From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Tue Oct 12 22:58:39 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id WAA00711; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:58:39 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id WAA00708 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:58:36 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p237-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [216.100.154.237]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id LAA16250 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:41:39 +1300 Subject: Re: Damage from double and triple effects... Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:42:36 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf1503$1484dcc0$ed9a64d8@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006C_01BF1570.0B7E24C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01BF1570.0B7E24C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable George wrote: =20 The reason the guild is not growing is mainly to do with the lack of = young blood but I do not believe our current rules have anything to do = with keeping them away, nor are the rules encouraging people to leave. = The reasons we are losing players are varied. =20 1. Boredom. There is only so long you can roleplay without a break, = many players are taking breaks and realising that there is a life = without DQ and then they don't retern with the energy they had if at = all. =20 And, let us not forget boredom with a game that has little to = offer in the face of new developments in roleplaying games. Boredom with = a game that doesn't address the fact that players are becoming more = sophisticated and choosing newer games, where they are choosing = roleplaying games as a means of entertainment at all. =20 DQ has not substantially changed from what it was when it = started. Admittedly, there are a few colleges that have been upgraded, = for instance Wicca, Illusion and Necromancy, all of which have been very = well put together. They all, now, have a consistent theme. It is true = that the elemental colleges have themes, but they would have anyway, and = I'm not saying that all the colleges ought to have themes, but I always = found it odd that the Necromantic Conjurations college had a force wall = spell, as well as a ram of force spell.=20 =20 New skills have been introduced, as well, and some of them have = been very good. Herbalist, for example, Weapon Smith and Armourer as = well, and the whole idea of Artisan skills.=20 =20 Yet, at the end of the day, these are merely cosmetic changes. = Very little has been done to the architecture of the game has changed = since God was a little boy. =20 2. Rules. Many players I have spoken to are sick of not knowing what = the rules have changed to this week. A lot of the players and GM's out = there have very little faith in those changing the rules and are sick of = having to keep up with the changes. =20 Crap.=20 =20 There is no need to address this in any other fashion. If you = ask people whether or not they are happy with rule changes, they will = tend to answer in the way you expect of them. I don't believe you are a = trained psychometrist.=20 =20 Regarding rules in general the modern games that people are playing = have shockingly bad rule systems they just have a well designed and = developed world that players can interact with with the minimal thought. = White Wolf rules are terrible and barely support the roleplaying but = that is the modern roleplaying way, the GM chooses the rules and the = story is all that is important. =20 This comment is a complete misdirection. If you haven't noticed, = White Wolf games focus more on storytelling. They aren't interested in = rules structures. Therefore, a lot of effort goes into the part of the = game that has more to do with the way a tale may actually be told, than = with the parts to do with character progression, or indeed, any other = mechanical part of the game. =20 I think White Wolf games have a great deal to offer. They = provide us with a different way of looking at DMing and roleplaying. But = we shouldn't decieve ourselves that merely because some mechanical areas = of the games are poor, that it manages to do this without rules. It is = merely that those rules are more concerned with things that DQ has not = really addressed at all. And it ought to. =20 =20 =20 Personally I like DQ as it is. =20 Probably the main reason for your position.=20 =20 Complacency has led us to largely ignore the fact that we are = losing players, and that we are left with an aging playing group, with = no new blood. =20 =20 =20 The few rules I have a personal dislike to I change in my games and = let the players be aware of those changes. Also when people find rules = they liked have been rewritten badly or away from the way they liked = them they get digruntled and leave as well.=20 =20 Drivel. No-one leaves because the don't like the way a rule is = written up. They leave because a game-threatening advantage was removed. = In which case, we are faced with a player that is going to stamp their = little foot because they lose some 'edge' and storm off to play in some = one else's game, or to leave the imbalance and, I put it to you, leave = the imbalance and possibly lose even more players. =20 3. Personalitys. People get tired and annoyed with other = individuals. This is a fact of life, it happens. When you tend to meet = the same people over and over again far a long time the option of not = meeting them seems a winner.=20 =20 Then we should be moving people out of their cliques and = encouraging them to play with other people, so that this particular = hassle goes away. It is nice to roleplay consistently with a group of = friends, but players and DMs should be trying to play with someone new = as often as possible. =20 =20 =20 4. We no longer have the connections to America. Most of our players = graduated from America to the guild. Since we lost our ties to the = university and the respect of the america council we have not had that = aspect of recruitment.=20 =20 In general if the current GM's like a rule change - and they aren't = going to vote in what they don't think will work - we should implement = it as quickly as possible. We aren't talking wholesale revision of a = game here, just a change that stops an effect occurring that no one = likes (GM's or players) - the wholesale death of a party by bad luck = from one cast. Changing this rule as per either Mike's suggestion, or = Martin's tweaked version addresses this without in anyway endangering = the game. Incidentally changing this rule will also enhance suspension = of disbelief - How many GM's don't use these spells vs players when an = NPC would actually have them? So by changing this rule, we not only = address the primary problem, but allow our NPC's to "act" in a more = natural manner. You are making an assumption that it wont endanger the game. =20 The current position is that ANY change to the game will = endanger the game. Even one's that are clearly a good idea. For example, = do you think the new point of death rules, i.e. negative one half the = character's Endurance, was ever going to endanger the game? Yet, that = change took months to put in place, and yet anyone could see that is was = going to be a good idea. =20 We have barely examined the impact on other spells or other flow on = effects. Regardless of what it is supposed to fix it is a MAJOR change = to the way Dq works and I don't think any change of this magnitude = should be rushed through in any way.=20 =20 I believe that this particular change is worthy of some = discussion. I think that something needs to be done about Necrosis, = Hellfire, any of the spells that can take out a party regardless of = whether or not they successfully resist. This may not be the answer, it = is true. However, this constant truculent resistance to anything new in = DQ is nothing more than knee-jerk reflex.=20 Look at the issue at hand, and try to bloody well deal with the = problem, for God's sake. =20 Jim. =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01BF1570.0B7E24C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

George = wrote:

The reason the guild is not growing is mainly to do with = the lack of=20 young blood but I do not believe our current rules have anything to = do with=20 keeping them away, nor are the rules encouraging people to leave. = The=20 reasons we are losing players are varied.

1. Boredom. There is only so long you can roleplay without = a break,=20 many players are taking breaks and realising that there is a life = without DQ=20 and then they don't retern with the energy they had if at=20 all.

    And, let=20 us not forget boredom with a game that has little to offer in the = face of=20 new developments in roleplaying games. Boredom with a game that = doesn't=20 address the fact that players are becoming more sophisticated and = choosing=20 newer games, where they are choosing roleplaying games as a means of = entertainment at all.

    DQ has not = substantially=20 changed from what it was when it started. Admittedly, there are a = few=20 colleges that have been upgraded, for instance Wicca, Illusion and=20 Necromancy, all of which have been very well put together. They all, = now,=20 have a consistent theme. It is true that the elemental colleges have = themes,=20 but they would have anyway, and I'm not saying that all the colleges = ought=20 to have themes, but I always found it odd that the Necromantic = Conjurations=20 college had a force wall spell, as well as a ram of force spell.=20  

    New skills have = been=20 introduced, as well, and some of them have been very good. = Herbalist, for=20 example, Weapon Smith and Armourer as well, and the whole idea of = Artisan=20 skills.  

    Yet, at the end = of the day,=20 these are merely cosmetic changes. Very little has been done to the=20 architecture of the game has changed since God was a little=20 boy. 

2. Rules. Many players I have spoken to are sick of not = knowing what=20 the rules have changed to this week. A lot of the players and GM's = out there=20 have very little faith in those changing the rules and are sick of = having to=20 keep up with the changes.

    Crap.

   =20 There is no need to address this in any other fashion. If you ask = people=20 whether or not they are happy with rule changes, they will tend to = answer in=20 the way you expect of them. I don't believe you are a trained = psychometrist.=20  

 Regarding rules in general the modern games that = people are=20 playing have shockingly bad rule systems they just have a well = designed and=20 developed world that players can interact with with the minimal = thought.=20 White Wolf rules are terrible and barely support the roleplaying but = that is=20 the modern roleplaying way, the GM chooses the rules and the story = is all=20 that is important.

    This comment is a complete misdirection. If you = haven't=20 noticed, White Wolf games focus more on storytelling. They aren't = interested=20 in rules structures. Therefore, a lot of effort goes into the part = of the=20 game that has more to do with the way a tale may actually be told, = than with=20 the parts to do with character progression, or indeed, any other = mechanical=20 part of the game.

   =20 I think White Wolf games have a great deal to offer. They provide us = with a=20 different way of looking at DMing and roleplaying. But we shouldn't = decieve=20 ourselves that merely because some mechanical areas of the games are = poor,=20 that it manages to do this without rules. It is merely that those = rules are=20 more concerned with things that DQ has not really addressed at all. = And it=20 ought to. 

 

 Personally I like DQ as it is.

    Probably the main reason for your position. =

   =20 Complacency has led us to largely ignore the fact that we are losing = players, and that we are left with an aging playing group, with no = new=20 blood. 

 

 The few rules I have a personal dislike to I change = in my games=20 and let the players be aware of those changes. Also when people find = rules=20 they liked have been rewritten badly or away from the way they liked = them=20 they get digruntled and leave as well.

    Drivel. No-one leaves because the don't like the way a rule = is=20 written up. They leave because a game-threatening advantage was = removed. In=20 which case, we are faced with a player that is going to stamp their = little=20 foot because they lose some 'edge' and storm off to play in some one = else's=20 game, or to leave the imbalance and, I put it to you, leave the = imbalance=20 and possibly lose even more players.

3. Personalitys. People get tired and = annoyed=20 with other individuals. This is a fact of life, it happens. When you = tend to=20 meet the same people over and over again far a long time the option = of not=20 meeting them seems a winner.

    Then we should be moving people out of their cliques = and=20 encouraging them to play with other people, so that this particular = hassle=20 goes away. It is nice to roleplay consistently with a group of = friends, but=20 players and DMs should be trying to play with someone new as often = as=20 possible.

 

4. We no longer have the connections = to America.=20 Most of our players graduated from America to the guild. Since we = lost our=20 ties to the university and the respect of the america council we = have not=20 had that aspect of recruitment.

In = general if the=20 current GM's like a rule change - and they aren't going to vote = in what=20 they don't think will work - we should implement it as quickly = as=20 possible. We aren't talking wholesale revision of a game here, = just a=20 change that stops an effect occurring that no one likes (GM's or = players) - the wholesale death of a party by bad luck from one = cast.=20 Changing this rule as per either Mike's suggestion, or Martin's = tweaked=20 version addresses this without in anyway endangering the game.=20 Incidentally changing this rule will also enhance suspension of=20 disbelief - How many GM's don't use these spells vs players when = an NPC=20 would actually have them? So by changing this rule, we not only = address=20 the primary problem, but allow our NPC's to "act" in a = more=20 natural manner.
You=20 are making an assumption that it wont endanger the = game.
 
    The current position is that ANY change to the game = will=20 endanger the game. Even one's that are clearly a good idea. For = example, do=20 you think the new point of death rules, i.e. negative one half the=20 character's Endurance, was ever going to endanger the game? Yet, = that change=20 took months to put in place, and yet anyone could see that is was = going to=20 be a good idea.
 
 We have barely examined the impact on other spells or = other=20 flow on effects. Regardless of what it is supposed to fix it is a = MAJOR=20 change to the way Dq works and I don't think any change of this = magnitude=20 should be rushed through in any way.
 
    I believe=20 that this particular change is worthy of some discussion. I think = that=20 something needs to be done about Necrosis, Hellfire, any of the = spells that=20 can take out a party regardless of whether or not they successfully = resist.=20 This may not be the answer, it is true.
    However, this constant truculent resistance to anything new = in DQ is=20 nothing more than knee-jerk reflex.
    Look at the issue at hand, and try to bloody well deal with = the=20 problem, for God's sake.
 
 Jim.
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_006C_01BF1570.0B7E24C0-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 12:50:00 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id MAA01144; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:50:00 +1300 Received: from enterprise.iconz.co.nz (enterprise.iconz.co.nz [210.48.22.40]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id MAA01141 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:49:58 +1300 Received: (qmail 25444 invoked from network); 12 Oct 1999 23:52:55 -0000 Received: from e0.firewall.ak.iconz.net.nz (HELO schroedinger) (202.14.100.208) by enterprise.iconz.co.nz with SMTP; 12 Oct 1999 23:52:55 -0000 Subject: RE: Damage from double and triple effects... Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:47:52 +1300 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Mandos D Shadowspawn Esq" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >>2. Rules. Many players I have spoken to are sick of not knowing what the rules have changed to this week. A lot of the players and GM's out >> there have very little faith in those changing the rules and are sick of having to keep up with the changes. > Crap. > There is no need to address this in any other fashion. If you ask people whether or not they are happy with rule changes, they will tend >to answer in the way you expect of them. I don't believe you are a trained psychometrist. I have not as you put it asked if people are happy with rule changes. People complain about what bugs them all the time, all it takes is to listen. I think we should try to change the rules for the better, I like good consistant rules in DQ. However many people outside of the rules changing process do complain about the rate and choice of rule changes, and when we are suddenly rushing what is a major component of the game through just to get it in for a rule book rewrite. Also not everyone is happy with the new proposal, so rushing things is the last thing we should do. >> Personally I like DQ as it is. > Probably the main reason for your position. I hadn't realised I had defined my position? But if you wish it.... I think we should be more careful with our rule changes, changes should only come into effect once a year with each new rulebook and at no point should werush through changes that seriously impact the game. > Complacency has led us to largely ignore the fact that we are losing players, and that we are left with an aging playing group, with no new blood. I brought up the fact that we were losing players some time ago and was met with the response... " As for losing players, this particular spectre has been raised every year for as long as I can remember. I don't know if you have any empirical data to support your contention, and indeed, I'd be interested if you had some to share. My own experience is that the numbers always drop around exam-and Christmas-time. They usually come up after Orientation and for the Winter session. " Jim In an Email Dated 15 Jan 99 >> You are making an assumption that it wont endanger the game. >The current position is that ANY change to the game will endanger the game. Even one's that are clearly a good idea. For example, do you >think the new point of death rules, i.e. negative one half the character's Endurance, was ever going to endanger the game? Yet, that change >took months to put in place, and yet anyone could see that is was going to be a good idea. Who's current position Jim? It's not my position, I can't see people in here asking us not to change these rules. All I can see is people wanting to debate and discuss the options available to get the best results. >>We have barely examined the impact on other spells or other flow on effects. Regardless of what it is supposed to fix it is a MAJOR change >>to the way Dq works and I don't think any change of this magnitude should be rushed through in any way. >I believe that this particular change is worthy of some discussion. I think that something needs to be done about Necrosis, Hellfire, any of >the spells that can take out a party regardless of whether or not they successfully resist. This may not be the answer, it is true. Which is all I have been saying. >However, this constant truculent resistance to anything new in DQ is nothing more than knee-jerk reflex. >Look at the issue at hand, and try to bloody well deal with the problem, for God's sake. I am not sure where you are seeing this truculance? Everyone in this group as far as I can see are simply trying to change the rules the way they see is best. If you see that as truculance then the problem lies in your impression of the work people are doing. Mandos /s -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 13:00:17 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA01221; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:00:17 +1300 Received: from bo.nznet.gen.nz (ns1.nznet.gen.nz [203.167.232.34]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id NAA01218 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:00:15 +1300 Received: from takitimu.co.nz (ms2-08.nznet.gen.nz [203.167.232.138]) by bo.nznet.gen.nz (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA08174 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:17:18 +1300 Received: from takitimu.co.nz by takitimu.co.nz; Wed, 13 Oct 99 12:57:28 +1300 Message-ID: <3803CB59.11688EAE@takitimu.co.nz> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:59:41 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Cliques Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Kelsie To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: kelsie@takitimu.co.nz, dq@dq.sf.org.nz >>3. Personalitys. People get tired and annoyed with other individuals. This is a fact of >>life, it happens. When you tend to meet the same people over and over again >>far a long time the option of not meeting them seems a winner. >Then we should be moving people out of their cliques and encouraging them to play with >other people, so that this particular hassle goes away. It is nice to roleplay >consistently with a group of friends, but players and DMs should be trying to play with >someone new as often as possible. I've noticed at the last couple of meetings that there seem to have been a lot of pre-filled games. This makes it very difficult, particularly for new players, to get on games with the 'good' or at least 'popular' GM's, and for anyone to diversify their contacts. Could you please consider advertising maybe a couple of spaces in your games? Kelsie (BTW There are a lot of new players, they're just not young players. They come into it by word of mouth of friends so are of similar age generally to old players) -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 13:09:07 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA01280; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:09:07 +1300 Received: from enterprise.iconz.co.nz (enterprise.iconz.co.nz [210.48.22.40]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id NAA01277 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:09:06 +1300 Received: (qmail 27530 invoked from network); 13 Oct 1999 00:12:03 -0000 Received: from e0.firewall.ak.iconz.net.nz (HELO schroedinger) (202.14.100.208) by enterprise.iconz.co.nz with SMTP; 13 Oct 1999 00:12:03 -0000 Subject: RE: Cliques Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:07:00 +1300 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Mandos D Shadowspawn Esq" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > I've noticed at the last couple of meetings that there seem to have been > a lot of pre-filled games. This makes it very difficult, particularly > for new players, to get on games with the 'good' or at least 'popular' > GM's, and for anyone to diversify their contacts. > > Could you please consider advertising maybe a couple of spaces in > your games? > > (BTW There are a lot of new players, they're just not young players. > They come into it by word of mouth of friends so are of similar age > generally to old players) As an offender I will try and free up some spaces on my next session. Mandos /s -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 13:24:54 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA01303; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:24:54 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id NAA01300 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:24:52 +1300 Message-ID: <3803D113.6BCAC4BA@peace.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:23:48 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Damage from double and triple effects... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Doh! :) Err... would you believe "deliberate mistake"? :) Clare West wrote: > >D5 = D10/2 round down > > in my experience d5=d10/2 round up - unless I am trying to roll 0-4 > instead of 1-5. -- _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com _/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 13:49:28 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA01387; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:49:28 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id NAA01384 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:49:27 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p296-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.255.56]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id NAA10809 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:49:18 +1300 Subject: Re: Damage from double and triple effects... Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:50:14 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf1514$e975bd80$38ff6dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz George wrote: >I have not as you put it asked if people are happy with rule changes. People >complain about what bugs them all the time, all it takes is to listen. There will always be people who complaing about a change to the system, particularly where it disadvantages their character. If a character loses a disadvantage, but the nett impact to the game is better, then, clearly, it is better to make a change that is unpopular to a particular player. If that player should leave, then that would be sad, but, really, we cannot respond to 'squeaky wheel' complaints. We need to be looking at what is good for the game, over the objections of individuals, if necessary. In the most ideal of all possible worlds, then we would be able to change the game in a way that satisfies everyone. This isn't very common. Usually, a rule change does something that someone somewhere doesn't like. As far as I can see, the objection to rule changes, in large part, springs from the interests of players, as opposed to the interests of DMs. This is to say that they object to the rule change because it reduces an advantage that a player character had or puts them at a disadvantage where they weren't before. It seems to me that the matter is rarely addressed on it's own points. Instead, the argument that is often raised is that 'we can't change the game, because we'll lose players that don't like this change'. It is usually unsupported with any kind of data, and it doesn't address the issues raised. This line of argument is stultifying. There is no development possible if it's given any weight, because it means that the game can't change at all. I'm not saying that it's not a valid point. There may well be people out there who would stop playing if the game were changed, or if it were changed too much. What I am saying that at this point it is irrelevant. The discussion is, in general, about the way we might deal with multiple target or area affect spells with high half damage equations, and in particular abo ut the way doubles and triples might work. Raising whether or not players are going to leave because of it is purely an attempt to derail the discussion into frantic conservatism. It doesn't progress the discussion or help generate an interesting idea. It is just a big fat negative. >I think we should be more careful with our rule changes, changes should only >come into effect once a year with each new rulebook and at no point should >werush through changes that seriously impact the game. Frankly, I think we should make rule changes as they need to be made, but I can live with an annual review. Except where a change could be done simply and easily. Frankly, I don't see that happening to often, if it happens enough to really worry about. > >> Complacency has led us to largely ignore the fact that we are losing >players, and that we are left with an aging playing group, with no new >blood. > >I brought up the fact that we were losing players some time ago and was met >with the response... > > " As for losing players, this particular spectre has been raised every year >for as long as I can remember. I don't know if you have any empirical data >to support your contention, and indeed, I'd be interested if you had some >to share. My own experience is that the numbers always drop around exam-and >Christmas-time. They usually come up after Orientation and for the Winter >session. " Jim In an Email Dated 15 Jan 99 I note that you never responded with data, though. I did some head counting at the previous two Guild Meetings, and found that the numbers were down by just a little over 5%. I wasn't at the last meeting, so I don't know what the numbers were there, and I forgot to ask Mike to do one for me, so I have no idea if the trend continues or not. You were right, George, and I was wrong. > >>> You are making an assumption that it wont endanger the game. > >>The current position is that ANY change to the game will endanger the game. >Even one's that are clearly a good idea. For example, do you >think the >new point of death rules, i.e. negative one half the character's Endurance, >was ever going to endanger the game? Yet, that change >took months to put in >place, and yet anyone could see that is was going to be a good idea. > >Who's current position Jim? It's not my position, I can't see people in here >asking us not to change these rules. All I can see is people wanting to >debate and discuss the options available to get the best results. Rubbish. If you were interested in discussing the effect, you would be talking about the effect. Instead, you and Michael Woodhams are saying, if I recapitulate you, that you think that players might not like it. That's merely being negative. > >>>We have barely examined the impact on other spells or other flow on >effects. Regardless of what it is supposed to fix it is a MAJOR change >>to >the way Dq works and I don't think any change of this magnitude should be >rushed through in any way. Well, the death point is a major change to the game. And frankly, that was so obvious to almost everybody at the God's Meeting as a good thing that it ought to have been pushed through. Merely because something is major is not enough of a reason to make something wait the full year. If it addresses a major problem that we as DMs have with the game, then we should amend the current rules forthwith, and something like doubling and tripling of some spells is exactly the sort of thing that we should consider for speedy rules integration, if a sensible solution can be found. I am not saying that this is the solution. I AM saying we shouldn't deny ourselves the opportunity to make the game better, out of pure negativity. > >>I believe that this particular change is worthy of some discussion. I think >that something needs to be done about Necrosis, Hellfire, any of >the spells >that can take out a party regardless of whether or not they successfully >resist. This may not be the answer, it is true. > >Which is all I have been saying. No. If that were all you were saying, you could have said something along the lines of 'I don't like this, because...', where'...' is the reason you don't like it, and not the reported possibility that other players may not. You have the opportunity of going to a God's Meeting and voting against the proposal, if it ever gets that far. You don't have to bother with spurious reasons like that one. > >>However, this constant truculent resistance to anything new in DQ is >nothing more than knee-jerk reflex. >>Look at the issue at hand, and try to bloody well deal with the problem, >for God's sake. > >I am not sure where you are seeing this truculance? Everyone in this group >as far as I can see are simply trying to change the rules the way they see >is best. If you see that as truculance then the problem lies in your >impression of the work people are doing. Drivel, George. The Guild has been resistant (and reflexively so, I might add) to change for years, and you are but one of its many droning voices. It is not my perception that is flawed, it is the appalling lack of vision of so many of you not only suffer from, but are proud of. I don't have a problem with people attempting to change the rules to the betterment of the game. I do have a problem with people trying to change the game to the betterment of their character. That kind of thing just should not be a part of the discussion. Mind you, I don't have a problem with a player approaching a DM or several DMs and asking them for ways to make their character better in some way. I just don't see it as a reasonable basis from which to offer an opinion in a place like this, or a God's Meeting. Similarly, I don't see any real benefit in endless nay-saying. There is enough of that wherever you are, in whatever part of the world(s) you happen to be. If there is an objection to an issue, then let us make it pertinent to that issue. It may be that an issue raises, as a real concern, the idea that players may leave in droves. By all means, someone should raise that point. I seriously doubt that the current doubling and tripling suggestions will. Frankly, I suggest that the thing that is most likely to drive players away is this kind of creeping, willful dullness, where every innovation is crushed. Or, those innovations that don't originate with the responder get rubbished in one way or another, merely because they haven't uttered them first. Spare me. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 13:58:48 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA01414; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:58:48 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id NAA01411 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:58:44 +1300 Message-ID: <3803D927.B8F4E21B@peace.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 13:58:18 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Cliques Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Kelsie wrote: > I've noticed at the last couple of meetings that there seem to have been > a lot of pre-filled games. This makes it very difficult, particularly > for new players, to get on games with the 'good' or at least 'popular' > GM's, and for anyone to diversify their contacts. > > Could you please consider advertising maybe a couple of spaces in your games? > > Kelsie Indeed. I have certainly resented pre-booked games as a player. Particularly as a new player, they really seem to be closing off the options. Sometimes there are good game reasons (e.g. a bunch of adventurers have taken a foolish Geas) but in general I think they should be strongly discouraged. An exception is that GMs should be able to pre-book on adventures, so they can deal with applicants to their own adventure and not have to worry about booking a game at the same time. Michael W. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 14:03:26 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA01429; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:03:26 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id OAA01426 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:03:25 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p296-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.255.56]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id OAA13953; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:03:16 +1300 Subject: Re: Cliques Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:04:14 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf1516$de208440$38ff6dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz -----Original Message----- From: Kelsie To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Date: Wednesday, 13 October 1999 13:00 Subject: Cliques >>>3. Personalitys. People get tired and annoyed with other individuals. >This is a fact of >>>life, it happens. When you tend to meet the same people over and over again >>>far a long time the option of not meeting them seems a winner. > >>Then we should be moving people out of their cliques and encouraging >them to play with >>other people, so that this particular hassle goes away. It is nice to >roleplay >>consistently with a group of friends, but players and DMs should be >trying to play with >>someone new as often as possible. > >I've noticed at the last couple of meetings that there seem to have been >a lot of pre-filled games. This makes it very difficult, particularly >for new players, to get on games with the 'good' or at least 'popular' >GM's, and for anyone to diversify their contacts. > >Could you please consider advertising maybe a couple of spaces in your games? I have considered advertising on this thing, actually, but forgot the last time. It's so easy to get waylaid. However, I shall try to do it next time. Another problem I have is that I sometimes cannot make the God's Meeting, so I don't get an opportunity to announce it there. In addition, a player in a prefilled game is sometimes to over committed to play in a game that is advertised at the Guild Meeting. Now, while that isn't too much of a problem where there are only a few games filled that way, it is getting to be one where as many as 3 games come pre-booked. Pre-booked games deny other players the opportunity to adventure, because they remove that particular DM from the list of game opportunities. Not many DMs run more than one game a week. Of course, there are occasions where the players may have to play a game together, and that's fine. Where I think it is not fine is where a player books a DM, and starts recruiting players. This means that new players don't get too many opportunities. If the recruiter gathers more players than they know what to do with, then that too, has problems. The recruit believes they have a game organised, and don't worry too much about looking for a game. If they aren't told that they're no longer needed before games are chosen, then not only have they been deprived of an ability to play a game that they may have been interested in, but they are deprived of an opportunity to roleplay at all. >(BTW There are a lot of new players, they're just not young players. >They come into it by word of mouth of friends so are of similar age >generally to old players) You interest me strangely, Kelse...Names and phone numbers? -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 14:44:17 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA01504; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:44:17 +1300 Received: from enterprise.iconz.co.nz (enterprise.iconz.co.nz [210.48.22.40]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id OAA01501 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:44:16 +1300 Received: (qmail 4828 invoked from network); 13 Oct 1999 01:47:11 -0000 Received: from e0.firewall.ak.iconz.net.nz (HELO schroedinger) (202.14.100.208) by enterprise.iconz.co.nz with SMTP; 13 Oct 1999 01:47:11 -0000 Subject: A different topic. Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:42:07 +1300 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Mandos D Shadowspawn Esq" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > There will always be people who complaing about a change to > the system, > particularly where it disadvantages their character. If a > character loses a > disadvantage, but the nett impact to the game is better, then, > clearly, it > is better to make a change that is unpopular to a particular > player. If that player should leave, then that would be sad, but, really, we > cannot respond to 'squeaky wheel' complaints. We need to be looking at what is > good for the game, over the objections of individuals, if necessary. I think you have missed some of the poiunt in this discussion. What I said was that Players are complaining about the rate of change in the rules. You are reading players are complaining about the rules that have been changed. Two completly different things. I am sorry if I was not clear enough about that point. > >I think we should be more careful with our rule changes, changes should > only > >come into effect once a year with each new rulebook and at no > point should > >werush through changes that seriously impact the game. > > Frankly, I think we should make rule changes as they need to be made, > but I can live with an annual review. Except where a change could be done > simply and easily. Frankly, I don't see that happening to often, if it > happens enough to really worry about. It is simply easier to keep up with what is happening if there are a standard rules book that does not change for at least a year. It is hard enough to learn most of the rules without incorperating new ones all the time. People get confused. > Rubbish. If you were interested in discussing the effect, you would be > talking about the effect. Instead, you and Michael Woodhams are > saying, if I > recapitulate you, that you think that players might not like it. That's > merely being negative. I should have changed the topic when I responded to Paul. I was discussing the reasons for our lack of numbers rather than the rule in general. If you note I have made suggestions concerning this rule. > Merely because something is major is not enough of a reason to make > something wait the full year. If it addresses a major problem > that we as DMs have with the game, then we should amend the current rules forthwith, and > something like doubling and tripling of some spells is exactly the sort of > thing that we should consider for speedy rules integration, if a sensible > solution can be found. > I am not saying that this is the solution. I AM saying we > shouldn't deny ourselves the opportunity to make the game better, out of pure negativity. I don't think we should deny ourselves such an opportunity. However we should not rush to a conclusion just to make a rulebook deadline. > Drivel, George. The Guild has been resistant (and reflexively so, I > might add) to change for years, and you are but one of its many droning > voices. It is not my perception that is flawed, it is the > appalling lack of > vision of so many of you not only suffer from, but are proud of. We do lack YOUR vision it is true. However I do not lack MY vision of DQ. The fact that they are different does not make any particular view superior. I am fully in favour of any change that adds to the way I would like to see DQ just like everyone else regardless of how you may percieve my actions. > I don't have a problem with people attempting to change the > rules to the > betterment of the game. I do have a problem with people trying to change > the game to the betterment of their character. That kind of thing just > should not be a part of the discussion. > Mind you, I don't have a problem with a player approaching a DM or > several DMs and asking them for ways to make their character > better in some > way. I just don't see it as a reasonable basis from which to offer an > opinion in a place like this, or a God's Meeting. What does this have to do with the discussion? I don't remember bringing in character issues into this? Mandos /s -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 15:11:04 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA01546; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:11:04 +1300 Received: from akl-notes.aj.co.nz (ns.aj.co.nz [202.27.194.165]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id PAA01543 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:11:02 +1300 Subject: Rules Changes/Complaints X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0 (Intl) 30 March 1999 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:06:21 +1200 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on akl-notes.aj.co.nz/AJNzl/NZ(Release 5.0.1a (Intl)|17 August 1999) at 10/13/99 03:06:54 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: RMansfield@aj.co.nz To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Various Somebodies wrote: (I didn't keep track of who said what) It is simply easier to keep up with what is happening if there are a standard rules book that does not change for at least a year. It is hard enough to learn most of the rules without incorperating new ones all the time. People get confused. 2. Rules. Many players I have spoken to are sick of not knowing what the rules have changed to this week. A lot of the players and GM's out >> there have very little faith in those changing the rules and are sick of having to keep up with the changes. *** Ummm For the last few years the ruling is "NO rule change goes into play until the next rulebook is issued". This ruling was made to address the above complaints (from players) and has been in place since prior to DQ 97 I think (the ruling was made soon after the 1st re-issue of DQ by Ross). Since this ruling was decided there has only been a couple of exceptions of which I can't remember the specifics. But certainly there has been NO rule change come into play since the last issue of the rulebook (DQ98). So can we please put this complaint in the finished bin. Rosemary -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 16:06:17 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA01642; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:06:17 +1300 Received: from hermes.telebusiness.co.nz ([203.97.136.3] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id QAA01639 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:06:13 +1300 Received: by hermes.telebusiness.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <4P1SW42H>; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:15:51 +1300 Message-ID: <51F30BB9AB60D311B4130020AFF7E3230119D7@hermes.telebusiness.co.nz> Subject: RE: Cliques Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 14:15:51 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" From: Terry Spencer To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz I'd have to agree with this point. More games are being prefilled and thus unannounced at the guild meeting. Earlier in the year 1/2 the games for a session were prefilled. New player have shown their frustration at the limited number of games available and the inability to play with various GMs. Indeed I find this frustrating as well, it detract from the multi-GM multi player environment that the guide has fostered. Terry Spencer SITEL Telebusiness NZ Ltd Phone +64 9 3738919 > Truth emerges more readily from error than confusion > > -----Original Message----- From: Kelsie [mailto:kelsie@takitimu.co.nz] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 1:00 PM To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Cliques >>3. Personalitys. People get tired and annoyed with other individuals. This is a fact of >>life, it happens. When you tend to meet the same people over and over again >>far a long time the option of not meeting them seems a winner. >Then we should be moving people out of their cliques and encouraging them to play with >other people, so that this particular hassle goes away. It is nice to roleplay >consistently with a group of friends, but players and DMs should be trying to play with >someone new as often as possible. I've noticed at the last couple of meetings that there seem to have been a lot of pre-filled games. This makes it very difficult, particularly for new players, to get on games with the 'good' or at least 'popular' GM's, and for anyone to diversify their contacts. Could you please consider advertising maybe a couple of spaces in your games? Kelsie (BTW There are a lot of new players, they're just not young players. They come into it by word of mouth of friends so are of similar age generally to old players) -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 16:57:04 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA01701; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:57:04 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id QAA01690 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:50:01 +1300 Message-ID: <38040107.1D674FA9@peace.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:48:23 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Cliques Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Terry Spencer wrote: > New player have shown their frustration at the > limited number of games available and the inability to play with various > GMs. If new players (or any players) are finding a limited number of games available then more need to be run... pre-booking games does not reduce the total number of "seats" being made available, and presuming that players are not taking out another character along with their pre-booked one then other players should not be disadvantaged. As an aside, allowing players to set up games (actually this doesn't necessarily involve pre-filling) adds (IMHO) to the feeling that there is more to the shared world than a bunch of guys and gals waiting around in the metaphorical pub for someone to offer them a job. Cheers, Martin -- _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com _/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 17:13:59 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA01731; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:13:59 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id RAA01728 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:13:57 +1300 Message-ID: <380406B9.E2896765@peace.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:12:41 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Fire College edit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Hi Paul, Some editing comments on fire follow, I have CCed DQ so that people can comment on my comments. These are all pretty much textual/typo comments. Cheers, Martin All page and paragraph numbers are taken from the PDF version that was mailed out. C = column, P = paragraph. -- Two general comments. 1) As I understand it the standard formula for effects per Rank is: x (+y/Rank), with no spaces in the brackets. A formula of 1 + Rank should read: 1 (+1/Rank). This be should be as consistent as possible. I'm not sure what the normal format is if there is also a negative per foot range (for instance) involved, but I seem to recall something like x (+y/Rank) [-z/foot] -- perhaps someone can correct this. 2) Gendered language. (Appears in Fire Bolt, Fireball, Cleansing Flame). This is not used throughout the DQ rules and should be removed either by re-writing to remove the necessity of the pronoun or by using the singular gender-neutral pronouns "they". Interesting details of the use of "they" as a singular form may be found at: http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html OK... another general comment... I've got part way through writing this and realised that many of the comments seem to be about storage. I'm not sure if this was all cleared up while I was away... so people, feel free to correct me... The way I understand it is this: There are 4 ways that a spell can be stored. The default case would be to include all (rather than the opposite exclude all option). Methods are then removed depending on the spell's attributes. Eg. The area of a Ward is equal to the range attribute of the spell stored, so Ward is not not applicable as a storage mechanism if the range is touch, or self or sight or indefinite or the spell involves concentration. Potions only affect the drinker and may give them an ability (eg. breath under water) but not to "cast" a spell effect... therefore no Potions of Fire Bolt. Given the new write up for Dragonflames however, Potion seems very appropriate. Investment works as though the original Adept were present and casting, so no "self" spells... but pretty much everything else. Magical Traps... hmmm... are much like mechanically triggered Investments, but all spell effects must be fixed at storage time -- the difference with a Wall of Fire in an invested item or a magical trap is that the person triggering the Wall from the invested gets to choose wall, circle or pillar and the dimensions; these same choices must be made at storage time with the Trap. -- pg1 C1 P3. In sentence "usual reaction will generally..." substitute "one" for "1". pg1 C2 Burning table: Just a comment; given the relatively low temperature of boiling water wouldn't one expect to take more damage from a "raging forest fire' or even a bonfire given that these values are for a one pulse immersion in all cases? pg1 C3 Bolt of Fire: Is there a specific reason that it may not be actively resisted? (This would be normal for a bolt type spell). "Investments" should be "Investment". Target: sometime "Entity or Object" has been used (as here), othertimes "Object or Entity", and in another case "Volume, Object". These should be made consistent. pg1 C3 Fire Armour: Storage should probably include "Investment". pg2 C1 Increase Temperature: the second to last sentence of this spell (beginning "When the spell effect ends...") seems to apply to both liquids and solids -- solids are specifically mentioned -- does the last sentence also apply to both? This would suggest that at Rank 20 the Adept may quickly heat a great deal of metal. Is this intended? pg2 C2 Smoke Creation: Storage should probably include "Magical Trap". pg2 C2 Binding Fire: Sentence beginning "For a permanent Bound Fire to be negated..." suggests that the _higher_ the rank of this ritual, the _longer_ that it takes to recover. Is this intended? This should have a Cast Time, I think this is standard for all rituals. pg2 C3 Cleansing Flame: Storage: remove "and". pg2 C3 Dragon Flames: Range is technically "Self". Remove "save" from Resist, should read "Active or Passive, then half damage". Storage: given that the spell gives the adept the ability to breath fire storage "Potion" would probably be appropriate, and Investment may not, it being a Self only spell. pg2 C3 Fire Arc. Sentence "burst of flame for D10 damage to all creatures..." Is this intended to only affect entities? Does it not set flammables alight? p3 C1 Fireball: Storage should probably include Magical Trap. p3 C1 Heat Shield: Storage should probably include Investment. p3 C1 Immolation: Target is Entity. p3 C2 Speak to Fire Creatures: Range should be "Self" and spell effect altered to read "...communicate with all fire creatures within 15 feet (+15/Rank). p3 C3 Wall of Fire: Just a comment, the Rank 20 effect allows the damage to be doubled if the duration is halved. A double or triple effect can alos increase damage. This could mean a rank 20 wall doing (D + 20) x2) x3) lasting for 105 minutes. On average an entity passing through the wall will suffer 153 points of damage, resist for a mere 76 odd. This may not be an issue since this is a static defence, but was this intended? pg4 C1 Wildfires: Remove sentence "This spell may be actively resisted", and add a Resist: Active attribute. pg4 C1 Create Drought: Cast Time? pg4 C1 Flame Sight: Cast Time? pg4 C2 Lesser Efreeti: As a general comment I found this one hard to read -- I think that there is a lot of information here and it might be better to organise it differently -- splitting out the Effreeti's stats and abilities into a more bestiary-like format and putting at the end of the ritual could help. OK... specifics... "stead" should be "steed", I presume that this is thing is a "horse" not a "house". :) Its claws and bite need a SC and Damage. No ritual can be invested. I see no justification for the Banishment prohibition... the thing already has the Adept's MR. This is quite an interesting and powerful ritual and I'm not sure it needs these extra wierdnesses, especially given its EM and Cast Chance. pg4 C2 Fire Elemental: Cast Time? --- That's all I've found so far. Cheers, Martin -- _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com _/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 17:19:05 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA01752; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:19:05 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id RAA01748 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:19:02 +1300 Message-ID: <38040816.2FC175C3@peace.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:18:34 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Cliques Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Martin Dickson wrote: > Terry Spencer wrote: > > > New player have shown their frustration at the > > limited number of games available and the inability to play with various > > GMs. > > If new players (or any players) are finding a limited number of games > available then more need to be run... pre-booking games does not reduce the > total number of "seats" being made available, and presuming that players are > not taking out another character along with their pre-booked one then other > players should not be disadvantaged. It does not reduce the number of seats, but it does reduce the choice of adventures. Without pre-booking, there would be more adventures to chose from, although there would be more people trying to occupy those seats. It also gives at least the perception (and possibly the reality) that to get on the best games you have to be one of an elite group of chums who run the DQ game. > As an aside, allowing players to set up games (actually this doesn't > necessarily involve pre-filling) adds (IMHO) to the feeling that there is more > to the shared world than a bunch of guys and gals waiting around in the > metaphorical pub for someone to offer them a job. It is fine to arrange a game with a GM to do something one of your characters wants to do - I've done it myself once, as Anathea didn't want a necromancer wraith unliving near her village. However, generally there are only one or two characters who have to along on the mission for game-world reasons. Where I object is when all the player's chums pile in pre-booked. If the originating player wants certain other players and/or characters to be on the adventure, they can ask those players to go to the guild meeting and try to sign up on the game, taking the same odds as everyone else. The 'adventures for the boys' system may look fine from the inside, but as someone outside the 'old boys' network (both in DQ and real life) this sort of thing really stinks. It leads to feelings of exclusion, unfairness and not belonging - not the sort of impression we want to leave with new recruits. Michael W. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 17:30:09 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA01778; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:30:09 +1300 Received: from fclaklmr02.fcl.co.nz (mail.fcl.co.nz [203.98.14.148]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id RAA01775 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:30:07 +1300 Received: from falaklex00.falum.co.nz ([10.8.1.28]) by fclaklmr02.fcl.co.nz with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:30:00 +1300 Received: by FALAKLEX00 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <4PK5N69K>; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:33:19 +1300 Message-ID: <311B3C3DD32FD311B33900805F770A725FB37B@FALAKLEX00> Subject: RE: Cliques Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:33:18 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF1534.12F016D0" From: "Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF1534.12F016D0 Content-Type: text/plain Martin; It does reduce the range of GMs available. Worked Example: I've been trying to get a game with you as GM for ?five? years (including before your break from DQ). There was only two cases when the game was announced and was not "ridiculously" high, and I was GMing in one of these two instances, and turned away as you got ~20 players the other time. Now, I'm not sure if you have been pre-booked or not, but if you have been then you've been confined to a limited range of players, mainly those who know you well (a clique?). If you haven't been pre-booked then imagine the difficulty for me and others if you had been! Of course, this also lets the GM choose players that are "fun" or have the right characters, but this is just another word for clique, and is different from excluding a few unruly or unsuitable characters (or even players) from your game. Not all GMs GM the same way, and some are better than others at the same style. The GMs perceived as better or (god help us) more manipulatible (?malleable?) are often pre-booked by "scheming" players. On the other hand, sometimes that GM is the only way to continue to explore a character's idea or particular problem. Player vs character differentiation. Characters setting up games is good, players doing it for player reasons is less good. This isn't an attack on Martin, just an example of the problem - I don't even know if Martin pre-books. Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Dickson [SMTP:martind@peace.com] > > If new players (or any players) are finding a limited number of games > available then more need to be run... pre-booking games does not reduce > the > total number of "seats" being made available, and presuming that players > are > not taking out another character along with their pre-booked one then > other > players should not be disadvantaged. > > As an aside, allowing players to set up games (actually this doesn't > necessarily involve pre-filling) adds (IMHO) to the feeling that there is > more > to the shared world than a bunch of guys and gals waiting around in the > metaphorical pub for someone to offer them a job. > > Martin > ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF1534.12F016D0 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Cliques

    Martin;
    It does reduce the = range of GMs available.

    Worked = Example:
    I've been trying to = get a game with you as GM for ?five? years (including before your break = from DQ). There was only two cases when the game was announced and was = not "ridiculously" high, and I was GMing in one of these two = instances, and turned away as you got ~20 players the other time. Now, = I'm not sure if you have been pre-booked or not, but if you have been = then you've been confined to a limited range of players, mainly those = who know you well (a clique?). If you haven't been pre-booked then = imagine the difficulty for me and others if you had been!

    Of course, this also = lets the GM choose players that are "fun" or have the right = characters, but this is just another word for clique, and is different = from excluding a few unruly or unsuitable characters (or even players) = from your game.

    Not all GMs GM the = same way, and some are better than others at the same style. The GMs = perceived as better or (god help us) more manipulatible (?malleable?) = are often pre-booked by "scheming" players. On the other = hand, sometimes that GM is the only way to continue to explore a = character's idea or particular problem. Player vs character = differentiation. Characters setting up games is good, players doing it = for player reasons is less good.

    This isn't an attack = on Martin, just an example of the problem - I don't even know if Martin = pre-books.

    Andrew
    -----Original Message-----
    From:   Martin Dickson [SMTP:martind@peace.com]

    If new players (or any players) are = finding a limited number of games
    available then more need to be run... = pre-booking games does not reduce the
    total number of "seats" = being made available, and presuming that players are
    not taking out another character = along with their pre-booked one then other
    players should not be = disadvantaged.

    As an aside, allowing players to set = up games (actually this doesn't
    necessarily involve pre-filling) adds = (IMHO) to the feeling that there is more
    to the shared world than a bunch of = guys and gals waiting around in the
    metaphorical pub for someone to offer = them a job.

             &nb= sp;  Martin

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF1534.12F016D0-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 17:47:23 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA01821; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:47:23 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id RAA01818 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:47:21 +1300 Message-ID: <38040E8E.52847822@peace.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:46:06 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Cliques Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Michael Woodhams wrote: > The 'adventures for the boys' system may look fine from the inside, but as > someone outside the 'old boys' network (both in DQ and real life) this sort of > thing really stinks. It leads to feelings of exclusion, unfairness and not > belonging - not the sort of impression we want to leave with new recruits. Fair cop. The game I'm running at the moment is one of few I have done booked in advance -- I was still in Canada when it was suggested and I asked the players to organize it. However, I have in past often allowed the player/character organising the adventurer to do the party "hiring" at the Guild meeting. The upside of this has been from a role-playing perspective, in that the hiring character's personal biases have shaped who they will or will not take... but as you say that can be a downside too, if the player rather than the character is being biased. I have also been put in the situation as a GM of having two players (whose characters were central to the on-going plot and were organising the party at the Guild meeting) tell me that they would pull out if I took a particular other player. I was fairly displeased at being put in such a situation, and the options seemed to be take the player and loose two others and have the whole raison d'etre of the mission collapse, or agree, or throw up my hands and cancel it. Being either a pragmatist (or a moral coward -- your call) I went with the easy option and was unhappy. The flip side of all this is that whilst I agree wholeheartedly with you that exclusion, unfairness and not belonging are undesirable things, I also do this hobby for my own enjoyment. I like GMing (I also like playing, but I like GMing more), and it is not a public service. It is a chance for me to socialise with people with similar interests, and in many cases people I have considered my friends for many years, and who I like socialisng with. As for public service to the hobby -- I have GMed for groups of virtual strangers... in a number of roleplaying "competitions". I have done these partially because I enjoy GMing and partially because I think that it is important to promote and attempt to grow the hobby, I certainly didn't do it for my health or wealth -- they certainly made no money, the entry fee just covering costs and given the amount of sheer blood, sweat (and occasionally tears) that went into them I feel I have paid dues to this hobby. Regards, Martin -- _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com _/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 17:52:33 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA01840; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:52:33 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id RAA01837 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:52:31 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p123-tnt5.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.194.123]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id RAA01196 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:52:18 +1300 Subject: Re: A different topic. Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:53:15 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf1536$dc853d40$7bc26dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz George wrote: >What I said was that Players are complaining about the rate of change in the >rules. > >You are reading players are complaining about the rules that have been >changed. > >Two completly different things. I am sorry if I was not clear enough about >that point. It was a fair inference to draw, George, considering you put it in a message that deals with a potential rule change. What other reason can you have had for making the point? >I don't think we should deny ourselves such an opportunity. However we >should not rush to a conclusion just to make a rulebook deadline. > Why not? If it is a good suggestion, and most people don't have a problem with it, do you suggest waiting until the year after? Why, in God's name? Merely so that the process can take a long time? >> Drivel, George. The Guild has been resistant (and reflexively so, I >> might add) to change for years, and you are but one of its many droning >> voices. It is not my perception that is flawed, it is the >> appalling lack of >> vision of so many of you not only suffer from, but are proud of. > >We do lack YOUR vision it is true. However I do not lack MY vision of DQ. >The fact that they are different does not make any particular view superior. >I am fully in favour of any change that adds to the way I would like to see >DQ just like everyone else regardless of how you may percieve my actions. I have seen precious little evidence of any consistent vision from you, George. You have ideas on occasion. Some of them quite good, I might add. However, this isn't about my particular view of the way DQ could be improved. There are a number of problems within the game architecture that need to be dealt with. Some of these have been, over the years, some are being addressed at the moment. Some, however, haven't been touched at all. Here is an example. The Guild has been around for something like 17 years, without any serious work being done on Undetectability. Prior to the work being done on the Mind College, one DM told me that he simply made it that all of the NPCs always made their perception rolls, and all of the PCs failed theirs. I suggest that more DMs would have been doing something like it, one way or another. Now, that was not a recent ruling by the DM involved, so it was a problem that had existed for ages. It is only now being addressed. It takes very little in the way of analytical skills to see that if DMs are applying an 'interpretation' contra-indicated by the rules, then there is a problem. Nevertheless, nothing has been done on this for years. This is an obvious lack of vision. It is not a lack of vision that you could say was based on one person's taste or style. It is lack of vision, pure and simple. > >> I don't have a problem with people attempting to change the >> rules to the >> betterment of the game. I do have a problem with people trying to change >> the game to the betterment of their character. That kind of thing just >> should not be a part of the discussion. >> Mind you, I don't have a problem with a player approaching a DM or >> several DMs and asking them for ways to make their character >> better in some >> way. I just don't see it as a reasonable basis from which to offer an >> opinion in a place like this, or a God's Meeting. > >What does this have to do with the discussion? I don't remember bringing in >character issues into this? I don't recall you doing so, either. I merely raised the issue because it is often raised as an argument to counter change, and it is clearly not an argument for anything other than the increased security of a character. It is one of a variety of arguments that do not address issues, and attempt to derail the discussion into irrelevancy. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 18:01:02 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA01888; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:01:02 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id SAA01885 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:01:01 +1300 Message-ID: <380411C1.584A2F5A@peace.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:59:45 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Cliques Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz "Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" wrote: > I've been trying to get a game with you as GM for ?five? years > (including before your break from DQ). There was only two cases > when the game was announced and was not "ridiculously" high, > I don't ever recall announcing a game as ridiculously high -- I usually say "Medium", or "doesn't matter". And I have taken characters of all levels of ability at times. I only know of one recent-ish game that was very high... and that was because 7 maniacs wanted to take on the entire Spawn empire... 7 adventurers vs. and army 70,000+... I figure 10,000:1 odds are probably "Very High". :) > The GMs perceived as ...more manipulatible (?malleable?) are often pre-booked by "scheming" players. Oh god, is that why I get players?! > This isn't an attack on Martin, just an example of the problem - > I don't even know if Martin pre-books. > As I wrote in the other mail, I don't usually pre-book (except for other GMs at the pre-Guildmeeting GM's meeting)... although I have often have had players/character do the actual party selection. Perhaps this needs some re-thinking. Cheers, Martin -- _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com _/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 18:07:10 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA01910; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:07:10 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id SAA01907 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:07:08 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p123-tnt5.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.194.123]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id SAA04308 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:06:55 +1300 Subject: Re: Cliques Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 18:07:54 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf1538$e7df82c0$7bc26dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Martin wrote: > I went with the easy option and was unhappy. > Not, however, as unhappy as the player that didn't get to play. They were left with finding an adventure to go out on, after presumably trying to get into your game in the first place. >The flip side of all this is that whilst I agree wholeheartedly with you that >exclusion, unfairness and not belonging are undesirable things, I also do this hobby >for my own enjoyment. I like GMing (I also like playing, but I like GMing more), and >it is not a public service. It is a chance for me to socialise with people with >similar interests, and in many cases people I have considered my friends for many >years, and who I like socialisng with. > Fairness and justice have as much to do with the execution of our personal lives as they do to our public ones. Is it fair or just to deprive a player by either not advertising an adventure or by not making a place available for them? Yes, we DM for enjoyment. But we should be enjoying it in a fair and even handed manner. And, there is a nett gain to be had in DMing new players. It provides the DM with an opportunity to improve. DMs rarely improve when interacting with the same people again and again. >As for public service to the hobby -- I have GMed for groups of virtual strangers... >in a number of roleplaying "competitions". I have done these partially because I >enjoy GMing and partially because I think that it is important to promote and >attempt to grow the hobby, I certainly didn't do it for my health or wealth -- they >certainly made no money, the entry fee just covering costs and given the amount of >sheer blood, sweat (and occasionally tears) that went into them I feel I have paid >dues to this hobby. > I don't think this is about public service. In fact, given a choice, I'd rather DMs were recompensed in some wise for their efforts. The Guild does this to some extent, when some conditions have been met, in the coin that it can best afford. However, the issue at hand is whether or not pre-booking is fair or just. Sometimes, it is unavoidable by the nature of the game, sometimes that isn't the case. Whatever else, however much 'service' we feels the game owes, there is no reason that we shouldn't be as fair and just as possible. That is simply the price of being human, and no part of any debt that the Guild might be said to owe an individual DM. Jim. >Regards, > Martin > >-- > > _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com >_/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 > Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 > > > >-- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 19:08:32 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id TAA01967; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:08:32 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id TAA01964 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:08:31 +1300 Received: from paul (p3-max14.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.227.195]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id TAA16113 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:08:14 +1300 Message-ID: <002e01bf1541$4a37ed60$6564640a@paul> Subject: Fw: Fire College edit Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:07:52 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Paul Schmidt" To: dq-announce@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq-announce@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. Reply-To: "Paul Schmidt" , dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thanks for the format comments - I write in a certain "voice", that being my TSR descriptor. Specific comments... >>The area of a Ward is equal to the range attribute of the spell stored, so >Ward >>is not not applicable as a storage mechanism if the range is touch, or self >or >>sight or indefinite or the spell involves concentration. I disagree - this is a mechanical thing - why not have a variation if it makes sense? > Potions only affect >>the drinker and may give them an ability (eg. breath under water) but not >to >>"cast" a spell effect... therefore no Potions of Fire Bolt. Good point. >Given the new >>write up for Dragonflames however, Potion seems very appropriate. Agreed. >Investment >>works as though the original Adept were present and casting, so no "self" >>spells... but pretty much everything else. Magical Traps... hmmm... are >much >>like mechanically triggered Investments, but all spell effects must be >fixed at >>storage time -- the difference with a Wall of Fire in an invested item or a >>magical trap is that the person triggering the Wall from the invested gets >to >>choose wall, circle or pillar and the dimensions; these same choices must >be >>made at storage time with the Trap. Once again I disagree - this is confusing a mechanic with giving a player some flexibility. Go for flexibility. >>pg1 C2 Burning table: Just a comment; given the relatively low temperature >of >>boiling water wouldn't one expect to take more damage from a "raging forest >>fire' or even a bonfire given that these values are for a one pulse >immersion >>in all cases? No - heat immersive. What this means is brief exposure to a facing is usually far less damaging than full immersion. >> >>pg1 C3 Bolt of Fire: Is there a specific reason that it may not be actively >>resisted? (This would be normal for a bolt type spell). Yes - to give fire more "kick". Its meant ot be a nuke college and doesn't have the range of other colleges. > "Investments" should be >>"Investment". Target: sometime "Entity or Object" has been used (as here), >>othertimes "Object or Entity", and in another case "Volume, Object". These >>should be made consistent. Agreed >>pg1 C3 Fire Armour: Storage should probably include "Investment". Agreed >>pg2 C2 Smoke Creation: Storage should probably include "Magical Trap". agreed >>pg2 C2 Binding Fire: Sentence beginning "For a permanent Bound Fire to be >>negated..." suggests that the _higher_ the rank of this ritual, the >_longer_ >>that it takes to recover. Is this intended? No. This english will have to be cleaned up. >This should have a Cast Time, I >>think this is standard for all rituals. Agreed - an oversight. And no, the sarcasam isn't appreciated. >>pg2 C3 Cleansing Flame: Storage: remove "and". Agreed >>pg2 C3 Dragon Flames: Range is technically "Self". Remove "save" from >Resist, >>should read "Active or Passive, then half damage". Storage: given that the >>spell gives the adept the ability to breath fire storage "Potion" would >>probably be appropriate, and Investment may not, it being a Self only >spell. Agreed. >>pg2 C3 Fire Arc. Sentence "burst of flame for D10 damage to all >creatures..." >>Is this intended to only affect entities? Does it not set flammables >alight? Yes, its meant to affect everything. >>p3 C1 Fireball: Storage should probably include Magical Trap. Agreed. >>p3 C1 Heat Shield: Storage should probably include Investment. Agreed >>p3 C1 Immolation: Target is Entity. >>p3 C2 Speak to Fire Creatures: Range should be "Self" and spell effect >altered >>to read "...communicate with all fire creatures within 15 feet (+15/Rank). Agreed. >>p3 C3 Wall of Fire: Just a comment, the Rank 20 effect allows the damage to >be >>doubled if the duration is halved. A double or triple effect can alos >increase >>damage. This could mean a rank 20 wall doing (D + 20) x2) x3) lasting for >105 >>minutes. Thats right - and its intended. Why? To a) encourage Ranking and b) becuase it gives the effect of a solid wall - ie people won't rush through it (as a rule) once Rank 20 is reached - of course they can douse it with a volume of water. Currently Wall of Fire is pretty useless compared to Earth, Ice etc. >>pg4 C1 Wildfires: Remove sentence "This spell may be actively resisted", >and >>add a Resist: Active attribute. Agreed. >>pg4 C1 Create Drought: Cast Time? > Hmmm.. where did these get to? Cast times remain as they were >>pg4 C1 Flame Sight: Cast Time? As before...Hmmm.. where did these get to? Cast times remain as they were >>pg4 C2 Lesser Efreeti: As a general comment I found this one hard to >read -- I >>think that there is a lot of information here and it might be better to >>organise it differently -- splitting out the Effreeti's stats and >abilities >>into a more bestiary-like format and putting at the end of the ritual could >>help. OK... specifics... "stead" should be "steed", I presume that this >is >>thing is a "horse" not a "house". :) agreed have worked these out and should have included them in the copy I'll cc this to Ross so he can tweak the doc. Cheers Paul -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 19:35:34 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id TAA02002; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:35:34 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id TAA01999 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:35:33 +1300 Received: from mandos (jenny@p235-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [216.100.154.235]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id TAA21366 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:35:16 +1300 Subject: RE: A different topic. Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:38:52 +1300 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 From: "Mandos D Shadowspawn Esq" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > >Two completly different things. I am sorry if I was not clear > enough about > >that point. > > It was a fair inference to draw, George, considering you put it in a > message that deals with a potential rule change. What other reason can you > have had for making the point? I was responding to one line from Pauls message and the post was confined to the topic of why we lose players. It is my fault I failed to rename the topic. > >I don't think we should deny ourselves such an opportunity. However we > >should not rush to a conclusion just to make a rulebook deadline. > > > Why not? If it is a good suggestion, and most people don't have a > problem with it, do you suggest waiting until the year after? > Why, in God's name? Merely so that the process can take a long time? I don't think it is a good solution. I think it would be better to simply change resist for half into resist for a quarter. Which involves less work, less options and does not generate a potential number of follow on effects due to changes that effect the other things that can be effected by doubles and triples. A point which I raised during the conversation. > I have seen precious little evidence of any consistent vision > from you, George. You have ideas on occasion. Some of them quite good, I might add. I find the constant pushing by people on here for "their Vision" annoys me so I prefer not to constantly ram my wishes into the conversation. I do have a vision and I hope it is consistant :-) > However, this isn't about my particular view of the way DQ could be > improved. There are a number of problems within the game architecture that > need to be dealt with. Some of these have been, over the years, some are > being addressed at the moment. Some, however, haven't been touched at all. And I think we should be working on those area's rather than something that has not been broken for a long time like the current rule under discusion. I really do not want to see a rule like this one pushed into play when the effects are not considered. I would prefer to see us working on the truly broken things like Undetectability to get those fixed. > >What does this have to do with the discussion? I don't remember > >bringing in character issues into this? > > I don't recall you doing so, either. I merely raised the issue because > it is often raised as an argument to counter change, and it is clearly not > an argument for anything other than the increased security of a character. > It is one of a variety of arguments that do not address issues, > and attempt to deerail the discussion into irrelevancy. It has been so long since I have played Dq I might be swaying to far the other way and not looking at things with any involvement from the other side of the table :-) ;-) Mandos /s -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Oct 13 22:31:38 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id WAA02188; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:31:38 +1300 Received: from kcbbs.gen.nz (kcbbs.gen.nz [202.14.102.1]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id WAA02185 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:31:36 +1300 Received: from bear (as5200-11.kcbbs.gen.nz [202.14.102.41]) by kcbbs.gen.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA24421 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:25:13 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19991013223154.007b69c0@kcbbs.gen.nz> X-Sender: salient@kcbbs.gen.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 22:31:54 +1300 Subject: Re: Cliques Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Sally and Brent Jackson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk 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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Various people said: >> > New player have shown their frustration at the >> > limited number of games available and the inability to play with various >> > GMs. This topic begins to bring into question the whole structure of the guild meeting. As it is, to a certain extent, just a game mechanic. The way characters are "chosen" or not for an adventure has often broken the "reality" of the game world. I can recall many examples, such as a party half filled with air mages, without a namer to be seen, which "in character", is a party unfit to deal with the job to hand, and which the employer should, if he had any real sense, refuse to hire. Or characters having to (temporarily) put aside their xenophobia or college-phobia (What would that latin phrase be, I wonder?). My experience of pre-booking adventures has been character driven. My character was looking to hire people with a specific skill set, who she could trust, and so turned to other characters she had adventured with "Better the devil you know ..." so to speak. This is at medium level. I wouldn't do this with a starting or low level characater, as they haven't had the chance to develop Perhaps a guideline for GM's could preclude pre-booking for low level parties, which is where the new players will be starting their DQ experiences. Regards, Sally -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --