From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Feb 18 05:08:56 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id FAA17344; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:08:56 +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 FAA17341 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:08:54 +1300 Received: from [209.76.150.48] (p48-max29.akl.ihug.co.nz [209.76.150.48]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id FAA22587 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:06:32 +1300 Message-Id: <199902171606.FAA22587@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:00:27 +1300 Subject: Re: 42 From: flamis@pop.ihug.co.nz (Jacqui Smith) To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz 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 >As to the second question. Parties with mixed levels are a problem for both >players and GM. A high level character in a low level game can do the whole >adventure single-handed and pretty much invalidate the rest of the party or >get them all killed. In my early days of playing DQ I recall playing in a much more multi-level environment than we do now. There were no danger bonuses then, of course, which encouraged multi-level play. Curiously enough, what you suggest didn't actually happen, in my experience at least. In one early adventure, for example, it was Keith's character, Basalic, then a bunny, who killed the big bad monster, and not one of the medium level characters (which I think may have included Vila and Sabrina). Mind you, I don't think that the high level characters of that time were as tough as they are now...or is that my perception? Jacqui -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Feb 18 05:32:24 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id FAA17368; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:32:24 +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 FAA17365 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:32:23 +1300 Received: from [209.76.150.48] (p48-max29.akl.ihug.co.nz [209.76.150.48]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id FAA22908 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:30:00 +1300 Message-Id: <199902171630.FAA22908@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:23:55 +1300 Subject: Re: 42 From: flamis@pop.ihug.co.nz (Jacqui Smith) To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz 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 >Instead, we have the attitude that the player is this frail, delicate >thing, who must be fostered like a delicate orchid. Instead, players should >be a lot more robust, and take up the challenge that playing in a game >where the world can alter beneath their feet from time to time. It is, >after all, a magical world. The sarcasm is not strictly necessary... But to your point, I once addressed the issue of creating alternative worlds at an SF&F convention. In the discussion, I pointed out that while fantasy worlds need not conform to the laws of the physical world as we know them (SF worlds do, and that is one of the main features which distinguish them), they must maintain an internal consistency for fear of alienating the reader. There must be rules, although these rules are rarely explicitly stated. Magic is not random or perverse, it is the product of a different set of physical laws. I have no problem with those physical laws being slightly different off plane, so that magic works subtly differently. I do dislike it when magic works differently in the common world of Alusia. It may be a magical world, but it is one world, with one set of physical laws. Jacqui -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Feb 18 10:36:29 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA17657; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:36:29 +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 KAA17654 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:36:28 +1300 Received: from phaeton.ihug.co.nz (p201-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [209.232.125.201]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA11539 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:33:47 +1300 Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990218103234.007bc5b0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: phaeton@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:32:34 +1300 Subject: [OFF-TOPIC] House for rent Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Keith Smith To: dq-announce@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Apologies in advance for posting an off-topic message to the list but I wanted to give you people first dibs on this offer. As some of you may know Jacqui and I are moving soon to a bigger house. However, instead of selling the current one, it is our intention to rent it out. So if anyone is interested, please let us know. It's a two bedroom house in Mangere East. Keith (phaeton@ihug.co.nz) -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Feb 18 14:24:20 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA17882; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:24:20 +1300 Received: from smtp.worley.co.nz (fwuser@fw.worley.co.nz [202.135.112.130]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id OAA17879 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:24:16 +1300 Received: by smtp.worley.co.nz(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.1 (569.2 2-6-1998)) id 4C25671C.000D4ACB ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:25:11 +1200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: WORLEY CONSULTANTS Message-ID: <4C25671C.000C6B20.00@smtp.worley.co.nz> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:21:35 +1200 Subject: Re: 42 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline From: amtennant@worley.co.nz To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >>As to the second question. Parties with mixed levels are a problem for both >>players and GM. A high level character in a low level game can do the whole >>adventure single-handed and pretty much invalidate the rest of the party or >>get them all killed. >In my early days of playing DQ I recall playing in a much more multi-level >environment than we do now. There were no danger bonuses then, of course, >which encouraged multi-level play. Curiously enough, what you suggest >didn't actually happen, in my experience at least. I too remember the days of mixed level adventures. One bad thing I do remember happening is sometimes you'd go on an adventure and there would be someone on the adventure who was better at everything you did than you were, but this only happened occaisionally. >>In one early adventure, >>for example, it was Keith's character, Basalic, then a bunny, who killed >>the big bad monster, and not one of the medium level characters (which I >>think may have included Vila and Sabrina). A Low level character can be a liability to a High level party but not the other way around generally. Usually all the bad stuff will gravitate towards the tough guy who can take it. >>Mind you, I don't think that the >>high level characters of that time were as tough as they are now...or is >>that my perception? No, it seems to be true. Everything has escalated since "the good old days"... EP has almost doubled, SP awards are much higher, and I was going to say treasure awards are a looser too, but I've seen some of the items which the really old characters keep locked in their cupboards because if two of them appear in the same room at the same time, the world explodes from a power overload. ( not to say that there haven't been any new arrivals of that kind.... ) L8R, Adam. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Feb 18 16:22:17 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA17995; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:22:17 +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 QAA17992 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:22:16 +1300 Received: from paul (p15-max16.akl.ihug.co.nz [207.212.238.207]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA11347 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:19:37 +1300 Subject: RE: 42 and multi-level play Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 16:20:25 +1300 Message-ID: <000801be5aed$a083e520$6e64640a@paul> 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 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 From: "P Schmidt" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz which encouraged multi-level play. > My experience from playing low level characters in high level games, is that the "adventure level" definitions in DQ are a fiction, provided 3 out of say 6 party members are "appropriate" to the game. The reason for this is the limited Fatigue and Endurance rules for DQ. Basically a few magic items spread around by older characters raises the weaker party members up to speed, after that its just attitude on the part of the player. A lot of the level definition is based on the perception Stat. People often exclude themselves from a game because their perception is too low, taking this to mean they lack experience. The truth is a perception of 15 is just as useless as one of 5 if the enemies has 25, 20 or even 17; either way you fail. Basically, as stated, multi-level parties are just as successful as all high level ones. A better way of judging a campaign is to find out what the GM intends, God bothering or killing a few orcs, and then to find out who you are playing with. Its the players you game with who decide how successful the game will be. Unfortunately being brave, able to respond appropriately, creative or judge a threat aren't skills that most people learn quickly from roleplaying. As they say, the good are already good and get better. The average improve a bit. The stupid are,.... well.... stupid. Paul -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Feb 18 17:15:17 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA18110; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:15:17 +1300 Received: from fep1-orange.clear.net.nz (fep1-orange.clear.net.nz [203.97.32.1]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id RAA18107 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:15:16 +1300 Received: from qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz ([203.97.23.141]) by fep1-orange.clear.net.nz (1.5/1.11) with ESMTP id RAA22136; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:12:07 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id <1SF5G12K>; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:11:02 +1300 Message-ID: <15A7D8BC5E3ED2119E2E0000F82150FC0B859A@qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz> Subject: Getting the Right Party (42 and multi-level play) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:11:00 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain From: Stephen Martin To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz 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 One of the problems with our guild meeting method of arranging adventures is that you can often end up with the wrong party for an adventure. The wrong mix of characters, missing a vital college for the adventure, the average level is too low (or high), a bunch of thugs on a diplomatic mission, or a bunch of fops on an orc bash. Usually you don't find this out until after the guild meeting is over, and changing players is a logistical nightmare. Sometimes you get lucky and one or two players can play their other character which fixes the problem. The rest of the time the GM has a choice, modify the adventure, or let them continue and risk a lousy adventure, a cake walk, or killing them all. Do I have a point to make? I think so but the thoughts just aren't coming together today. Amongst its strengths which have helped keep the guild going all these years, our method of getting characters on adventures has its problems. I have no idea how to fix it without losing many of the positive aspects. Does anyone have any workable ideas? Cheers, Stephen. > -----Original Message----- > From: P Schmidt [SMTP:pope.ug@ihug.co.nz] > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 1999 4:20 PM > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: RE: 42 and multi-level play > > A better way of judging a campaign is to find out what the GM intends, > God > bothering or killing a few orcs, and then to find out who you are > playing > with. Its the players you game with who decide how successful the game > will > be. Unfortunately being brave, able to respond appropriately, creative > or > judge a threat aren't skills that most people learn quickly from > roleplaying. > > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Feb 18 19:33:10 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id TAA18225; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:33:10 +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 TAA18222 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:33:09 +1300 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by kcbbs.gen.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA21298; Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:26:26 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <36CBB084.8F08997E@games.co.nz> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:17:40 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: 42 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------06A3B1DDFC09247463CE4161" From: Mike Young To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-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. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz --------------06A3B1DDFC09247463CE4161 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Woodhams wrote: > Mike Young wrote: > >> I agree. Players scream for rule consistancy mainly because they >> think it gives them power over the world. But in fact one of the >> easiest ways to kill a player is to play the game exactly by the >> rules. > > I don't recall screaming for rule consistency, but the reasons I feel > it is desirable as a player are:1) So I don't get surprised when > something I had counted on working doesn't. When you've assasinated > the enemy general and the cavalry are about to come round the corner > after you is *NOT* the time you want to discover that if you try to > hide inside your illusionary tree the illusion disappears. Sure it's desirable, but when it doesn't happen you just have to adapt. Squealing ain't going to help. > 2) So I can plan my character advancement to take advantage of > synergistic effects. E.g. I want to be able to heal animals, and I've > seen in one game that having healer and beastmaster allowed that. I go > away and spend heaps of time and EP on healer and beastmaster, then > discover that only one GM allows that combination to heal animals, and > I should have been learning herbalist instead. I agree that this area is a bit tricky and can be frustrating at times. However nowhere in either Healer or Beastmaster does it say that you can heal animals. So what you are trying to do is non-standard. If you are attempting to do anything non-standard that you are going to carry from game to game you either need a write-up from a GM or need to raise the point in this forum and get some sort of ruling that makes your non-standard the standard. Simple eh? >> but if they are remain firm then well, get over it. If you always >> play it safe then perhaps you should take up some other hobby. > > You're right - role playing is too hazardous for me. I'm quiting DQ to > take up my new, safer hobby of 'base cave diving and climbing'. It > goes like this: find a pot hole (in the spielological sense.) Dress in > scuba gear and a parachute. Jump down, slowing yourself with the > parachute. Just before hitting the water, release the parachute and > dive in. Explore the underwater parts of the cave. Climb out up the > rock face. Sounds like a buzz. I wonder if we can make any money out of it? Regards, Michael Young. Circle Games - PBM Telephone (649) 828-2959 Email mike@games.co.nz Facsimile (649) 828-2759 Website http://www.games.co.nz Circle Games PBM PO Box 105-320 Auckand 1030 New Zealand --------------06A3B1DDFC09247463CE4161 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Woodhams wrote:
 Mike Young wrote:
 I agree. Players scream for rule consistancy mainly because they think it gives them power over the world. But in fact one of the easiest ways to kill a player is to play the game exactly by the rules.
I don't recall screaming for rule consistency, but the reasons I feel it is desirable as a player are:1) So I don't get surprised when something I had counted on working doesn't. When you've assasinated the enemy general and the cavalry are about to come round the corner after you is *NOT* the time you want to discover that if you try to hide inside your illusionary tree the illusion disappears.
Sure it's desirable, but when it doesn't happen you just have to adapt. Squealing ain't going to help. 
 
2) So I can plan my character advancement to take advantage of synergistic effects. E.g. I want to be able to heal animals, and I've seen in one game that having healer and beastmaster allowed that. I go away and spend heaps of time and EP on healer and beastmaster, then discover that only one GM allows that combination to heal animals, and I should have been learning herbalist instead.
I agree that this area is a bit tricky and can be frustrating at times. However nowhere in either Healer or Beastmaster does it say that you can heal animals. So what you are trying to do is non-standard. If you are attempting to do anything non-standard that you are going to carry from game to game you either need a write-up from a GM or need to raise the point in this forum and get some sort of ruling that makes your non-standard the standard. Simple eh?

 

but if they are remain firm then well, get over it. If you always play it safe then perhaps you should take up some other hobby.
You're right - role playing is too hazardous for me. I'm quiting DQ to take up my new, safer hobby of 'base cave diving and climbing'. It goes like this: find a pot hole (in the spielological sense.) Dress in scuba gear and a parachute. Jump down, slowing yourself with the parachute. Just before hitting the water, release the parachute and dive in. Explore the underwater parts of the cave. Climb out up the rock face.
Sounds like a buzz. I wonder if we can make any money out of it?

 

Regards,
Michael Young.

 Circle Games - PBM

 Telephone (649) 828-2959     Email   mike@games.co.nz
 Facsimile (649) 828-2759     Website http://www.games.co.nz

 Circle Games PBM
 PO Box 105-320
 Auckand 1030
 New Zealand
  --------------06A3B1DDFC09247463CE4161-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --