From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Apr 22 12:38:05 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id MAA12118; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:38:05 +1200 Received: from fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (mail.fcl.co.nz [203.98.14.148]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id MAA12115 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:37:59 +1200 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 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:35:20 +1200 Received: by falaklnt000.falum.co.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.996.62) id <01BE8CBD.78725920@falaklnt000.falum.co.nz>; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:41:41 +1200 Message-ID: Subject: Languages / EP Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 12:41:38 +1200 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.996.62 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 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 The current language proposal halves training time & reduces EP, as well as restructuring discounts. I would like to counter all reasons that I can think of on why we should do this. Realism: WRONG - How many people do you know who speak 20 languages reasonably fluently? Under this proposed system, it would take 4 years of 40hrs/week, 40 weeks/year (~ University) to learn these to Rank 6 - (accent, occasionally clumsy, otherwise fluent), if they fall in, say, 4 different language groups (eg; European, SEAsian, African, Pacific Is). If the change from the standard DQ EP structure to this new structure & the halving of the time to learn languages (both of which I dislike) is supposed to make it more "realistic", then why change literacy to a 200ep 1 week skill? Doesn't this mock the efforts of primary teachers & adults on learn-to-read courses. How long did it take you to read, probably at a time where we are learning 5-10 times faster than in adult life? We can't make everything to do with languages cheap (EP & time) based on realism. Does Game balance demand a drop in time/EP? 1) Yes, because the skills are critical but too expensive to rank. WRONG. 2) Yes, because knowing lots of languages is fun. WRONG - in PC "design"/growth it is a distinguishing characteristic - if it is too easy, then everyone can learn lots of languages. c.f. ritual ranking. If everyone knew lots of languages then knowing lots wouldn't be fun. 3) Yes, because PCs need to have basic communication skills in foreign places. WRONG - either use common, or allow them to understand it at Rank - 3, Rank - 6 etc as allowed in the language groups. This gives Rank 2-6 communication, which is enough to seem foreign while allowing the plot to develop. This (with a complete list of languages) is the major feature of the revision. Leave the Language EP & Time alone. Andrew -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Apr 22 15:23:13 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA12302; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:23:13 +1200 Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (mailhost.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.1.4]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id PAA12299 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:23:12 +1200 Received: from sci4 (lbr-122-42.lbrsc.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.122.42]) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (8.9.2/8.9.2/8.9.2-ua) with SMTP id PAA11797 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:22:13 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <199904220322.PAA11797@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 15:23:37 +0000 Subject: Re: Languages / EP X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1) From: "Michael Parkinson" 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: m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz, dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Realism: > WRONG - How many people do you know who speak 20 languages reasonably > fluently? None, but your logic is faulty. In DQ there are no rules for being "rusty" in a language or a weapon; which is the aspect of realism that you are covering, NOT the learning. I have taken dozens of papers. The reason why I cannot discuss Astrophysics in French (as once I indeed could) is because I have forgotten a lot of Astrophysics and even more French -- not that it is unrealistical, or too easy, to learn both. > Under this proposed system, it would take 4 years of 40hrs/week, 40 > weeks/year (~ University) to learn these to Rank 6 - (accent, > occasionally clumsy, otherwise fluent), if they fall in, say, 4 > different language groups (eg; European, SEAsian, African, Pacific Is). Counter-argument (Using the Clump1 document, which was the sligh tendency of the GMs meeting, and which was written later that smooth1). So-called Realism: See my previous posting about how well students who have NEVER learnt French did when they learnt it for only 5 days a week (at 4 hours per day) -- which *approaches* DQ time, And that is in a class of 25 studets:1 teacher. DQ tutoring is 1:1 unlesss the tutor has special skills. DQ consitency: in a little less TIME (40 weeks each year for 4 years) One could become Rank 6 in 14 useful skills (& be 10 weeks of being Rank 6 in an other skill) -- by coincidence there were only 14 original DQ professional skills (Alchemist, Assassin, Astrologer, BeastMaster, Courtesan, Healer, etc). Which character is more powerful ??? TIME, per se, does not make a character powerful -- as you have shown. the diffenece between 2 characters Compare: your linguist who has ONLY learnt 5 languages each from 4 families. Your time calculations are very reasonable [base of 22 weeks for 1st in a family; 17 for another in the same family, 14 if it shares the same sub-family] BaseEp costs would be 3300 for 1st language in each family, 2380 for another in the same family, etc -- call it 50K or so. With someone who is, instead, Rk6 in the 14 original DQ professional skills (at a base EP cost of about 200K) > If the change from the standard DQ EP structure to this new structure & > the halving of the time to learn languages (both of which I dislike) is > supposed to make it more "realistic", then why change literacy to a > 200ep 1 week skill? > > Doesn't this mock the efforts of primary teachers & adults on > learn-to-read courses. How long did it take you to read, probably at a > time where we are learning 5-10 times faster than in adult life? Rong. moddinn inglish izzint a funnettikk langwidg. It is an orthographic language hence it *would* take the 22 weeks (44 weeks under current system; 29 weeks under the original DQ system). The old system base of 4 weeks for a phonetic language (& 1000ep) was clearly unreasonable for the average PC with no discounts. Conversely a *truely* phonetic language e.g. Italian, Old English, is amazingly simple to spell because a word will only be written one way -- of course, if the person doesn't speak it correctly, they won't write it correctly; the DQ time & ep should reflect this. For example, it is simple for a person to learn the Greek alphabet & use it to transcribe sounds into words. I'm sorry, but I didn't understand you other comments -- could you rephrase them; were they responses to someone else? > Leave the Language EP & Time alone. The language were changed to a "weapon-style" ranking because the original rules were truly idiotic at low ranks: e.g. Rk : Orig system / Current / Proposed 0 : 8 / 1 / 1 3 : 14 / 13 / 7 6 : 29 / 43 / 22 8 : 44 / 73 / 37 10 : 63 / 111 / 56 As you can see we corrected things at low levels; but imposed ridiculous time penalties at high levels. This was partially compensated for by an a 50% reduction in time for languages of the same family. Speaking of discounts -- the current system has an amazing array of interactive discounts: some characters CAN, depending upon profession or college get over 80% discount under the current system [with minor typographical corrections to the text of 38; because there are transcription errors in our current rules]. I would be happy for the discounts to be individually reduced; but there should be discounts; and we must impose an overall ceiling. The other point would be that Languages, per se, are quite low in term of ep. Under the current system the average EP/week can be astoundingly low (especially if there other reasons for discount) when compared with other skills, especially at high ranks. Actually you'll note that the discounts are slight at high ranks and the proposed new EP costs are beefed up at high ranks; to match the "realistic" approach & the advantages gained at high levels. In effect languages should match other skills; NOT an extreme amount of time, but a signifigant EP cost when compared with lower, mere-getting-by, ranks of the skill. regards, michael Michael Parkinson Mathematics & Statistics Librarian Science Library, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, AUCKLAND, N.Z. Email: m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz Phone: (09) 3737 599 x 5858 Fax: (09) 3082 304 -------------------------------- "Our immagination is stretched to the utmost, not, as in fiction, to immagine things which are not really there, but just to comprehend those things which _are_ there. -- Feynman "Probability and Uncertainty," The Character of Physical Law (1965). -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Thu Apr 22 22:04:05 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id WAA12691; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:04:05 +1200 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 WAA12688 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:04:03 +1200 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p80-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.245.80]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id WAA10556 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:02:53 +1200 Subject: Re: Languages / EP Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 21:59:27 +1200 Message-ID: <01be8ca6$cf2327c0$50f56dcb@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 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: Andrew Withy (FAL AKL) >The current language proposal halves training time & reduces EP, as well >as restructuring discounts. I would like to counter all reasons that I >can think of on why we should do this. > >Realism: >WRONG - How many people do you know who speak 20 languages reasonably >fluently? Under this proposed system, it would take 4 years of >40hrs/week, 40 weeks/year (~ University) to learn these to Rank 6 - >(accent, occasionally clumsy, otherwise fluent), if they fall in, say, 4 >different language groups (eg; European, SEAsian, African, Pacific Is). You would have to eschew training time and ep spent on other skill, weapon and magic ranks. Who, realistically, would do that? > >If the change from the standard DQ EP structure to this new structure & >the halving of the time to learn languages (both of which I dislike) is >supposed to make it more "realistic", then why change literacy to a >200ep 1 week skill? > >Doesn't this mock the efforts of primary teachers & adults on >learn-to-read courses. How long did it take you to read, probably at a >time where we are learning 5-10 times faster than in adult life? > It doesn't mock anything. Primary school teachers spend so long teaching children to read because the conceptual jump between a spoken language and a written one. In any case, the documents says that it only applies to a phonetic language. Anyone who has learnt a language with a different alphabet like Greek or Arabic can tell you that it takes very little time to get used to the different characters. Four hours a day, for a week would probably be a conservative estimate of how long it took. >Does Game balance demand a drop in time/EP? >1) Yes, because the skills are critical but too expensive to rank. >WRONG. I don't think it's wrong. I think that language skills are too expensive, and when they're important, they're too important. In view of the fact that a PC who knows a language that the rest of the party don't, and that language is the only one available, then all of the contributions and roleplaying get funnelled through the player with the language skill. If this added to game enjoyment, then I doubt that it would be a problem. Generally, however, it doesn't. Which brings me to another point. If a player has a skill that can be pointed up in some interesting fashion, then I don't see a problem, but if the skill makes the game less interesting in the process, then I do. Communication skills can work that way. Where possible, they shouldn't get in the way of the players interacting with the game. That is why they turn up of an evening. > >2) Yes, because knowing lots of languages is fun. >WRONG - in PC "design"/growth it is a distinguishing characteristic - if >it is too easy, then everyone can learn lots of languages. c.f. ritual >ranking. If everyone knew lots of languages then knowing lots wouldn't >be fun. > As I said, I doubt that there would be any mad rush to learn lots of languages. There are too many other things to Rank. If a player wants to take a polyglot, then more power to them. I think that players may Rank a few more languages than they did before, but it'd be rare for them to bother taking them beyong Rank 6-7. >3) Yes, because PCs need to have basic communication skills in foreign >places. >WRONG - either use common, or allow them to understand it at Rank - 3, >Rank - 6 etc as allowed in the language groups. This gives Rank 2-6 >communication, which is enough to seem foreign while allowing the plot >to develop. This (with a complete list of languages) is the major >feature of the revision. While I don't agree entirely with the proposal, I see many good things in Michael's proposal. I would like to see languages treated as Adventuring Skills, myself, except that at Ranks higher than 7, one had to get DM approval for progression, in much the same way we do for professional skills. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --