From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 08:24:05 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA29634; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:24:05 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id IAA29623 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:24:04 +1300 Received: from phaeton.ihug.co.nz (p21-max18.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.101.85]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA08632 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:17:55 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19981016081419.00793880@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: phaeton@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:14:19 +1300 Subject: Strength of Stone Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Keith Smith To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. A question about the Strength of Stone spell. If a SoS for EN is cast on a character on negative EN, what should happen? There should be one of two results: a) Either their current EN is raised, which would have the effect of healing EN damage for the duration of the spell and could raise the character to positive EN or b) Their base EN is raised for the duration which means that they will take longer to die as the -1/2EN value is lowered accordingly to match. At the time I ruled (a) but the more I think about it, it should have been (b). Comments anyone? Should there be a clarification in the rulebook? Keith (phaeton@ihug.co.nz) -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 08:41:58 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA29685; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:41:58 +1300 Received: from witch.xtra.co.nz (witch.xtra.co.nz [202.27.184.8]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id IAA29674 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:41:57 +1300 Received: from AKLNOTES.wilsonandhorton.co.nz ([203.99.71.10]) by witch.xtra.co.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA03320 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:35:10 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by AKLNOTES.wilsonandhorton.co.nz(Lotus SMTP MTA v1.2 (600.1 3-26-1998)) id CC25669E.006BE197 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:38:21 +1300 X-Lotus-FromDomain: NZHERALD Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:38:18 +1300 Subject: Re: Strength of Stone Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline From: Dean_Ellis@wilsonandhorton.co.nz To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Shouldn't it be (a) AND (b). I mean if someone has a base EN of 18, gets hit for 24 EN this would leave them on -6 and bleeding towards death at -9. If they then get a Rank 12 SOS for EN cast on them I would have thought their current EN would become +6 and their current base EN would become 30, giving them a stun of 11+ and death on -15. This would get the character up again and some might say that this is better than trollskin. Normally, however, you would already have a SOS on and this trick wouldn't work due to stacking laws. Ciao for now, Dean Keith Smith on 16/10/98 08:14:19 AM Please respond to dq@dq.sf.org.nz To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz cc: (bcc: Dean Ellis/IT/NZHERALD/NZ) Subject: Strength of Stone A question about the Strength of Stone spell. If a SoS for EN is cast on a character on negative EN, what should happen? There should be one of two results: a) Either their current EN is raised, which would have the effect of healing EN damage for the duration of the spell and could raise the character to positive EN or b) Their base EN is raised for the duration which means that they will take longer to die as the -1/2EN value is lowered accordingly to match. At the time I ruled (a) but the more I think about it, it should have been (b). Comments anyone? Should there be a clarification in the rulebook? Keith (phaeton@ihug.co.nz) -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 10:07:36 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA29793; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:07:36 +1300 Received: from letterbox.cs.auckland.ac.nz (letterbox.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.35.1]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id KAA29782 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:07:36 +1300 Received: from [130.216.34.178] (andrew-l.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.34.178]) by letterbox.cs.auckland.ac.nz (8.8.6/8.8.6/cs-master) with ESMTP id KAA27818 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:01:26 +1300 (sender andrew-l@cs.auckland.ac.nz) X-Sender: andrew-l@staffpop.cs.auckland.ac.nz Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:02:23 +1300 Subject: Re: One high rank spell (was Re: Casting for Ranking) From: Andrew Luxton To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Brent wrote: > >I think it is a problem, as the character is not very "real". Experience >points that a character has earned supposedly represents their gaining in >proficiency through the use of an ability. Unless the character does >nought else but use a single spell, then they should not be able to pour >all of their experience into it. > I don't think "realism" even enters the argument unless it affects the enjoyment people get from the game. I think that restricting character development will make the game less enjoyable for some players, so there should be real evidence that such rules will actually make the game more enjoyable for others. [In addition, I think that _any_ ranking can easily be rationalised and create just as "real" a character regardless of what is ranked.] The game must be fun (for both the GM and the players) otherwise it is just a waste of time. I have characters which have (or have had) "uneven ranking". I have also played with other players who have equally "uneven" characters, and I don't think it makes the game any less enjoyable. In fact in some cases it has made the game more interesting because the characters have specialised. Variety is the spice of life, and having characters that are good at one thing and not at others simply adds to this variety. I think that the choice of ranking makes little difference to the amount of fun you have on a game. I have played in games where the levels of characters were very different, and some were great fun, and some weren't. What mattered was the people involoved, not the ranking. In any case, as Jim pointed out, it is the job of the GM to decide if the characters on the game are suitable or not. If a character is a OSW, and you don't think they will be fun to GM (or fun for the other players) then don't let them play in your game. Could people give examples where specialist ranking has made the character less fun to play, less fun to GM, or less fun to play with... perhaps then we will see if this really is a problem. Andrew. ------------------------------------------- Andrew Luxton, Computer Science Dept. Ph: +64-09-373-7599 ext 5654 University of Auckland. Fax: +64-09-373-7453 ------------------------------------------- -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 10:11:51 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA29828; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:11:51 +1300 Received: from date.palm.cri.nz (date.palm.cri.nz [161.66.1.20]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id KAA29819 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:11:45 +1300 Received: from mail1.marc.cri.nz (mail1.marc.cri.nz [161.29.1.1]) by date.palm.cri.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA23459 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:05:36 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from hra1.marc.cri.nz (unverified [161.29.1.5]) by mail1.marc.cri.nz (Dr Solomon's SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:03:15 +1300 Message-Id: Received: from HRA1/SpoolDir by hra1.marc.cri.nz (Mercury 1.31); 16 Oct 98 10:06:05 GMT+12 Received: from SpoolDir by HRA1 (Mercury 1.31); 16 Oct 98 10:06:00 GMT+12 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 10:05:55 GMT+1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: One high rank spell (was Re: Casting for Ranking) X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT From: "Bart Janssen" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Date sent: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:35:37 +1300 Subject: RE: One high rank spell (was Re: Casting for Ranking) From: Dean_Ellis@wilsonandhorton.co.nz To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Send reply to: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > Astounding arrogance is getting shown here. Since when do we have the right > to tell someone how to run their characters. Hang on a sec. I asked a question. I didn't say we should do it. I just asked a question. I also gave my opinion, which your arguement hasn't altered. I am not suggesting that we legislate that someone cannot become a one spell wonder. My suggestion was that they not be able to do it too quickly. Simply saying you can't get too many (whatever that number be defined as) ranks at one time does not prevent a roleplayer from choosing to not rank their other spells. Furthermore with the numbers I suggested it you can still have your rank20 spell in 5 adventures which as far as I can see definately makes you a specialist. > Whatever style they want to > play, and this includes not only personality and quirks but how they > progress their character ranking wise, is up to the player. If they want to > go hard on one particular spell who are we to tell them they can't or > shouldn't. We need to leave as much variety as possible. Case in point > would be comparing Saydar the OSW What the hell does OSW mean? Can people please defined abreviations the first time they use them. > who is now saying look how tough I am, to > Dramus the I want to stay medium, please. Examples of players obviously > spoiling the game for our non-team players would be useful, are they OSW or > just not tough enough for the adventure they are on, a situation that does > come up too often. As I siad I am not suggesting we prevent characters from becoming specialised. I THINK there might be a problem with bunnies with one high ranked spell unbalancing parties. I THINK there might be a fairly reasonable and easy fix. My OPINION is that we should perhaps do something mild to limit it a little (not much just a little). I am prepared to have others disagree with me, I am prepared to be outvoted if it come to issue. All I was doing was wondering if others agreed and if they disagreed whether they had good reasons for doing so. As I said thus far I am not persuaded. What I suggested does not stop specialisation merely forces players to specialise a little slower than some do at present. As an aside perhaps the real problem here is that there are colleges that have only one valuable spell and the rest is crap?????? cheers Bart Saying Windows 95 is equal to Macintosh is like finding a potato that looks like Jesus and believing you've witnessed the second coming. -- Guy Kawasaki Bart Janssen Hort+Research Private Bag 92169 Auckland New Zealand ph 64 9 8154200 x 7279 fax 64 9 8154201 -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 11:15:33 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA29951; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:15:33 +1300 Received: from letterbox.cs.auckland.ac.nz (letterbox.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.35.1]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id LAA29940 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:15:32 +1300 Received: from [130.216.34.178] (andrew-l.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.34.178]) by letterbox.cs.auckland.ac.nz (8.8.6/8.8.6/cs-master) with ESMTP id LAA28906 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:09:22 +1300 (sender andrew-l@cs.auckland.ac.nz) X-Sender: andrew-l@staffpop.cs.auckland.ac.nz Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:10:19 +1300 Subject: Role-playing vs Gaming From: Andrew Luxton To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. > >A rule such as this will restrict gamers, but have little effect on >role-players. > There is a widely used distinction in DQ between "gamers" and "role-players", and there seems to be an implication that the style of play from "role-players" is somehow better/ more desirable than that from "gamers". I do not agree with the distinction, and believe that it usually obfuscates the real issues. I maintain the position that good role-players can maintain the "suspension of disbelief" throughout the game, and are fun to play with (same goes for GM's IMO). I don't care how efficiently people have spent their EP. I don't care if they have ranked weapons with a high or low base chance, or if they have ranked "useless" skills or weapons for flavour purposes. These things do not make you a better or poorer role-player. Anyone who crunches the numbers and ranks abilities that are most cost-effective is simply following the pressures of the system (which represents the DQ world). All players do this to a some degree or another. Characters which are highly optimised would be ambitious people who are aware of the world, and want an edge (eg. In the real world, these are people who choose to study a field such as Computer Science because of the career prospects. Then they choose all the right courses which will maximise their abilities and chances of surviving in the business world. Sometimes they even specialise in one area to the detriment of all others. Sometimes these people even do very well in a team because others can cover their failings and carry them when needed). Characters who are optimised (even those specialists) are just as believable as those who are not (eg. If you are a professional hit man, and you hunt down and kill people for a living, then you don't want to make mistakes. You don't spend all your time in gardening classes, and you don't practice a little bit with 10 different weapons. You get really good with the most important skills... after you can do your job blindfolded, handcuffed with one leg missing, then it's time to practice your gardening). I don't see how crunching numbers makes you a poorer role-player, and I don't see how spending EP/ranking efficiently is any less desirable. These just represent the different choices people make. People prefer different kinds/styles of role-playing, each of which is equally valid. So my main points are these: 1. I don't think crunching numbers or optimising characters is a bad thing (or a good thing), but merely something that people choose to do. 2. Knowing the system and choosing to do something because of the way it is set up is something that _all_ players do. Being good at it does not make you a bas role player (nor does it make you a good one). 3. I don't think that there is any real distinction between "gamers" and "role-players" 4. I don't think it is useful to try and make a distinction between them. Andrew ------------------------------------------- Andrew Luxton, Computer Science Dept. Ph: +64-09-373-7599 ext 5654 University of Auckland. Fax: +64-09-373-7453 ------------------------------------------- -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 12:23:20 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id MAA30025; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:23:20 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id MAA30015 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:23:19 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p9-max6.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.98.73]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA15598 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:17:08 +1300 Message-Id: <199810152317.MAA15598@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Role-playing vs Gaming Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:14:49 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Sally & Brent wrote: > >A rule such as this will restrict gamers, but have little effect on > >role-players. > > Andrew wrote: >> 1. I don't think crunching numbers or optimising characters is a bad thing > (or a good thing), but merely something that people choose to do. > 2. Knowing the system and choosing to do something because of the way it > is set up is something that _all_ players do. Being good at it does not > make you a bas role player (nor does it make you a good one). > 3. I don't think that there is any real distinction between "gamers" and > "role-players" > 4. I don't think it is useful to try and make a distinction between them. Finally...Someone who thinks in terms of the architecture of the game....Yay. I would go further and say that using 'gamer vs roleplayer' in a conditional statement is a) politically correct and b) designed to deny the validity of counter-arguments. I agree with all of Andrew's points, with one exception of one. Not everyone responds to the gameworld. Some people have very little contact with what the game offers a character, and so Rank in very odd ways. Not that I mind at all. However, it can make it hard to work out what the player is trying to do when you're DMing them. And if you don't care about what a player is trying to acheive with a character, then I wonder what you get out of DMing... Jim. Relieved. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 12:23:17 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id MAA30011; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:23:17 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id MAA30002 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:23:16 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p9-max6.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.98.73]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id MAA15587 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:17:05 +1300 Message-Id: <199810152317.MAA15587@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: Strength of Stone Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 11:53:28 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. ---------- > From: Keith Smith > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Strength of Stone > Date: Friday, October 16, 1998 8:14 AM > > > A question about the Strength of Stone spell. > > If a SoS for EN is cast on a character on negative EN, what should happen? > > There should be one of two results: > a) Either their current EN is raised, which would have the effect of > healing EN damage for the duration of the spell and could raise the > character to positive EN > > or > > b) Their base EN is raised for the duration which means that they will take > longer to die as the -1/2EN value is lowered accordingly to match. a) and therefore b) as well, Keith. Jim. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 13:41:29 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA30113; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 13:41:29 +1300 Received: from date.palm.cri.nz (date.palm.cri.nz [161.66.1.20]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id NAA30104 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 13:41:28 +1300 Received: from mail1.marc.cri.nz (mail1.marc.cri.nz [161.29.1.1]) by date.palm.cri.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA27896 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 13:35:15 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from hra1.marc.cri.nz (unverified [161.29.1.5]) by mail1.marc.cri.nz (Dr Solomon's SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 13:32:54 +1300 Message-Id: Received: from HRA1/SpoolDir by hra1.marc.cri.nz (Mercury 1.31); 16 Oct 98 13:35:46 GMT+12 Received: from SpoolDir by HRA1 (Mercury 1.31); 16 Oct 98 13:35:32 GMT+12 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 13:35:24 GMT+1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: One spell wonders X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT From: "Bart Janssen" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Hi All There seems to be some confusion as to my concern with one spell wonders. I am NOT concerned about characters who wish to specialise, as several have pointed out it is entirely reasonable for some characters to choose to learn and perfect only one spell out of a college (which probably says something about the design of the college). What does concern me is that characters can jump from low ranks to fairly high ranks in one spell after one adventure. It seems to me to be wrong. I am uncomfortable with it. I don't think it creates good balance in parties. It doesn't seem to me to be very "realistic" and hence I don't percieve it to be very good role-playing. Because EP costs for ranking spells allow characters to get to mid-high ranks fairly easily, even "prohibitive" EP multipliers don't prevent this. Since most spells also gain in benefit in a linear fashion much of the benefit of a spell can be gained at mid-high ranks. All of the above is a purely subjective assessment. It is my opinion and may well not be the consensus. However, I believe that preventing characters getting mare than say 6 ranks of a general knowledge spell or 4 ranks of a special knowledge spell in one lump of training between adventures would be a good addition to the rules. Specialists could still become experts in one spell without much ability in others. What would be prevented is a character jumping to rank 12 after one adventure. Note this is exactly what has been done with talents. I realise that one consequence of this would be that begining characters would have to spend experience on spells other than the one they wished to specialise in or save the experience (for when they will need it at high ranks). To use the assassin anology that Andrew Luxton used, consider it equivalent to that period of general physical training that is not directly required for plunging your knife into your victims back OR to use the computer science analogy consider it the first year's study where you learn basic maths that you may never need for your particular field of money making er I mean computer support. cheers Bart Saying Windows 95 is equal to Macintosh is like finding a potato that looks like Jesus and believing you've witnessed the second coming. -- Guy Kawasaki Bart Janssen Hort+Research Private Bag 92169 Auckland New Zealand ph 64 9 8154200 x 7279 fax 64 9 8154201 -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 15:16:46 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA30245; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 15:16:46 +1300 Received: from letterbox.cs.auckland.ac.nz (letterbox.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.35.1]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id PAA30236 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 15:16:45 +1300 Received: from [130.216.34.178] (andrew-l.cs.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.34.178]) by letterbox.cs.auckland.ac.nz (8.8.6/8.8.6/cs-master) with ESMTP id PAA02346 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 15:10:34 +1300 (sender andrew-l@cs.auckland.ac.nz) X-Sender: andrew-l@staffpop.cs.auckland.ac.nz Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 15:11:31 +1300 Subject: Re: One spell wonders From: Andrew Luxton To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Bart wrote: >There seems to be some confusion as to my concern with one spell >wonders. I am NOT concerned about characters who wish to >specialise, as several have pointed out it is entirely reasonable for some >characters to choose to learn and perfect only one spell out of a college [SNIP] >What does concern me is that characters can jump from low ranks to >fairly high ranks in one spell after one adventure. It seems to me to be >wrong. I am uncomfortable with it. I don't think it creates good balance >in parties. It doesn't seem to me to be very "realistic" and hence I don't >percieve it to be very good role-playing. Because EP costs for ranking If I read you correctly, then your concern is not about specialisation, or characters who have one highly ranked ability and nothing else, but you are concerned with the speed at which they can do this? So consider the following 2 cases: Character A goes on one adventure. They take the next 9 months out and rank a specialist spell to rank 16. They have never cast this spell on an adventure. They rank no other abilities. They then play on their second adventure with a single highly ranked spell, which they have never used before. Character B goes on 4 adventures over the same time period. They rank the same spell, but only raise it 4 ranks each adventure. They never cast the spell on an adventure. They rank no other abilities. They then play on their fifth adventure with a single highly ranked spell, which they have never used before. You seem to be saying that character A is not "realistic", and you don't consider it to be good role-playing. You also believe that it does not create good balance in parties. However, you seem to be saying that character B is O.K. because it is "entirely reasonable for some characters to choose to learn and perfect only one spell out of a college". You don't mention how you feel about good balance with the party in this case. I must admit to being one of those who are a little confused about your concerns here. It seems to me that both characters are in much the same boat. The time they took to get there is not relevant, as long as they have the EP to do so. >To use the assassin anology that Andrew Luxton used, consider it >equivalent to that period of general physical training that is not directly >required for plunging your knife into your victims back OR to use the >computer science analogy consider it the first year's study where you >learn basic maths that you may never need for your particular field of >money making er I mean computer support. This analogy does not support your argument. This analogy supports enforced general ranking or ranking a wide range of skills before specialisation, and has nothing to do with speed of acquiring abilities (if you are trying to say that specialisation usually requires prerequisites, then I agree, but that is a different issue - and one that addressed within the ranking of DQ, except within Warrior). The appropriate analogy for restricting speed of ranking would be something like the following: Learning how to use a weapon correctly takes about 2 years... but you can't benefit from more than 6 months training at a time. After that, you have to wander around for a while... you don't even have to get into a real fight, or even use the weapon, but you must take a break from training, otherwise you don't get better. Andrew. ------------------------------------------- Andrew Luxton, Computer Science Dept. Ph: +64-09-373-7599 ext 5654 University of Auckland. Fax: +64-09-373-7453 ------------------------------------------- -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 16:58:31 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA30458; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:58:31 +1300 Received: (from martin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA30446 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:58:30 +1300 Message-Id: <199810160358.QAA30446@mail.sf.org.nz> Subject: Administrivia Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 16:58:30 +1300 (NZDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: martin@stella-nova.sf.org.nz (Martin D Kealey) To: dq-announce@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq-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. Greetings dq-announce@dq.sf.org.nz currently has 46 subscribers; this is the current list of subscribers to dq-announce; everyone who's on dq or dq-pub is also this list, but not everyone on this list is on both the others. adam.tennant@dq.sf.org.nz mark.denholm@dq.sf.org.nz andrew.luxton@dq.sf.org.nz martin.dickson@dq.sf.org.nz andrew.withy@dq.sf.org.nz martin.kealey@dq.sf.org.nz anne.judd@dq.sf.org.nz michael.harre@dq.sf.org.nz bart.janssen@dq.sf.org.nz michael.parkinson@dq.sf.org.nz brent.jackson@dq.sf.org.nz michael.woodhams@dq.sf.org.nz carl.reynolds@dq.sf.org.nz mike.gee@dq.sf.org.nz-Martin. clare.west@dq.sf.org.nz mike.young@dq.sf.org.nz craig.beere@dq.sf.org.nz neil.davies@dq.sf.org.nz daryl.crosby@dq.sf.org.nz noel.livingston@dq.sf.org.nz dean.ellis@dq.sf.org.nz paul.schmidt@dq.sf.org.nz derek.schakel@dq.sf.org.nz phil.judd@dq.sf.org.nz dpwhite@ihug.co.nz pope.ug@ihug.co.nz greg.taylor@dq.sf.org.nz psyclone@xtra.co.nz ian.wood@dq.sf.org.nz rodking@ihug.co.nz jacqui.smith@dq.sf.org.nz rosemary.mansfield@dq.sf.org.nz james.mitchell@dq.sf.org.nz ross.alexander@dq.sf.org.nz jim.arona@dq.sf.org.nz sally.jackson@dq.sf.org.nz jon.mcspadden@dq.sf.org.nz stephen.martin@dq.sf.org.nz jono.bean@dq.sf.org.nz struan.judd@dq.sf.org.nz keith.smith@dq.sf.org.nz sue.turner@dq.sf.org.nz kelsie.macarthur@dq.sf.org.nz terry.spencer@dq.sf.org.nz mandos.mitchinson@dq.sf.org.nz terry@games.co.nz These are functional addresses, which are forwarded to the address by which each person is subscribed to dq-announce. A few actual addresses are shown where I don't know your real name; if you would rather show a forwarding address, please let me know. -Martin -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 17:51:31 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA30569; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:51:31 +1300 Received: from date.palm.cri.nz (date.palm.cri.nz [161.66.1.20]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id RAA30558 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:51:30 +1300 Received: from mail1.marc.cri.nz (mail1.marc.cri.nz [161.29.1.1]) by date.palm.cri.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA03648 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:45:18 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from hra1.marc.cri.nz (unverified [161.29.1.5]) by mail1.marc.cri.nz (Dr Solomon's SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:42:54 +1300 Message-Id: Received: from HRA1/SpoolDir by hra1.marc.cri.nz (Mercury 1.31); 16 Oct 98 17:45:46 GMT+12 Received: from SpoolDir by HRA1 (Mercury 1.31); 16 Oct 98 17:45:43 GMT+12 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:45:43 GMT+1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: One spell wonders X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT From: "Bart Janssen" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. > Bart wrote: > >There seems to be some confusion as to my concern with one spell > >wonders. I am NOT concerned about characters who wish to > >specialise, as several have pointed out it is entirely reasonable for some > >characters to choose to learn and perfect only one spell out of a college > > [SNIP] > > >What does concern me is that characters can jump from low ranks to > >fairly high ranks in one spell after one adventure. It seems to me to be > >wrong. I am uncomfortable with it. I don't think it creates good balance > >in parties. It doesn't seem to me to be very "realistic" and hence I don't > >percieve it to be very good role-playing. Because EP costs for ranking > > If I read you correctly, then your concern is not about specialisation, or > characters who have one highly ranked ability and nothing else, but you are > concerned with the speed at which they can do this? Yes > So consider the following 2 cases: > > Character A goes on one adventure. They take the next 9 months out and > rank a specialist spell to rank 16. They have never cast this spell on an > adventure. They rank no other abilities. They then play on their second > adventure with a single highly ranked spell, which they have never used > before. > > Character B goes on 4 adventures over the same time period. They rank the > same spell, but only raise it 4 ranks each adventure. They never cast the > spell on an adventure. They rank no other abilities. They then play on > their fifth adventure with a single highly ranked spell, which they have > never used before. > > > You seem to be saying that character A is not "realistic", and you don't > consider it to be good role-playing. You also believe that it does not > create good balance in parties. > However, you seem to be saying that character B is O.K. because it is > "entirely reasonable for some characters to choose to learn and perfect > only one spell out of a college". You don't mention how you feel about > good balance with the party in this case. Yup you got it. Absolutely, I can't imagine how a character could commit everything to just one spell that early based on any other rationale than they have read through the rulebook and decided that this spell is the best (in spite of the fact that their character has little knowledge of the college). Hence I think it is bad roleplaying. BTW I've been guilty of precisely that myself. > I must admit to being one of those who are a little confused about your > concerns here. It seems to me that both characters are in much the same > boat. The time they took to get there is not relevant, as long as they > have the EP to do so. And that's the difference between what you see and what I see. The two scenarios are NOT the same. That probably is the key to my unease and your confusion. Character A is still a complete newbie, he has seen only one or two combats has interacted with only a few fellow adventurers and relatively few of the wierd and wonderful characters that exist in the world. Character B has now interacted with 30 or so fellow adventurers has learned behaviours and teamwork, has seen more than one type of creature has been through more different environments.......... In my experience there is a huge difference between a character on their 2nd adventure and one on their 6th (unless of course we are completely ignoring any attempt to roleplay here, which is fine too but not what I'm discussing). The very fact of having been on 5 or 6 adventure changes what a character percieves as important. What may have been the best spell then probably isn't now. > This analogy does not support your argument. you're right, i used an inappropriate analogy > The appropriate analogy for restricting speed of ranking would be something > like the following: > > Learning how to use a weapon correctly takes about 2 years... but you can't > benefit from more than 6 months training at a time. After that, you have > to wander around for a while... you don't even have to get into a real > fight, or even use the weapon, but you must take a break from training, > otherwise you don't get better. Ah whose point are you argueing here? A more relavent issue is whether you can really become an expert after only one field operation. Actually that's not relevant at all the only relevant issue is does letting characters develop one spell very quickly inhibit their and others enjoyment of the game. My feeling is the answer to that is yes. I remain unconvinced by arguements thus far put forward that there is no harm to this and further unconvinced that there is any harm to slowing characters development in the manner I suggest. However, my opinion is just that, an opinion. The question is do others agree and if not why. The only arguement put forward thus far for allowing unrestricted ranking is that it allows extreme specialiastion very early in development. My response is that specialisation is still viable but requires more patience which is exactly the effect I am suggesting is desirable. No one has yet come up with a reason why allowing rapid early specialisation is desirable. cheers Bart Saying Windows 95 is equal to Macintosh is like finding a potato that looks like Jesus and believing you've witnessed the second coming. -- Guy Kawasaki Bart Janssen Hort+Research Private Bag 92169 Auckland New Zealand ph 64 9 8154200 x 7279 fax 64 9 8154201 -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 18:03:02 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA30607; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:03:02 +1300 Received: from fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz ([203.98.14.148] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id SAA30597 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:03:01 +1300 Received: from falaklnt000.falum.co.nz ([10.8.1.20]) by fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with SMTP id nz ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:56:19 +1300 Received: by falaklnt000.falum.co.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5) id <01BDF92E.9BB7FCA0@falaklnt000.falum.co.nz>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:58:41 +1300 Message-ID: Subject: RE: One spell wonders Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:58:39 +1300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. How about; because, doing what you like with your character is more fun? Changing Ranking rules should only be done for a very good campaign reason, particularly if it restricts players (arbitrary rules decrease enjoyment). >The only argument put forward thus far for allowing unrestricted ranking is >that it allows extreme specialiastion very early in development. My response >is that specialisation is still viable but requires more patience which is >exactly the effect I am suggesting is desirable. No one has yet come up with >a reason why allowing rapid early specialisation is desirable. Andrew -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 18:07:49 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id SAA30642; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:07:49 +1300 Received: from date.palm.cri.nz (date.palm.cri.nz [161.66.1.20]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id SAA30633 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:07:48 +1300 Received: from mail1.marc.cri.nz (mail1.marc.cri.nz [161.29.1.1]) by date.palm.cri.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA03856 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:01:35 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from hra1.marc.cri.nz (unverified [161.29.1.5]) by mail1.marc.cri.nz (Dr Solomon's SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:59:13 +1300 Message-Id: Received: from HRA1/SpoolDir by hra1.marc.cri.nz (Mercury 1.31); 16 Oct 98 18:02:05 GMT+12 Received: from SpoolDir by HRA1 (Mercury 1.31); 16 Oct 98 18:02:04 GMT+12 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:01:56 GMT+1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: RE: One spell wonders X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT From: "Bart Janssen" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. > How about; because, doing what you like with your character is more fun? OK fine. Oh and how about leaving the rules the way they were when my character could fight and had a hope of winning. Bart Saying Windows 95 is equal to Macintosh is like finding a potato that looks like Jesus and believing you've witnessed the second coming. -- Guy Kawasaki Bart Janssen Hort+Research Private Bag 92169 Auckland New Zealand ph 64 9 8154200 x 7279 fax 64 9 8154201 -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 19:06:48 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id TAA30724; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 19:06:48 +1300 Received: from gate.datacom.co.nz (gate.datacom.co.nz [202.27.76.67]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id TAA30714 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 19:06:47 +1300 Received: from dslak3.dslak.co.nz ([192.203.216.7]) by gate.datacom.co.nz (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id TAA29564 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 19:00:31 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by dslak3.dslak.co.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52) id <01BDF937.81FE8320@dslak3.dslak.co.nz>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:02:23 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:01:19 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52 From: Noel Livingston {DSL AK} To: dq-announce@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq-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. Politics and power within Cazarla This is intended to provide an initial start for a document on the politics of Cazarla to aid gm's and give players an idea of the area in which they live. Obviously this will be modified somewhat and mabee thrown out by gms as they wish. Could other gms fill in the blanks as they know or perceve ? The main political forces within Cazarla are The adventurers guild The Duke and his nobles The other guilds The religions ( must be looked at separately ) Western Kingdom church ( several factions ?) Horned God Dianeset ( healer and orphanage ) ? Others Others ? 1.0 The adventurers guild 100 or so of the most powerful mages and warriors about with lots of money.. 1.1 vs The duke They have a charter with the duke which gives them low tax due to the amount of revenue they generate and provide the duke with a strong arm when times get tough. 1.2 vs The other guilds They have arrangements with the other guilds to train members in skills which would normally break the guilds monopoly ( my son shall have my business, then his son etc ), I asssume that the guilds require oaths or agreements of non-competition to be taken by those learning these skills. 1.3 vs Religions Our members worship many religions, lets keep out of religious stuff. 2.0 The other guilds ( ?? different guilds differ ?? ) Provide goods for cazarla - numbers ? 2.1 vs adventurers guild Assuming agreements of non-competion the other guilds would like the adventurers for the money they bring to their shops. If this isn't the case there would likely be assasins hired to kill competing adventurers who decide to set up shop. This is unlikely to be guild sponsored but a weaponsmith whos son is not going to have a business to take over due to a competing adventurer or ex-adventurer is likely to take some measures. They also would dislike adventurers who brought in cheap foreign goods and so removed profits and their jobs. This could be looked at on an adventurer by adventurer basis.. 2.2 vs other guild The guilds would be unified when dealing with the duke and seek advantage between each other to increase their profits. 2.3 vs the duke The guilds would be unified and provide abt 40% tax to the duke, they would attempt to lower their taxes by using their monopoly and other means. 2.4 vs Religion Not unlikely that all members of individual guilds worship the same religion as many are in the family so to speak. 3.0 The Duke 200 men at arms in castle, 400 with associated knights in countryside. Assuming seagate has a population of 13000 or so then the surrounding lands would have abt 20x this number of peasants giving total pop of about 250,000 people. 3.1 vs Adventurers The guild gives me lots of cash, although it owes me alot currently. I can call upon them if needed giving me huge military power if attacked or I can get a strong moral cause to get their enthusiastic support. 3.2 vs guilds They provide me with heaps of money when looked at as a block, possibly more than the adventurers guild. 3.3 vs Religion Does the duke belong or favour a religion ? Otherwise keep out of it. 4.0 Religions Generally vs other Religons - blood in the streets !!!!! 4.1 Western kingdom church ( factions may differ - pro Belial ( sorry what's his name) anti etc ) 4.1.1 vs adventurers - scummy bunch of mages ?, a few good 4.1.2 vs guilds - gain followers ( do most joe average people belong ? ) 4.1.3 vs duke - convert him!!!!!!!!!! 4.2 Horned god Few followers ? Headquarters ? Try and gain followers whereever ?? politics ?? 4.3 Dianest ( sorry probably misspelled ) Poor house orpanage ( wouldn't this also be provided by western kingdom church ) Gaining following in poor region of seagate but still small in nationwide terms. ?? Keith politics ??? -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 19:09:42 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id TAA30745; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 19:09:42 +1300 Received: from gate.datacom.co.nz (gate.datacom.co.nz [202.27.76.67]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id TAA30735 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 19:09:41 +1300 Received: from dslak3.dslak.co.nz ([192.203.216.7]) by gate.datacom.co.nz (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id TAA29580 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 19:03:24 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by dslak3.dslak.co.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52) id <01BDF937.E940AF90@dslak3.dslak.co.nz>; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:05:16 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Sorry posted to announce Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 07:04:48 +0100 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.995.52 From: Noel Livingston {DSL AK} To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Politics and power within Cazarla This is intended to provide an initial start for a document on the politics of Cazarla to aid gm's and give players an idea of the area in which they live. Obviously this will be modified somewhat and mabee thrown out by gms as they wish. Could other gms fill in the blanks as they know or perceve ? The main political forces within Cazarla are The adventurers guild The Duke and his nobles The other guilds The religions ( must be looked at separately ) Western Kingdom church ( several factions ?) Horned God Dianeset ( healer and orphanage ) ? Others Others ? 1.0 The adventurers guild 100 or so of the most powerful mages and warriors about with lots of money.. 1.1 vs The duke They have a charter with the duke which gives them low tax due to the amount of revenue they generate and provide the duke with a strong arm when times get tough. 1.2 vs The other guilds They have arrangements with the other guilds to train members in skills which would normally break the guilds monopoly ( my son shall have my business, then his son etc ), I asssume that the guilds require oaths or agreements of non-competition to be taken by those learning these skills. 1.3 vs Religions Our members worship many religions, lets keep out of religious stuff. 2.0 The other guilds ( ?? different guilds differ ?? ) Provide goods for cazarla - numbers ? 2.1 vs adventurers guild Assuming agreements of non-competion the other guilds would like the adventurers for the money they bring to their shops. If this isn't the case there would likely be assasins hired to kill competing adventurers who decide to set up shop. This is unlikely to be guild sponsored but a weaponsmith whos son is not going to have a business to take over due to a competing adventurer or ex-adventurer is likely to take some measures. They also would dislike adventurers who brought in cheap foreign goods and so removed profits and their jobs. This could be looked at on an adventurer by adventurer basis.. 2.2 vs other guild The guilds would be unified when dealing with the duke and seek advantage between each other to increase their profits. 2.3 vs the duke The guilds would be unified and provide abt 40% tax to the duke, they would attempt to lower their taxes by using their monopoly and other means. 2.4 vs Religion Not unlikely that all members of individual guilds worship the same religion as many are in the family so to speak. 3.0 The Duke 200 men at arms in castle, 400 with associated knights in countryside. Assuming seagate has a population of 13000 or so then the surrounding lands would have abt 20x this number of peasants giving total pop of about 250,000 people. 3.1 vs Adventurers The guild gives me lots of cash, although it owes me alot currently. I can call upon them if needed giving me huge military power if attacked or I can get a strong moral cause to get their enthusiastic support. 3.2 vs guilds They provide me with heaps of money when looked at as a block, possibly more than the adventurers guild. 3.3 vs Religion Does the duke belong or favour a religion ? Otherwise keep out of it. 4.0 Religions Generally vs other Religons - blood in the streets !!!!! 4.1 Western kingdom church ( factions may differ - pro Belial ( sorry what's his name) anti etc ) 4.1.1 vs adventurers - scummy bunch of mages ?, a few good 4.1.2 vs guilds - gain followers ( do most joe average people belong ? ) 4.1.3 vs duke - convert him!!!!!!!!!! 4.2 Horned god Few followers ? Headquarters ? Try and gain followers whereever ?? politics ?? 4.3 Dianest ( sorry probably misspelled ) Poor house orpanage ( wouldn't this also be provided by western kingdom church ) Gaining following in poor region of seagate but still small in nationwide terms. ?? Keith politics ??? -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 16 23:30:26 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id XAA31036; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:30:26 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id XAA31025 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:30:25 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p41-max10.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.99.105]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA27169 ; Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:24:09 +1300 Message-Id: <199810161024.XAA27169@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: One spell wonders Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 23:21:39 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. > > Bart wrote: > Actually that's not relevant at all the only relevant issue is does letting > characters develop one spell very quickly inhibit their and others > enjoyment of the game. My feeling is the answer to that is yes. I > remain unconvinced by arguements thus far put forward that there is no > harm to this and further unconvinced that there is any harm to slowing > characters development in the manner I suggest. > > However, my opinion is just that, an opinion. The question is do others > agree and if not why. The only arguement put forward thus far for > allowing unrestricted ranking is that it allows extreme specialiastion very > early in development. My response is that specialisation is still viable > but requires more patience which is exactly the effect I am suggesting > is desirable. No one has yet come up with a reason why allowing rapid > early specialisation is desirable. Mike Young and I talked about this about 18 months ago, i.e. limiting the progression of spells in some way, so as to defeat the pressure of single ability advancement...We looked at the way Talents rank, and thought that might be a good model to base such a thing on, and a few other methods, as well. Our conclusion was that such a rule would 1) limit the variety of characters, 2) seemed to put pressure on players to rank things because they 'might as well', 3) seemed to create a pressure within the game for the players to dawdle along, spinning out the playing time of the game, particularly at low levels, 4) seemed to require a further effort on the part of the DM while checking ranking. I personally found the situation where a player ranks abilities because they have all this ep, and can't spend it on what they really want, pretty apalling, really. In the most ideal situation, the player stays up late at night with a well-chewed pencil and piles of screwed up paper around them, trying to find the best way to spend that last experience point. The pain should be akin to childbirth:) But, it seems to me, the most important consideration is that you really don't want characters to be generalists...You want them to have strengths and weaknesses. That way, they can shine against other members of the party, and still need the party's support. Generalists, when they get to be really tough, ARE really tough. A specialist often carries their weaknesses with them, so that, no matter how tough they get, (in the case of a physical cripple mage) they can still be threatened by an aggressive 12 year old with a stick, and no respect for their elders. Mind you, I have no objection to generalist characters...So long as they're as unusual as they are now. After all, they provide variety, too. Jim. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from --