted. Now, I admit that I have been at times guilty of self-interest in the past, insamuch as I find more interesting those things which concern me directly as a GM or player. This is only human. It's also easier to contribute meaningfully in those areas which one understands more thoroughly - thus I would expect people to have more input into the development of their own PC's Colleges. I've tried working on Colleges I don't play and found it much more difficult simply because I don't have the level of experience with them. I also am of the opinion that making the game better for players also makes it better for GMs and vice versa. There is a synergistic effect here. >Whether or not you like the comment, it is a widely held belief, that your >interests in the architecture of roleplaying only become fully engaged when >your own character's well-being is at stake...Ask others if you don't >beleive me... And am I alone in this? I think not... >Therefore, it is almost impossible to determine whether or not you are >arguing to support a rule that will benefit of one of your characters, or >if you have an actual, disinterested point to make... And does it matter? As long as the end result is that my creative abilities are engaged in improving the game for all concerned? Especially if you can't tell the difference? >> Incidentally the term DM is only appropriate in AD&D. In DQ I believe the >> correct term is GM. Perhaps you'd consider using it. > >I know that, Jacqui, I have after all DMed more frequently, and over a >wider range of games than you have. And, I am a literate and eloquent >writer...Might it not have occurred to you that I like the term? It has >more style, grace and connotations than a term as bland as Game Master. I would have considered the term "Dungeon Master" to be restrictive and indicative of favouring a certain style of game, the "dungeon bash". It's a valid style, but not one I'd call graceful. The term "Game Master" may be bland, but it is all-inclusive. I personally like the term "Narrator" for its humility and story-telling connotations. >Finally, Jacqui, I think that if you have a disinterested point to make, >then make it as a DM, not as what you find tedious as a player...DMs do >watch for the enjoyment of their players, and should be able to judge if >something is annoying to players in general, rather than to 1 or 2...And if >that is what you meant, try and make it clear to people. Actually, I'd observed this particular instance from both points of view. I've noted a tendency for GM's to prefer checking player ranking out of game time, and along with this the ranking roll seeming to quietly disappear. It therefore seemed not inappropriate to provide a mechanism for this. Jacqui -- See message headers to unsubscribe from --