From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 07:01:13 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id HAA11824; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:01:13 +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 HAA11821 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:01:11 +1200 Received: from [203.109.194.158] (p158-tnt5.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.194.158]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id GAA24045 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:49:57 +1200 Message-Id: <199907271849.GAA24045@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 06:51:20 +1300 Subject: RE: Undetectability 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 >For instance, any melee attack, successful or otherwise (like E&E invis) >breaks the spell for all targets. I was attempting to make a distinction between the sensory impact of a blade whistling past the ear, and actually striking its intended victim. However, if that's the way people want it... Jacqui -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 07:16:18 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id HAA11848; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:16:18 +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 HAA11845 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:16:17 +1200 Received: from [203.109.194.158] (p158-tnt5.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.194.158]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA25884 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:05:12 +1200 Message-Id: <199907271905.HAA25884@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:06:35 +1300 Subject: Re: Undetectability 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 I see it, the current version creates a bookkeeping nightmare for the >DM, which in turn creates an inequitable pressure on the DM. They may be >forced to choose between speed of resolution on behalf of dramatic relevance >and accuracy of result, on behalf of maintaining suspension of disbelief. Actually the currently played Indetectability spell is far worse, since the party may well each be under the effect of a separate spell, which has distinctly geometric effects as the number of observers increases. I've ensured that no more than one spell per mind mage should be active, by the multiple targeting of the spell, and required that observers be consciously looking, and a stealth check be failed before anyone gets to see them - unless of course the party does something instrusive. I doubt that any competent GM would have difficulty deciding which of the NPCs are consciously observing the area. >The multiplying PC checks are okay...However, do watchers get to make PC >checks every time such an attack is made, or only once, or every pulse, >regardless of strike checks? Personally, I favour every pulse, regardless of >whether or not a strike check is attempted, until the concealed person (or >people) move out of sensing range. Logically they get an appropriate perception check at the increased value at the time the intrusion is made. They may then become conscious observers, and get 1xPC checks when stealth rolls are failed. This could be fun to play... It's very driven by the PCs actions. Jacqui -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 07:24:55 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id HAA11874; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:24:55 +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 HAA11871 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:24:54 +1200 Received: from [203.109.194.158] (p158-tnt5.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.194.158]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA26895 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:13:50 +1200 Message-Id: <199907271913.HAA26895@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:15:13 +1300 Subject: Re: Undetectability 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 > If this is the case, then it seems to me that anyone under the effects >of this spell will be able to slip through a crowd of people unnoticed. As >in, without any chance of being noticed. Opps... Missed this bit... Only if the crowd is completely static... You could sneak right past the front row of a seated crowd perhaps. But it would be impossible to sneak through a mobile crowd without intruding physically. Imagine walking invisible up Queen Street on a busy day - people would walk straight into you! I'd be awarding 3 x PC checks every pulse... Jacqui -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 07:27:18 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id HAA11892; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:27:18 +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 HAA11889 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:27:18 +1200 Received: from [203.109.194.158] (p158-tnt5.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.194.158]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA27172 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:16:13 +1200 Message-Id: <199907271916.HAA27172@smtp2.ihug.co.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 07:17:35 +1300 Subject: RE: Undetectability 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 >How about this > >S11. Undetectability >Range: 5 feet + 5 / Rank >Duration: Passive concentration: maximum 10 minutes + 10 / Rank >Experience Multiple: 450 >Base Chance: 15% >Resist: May not be resisted >Storage: Potion >Target: Entity >Effect: This spell allows a group of entities to move undetected by any sensory >means, magical or mundane. The adept casts the spell on themself plus up to + >1/4 ranks other entities. All targets of the spell can percieve each other >normally but they must remain within range of the adept or they cease to be >effected by the spell. >Observers cannot percieve the targets unless they do something that noticebly >impacts the observer. Then the observer gets a perception check, and if >successful, can then see the whole group. The perception check is modified by >the reason for it and if the observer is actively intent on the area ocuppied >by >the targets then the modifier is increased by one: > >PC Modifier Cause >1 x light touch, passing through a watched area (eg casually guarded gate) >2 x loud speech, spell casting, range attack >3 x obvious environment change (eg opening a door), invasive touch (eg >walking into someone) >Automatic Melee attack > >The spell does not prevent the targets leaving tracks or other signs of their >presence but these will not be noticed until after they have left the area. >Magical observation (eg Witchsight, Wizard?s Eye, Clairaudience) will not >detect >the targets but the spell does not effect detection magic that does not use >direct observation, eg. telepathy, locate, esp. That seems to cover everything except the matter of failed stealth checks versus alert observers. I'll put your version and mine through the blender and see what comes out (-; Jacqui -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 11:19:16 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA12242; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:19:16 +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 LAA12239 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:19:15 +1200 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p223-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.245.223]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id LAA13556 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:08:05 +1200 Subject: Re: Undetectability Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:11:34 +1200 Message-ID: <01bed885$5ef33640$dff56dcb@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: Jacqui Smith To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Date: Wednesday, 28 July 1999 07:05 Subject: Re: Undetectability >> As I see it, the current version creates a bookkeeping nightmare for the >>DM, which in turn creates an inequitable pressure on the DM. They may be >>forced to choose between speed of resolution on behalf of dramatic relevance >>and accuracy of result, on behalf of maintaining suspension of disbelief. > >Actually the currently played Indetectability spell is far worse, since the >party may well each be under the effect of a separate spell, which has >distinctly geometric effects as the number of observers increases. > >I've ensured that no more than one spell per mind mage should be active, by >the multiple targeting of the spell, and required that observers be >consciously looking, and a stealth check be failed before anyone gets to >see them - unless of course the party does something instrusive. You have missed my point. Which is, to reiterate it, that a DM may be forced to choose between dramatic relevance (i.e. the flow of the game) or accuracy of game mechanics (i.e. playing the rules as written). What you're suggestion does is applies pressure to the DM to say that the party hasn't failed a Stealth check, because to do otherwise creates a logistical nightmare of who can see whom. This 1) does not reduce the bookkeeping. When the party DO fail a Stealth check, and the observer is actively looking then, the bookkeeping starts. 2) By saying that the observer is actively looking, the spell has increased in power, because it means that there are situations where the party can reasonably expect not to to be looked for, in the first place. > >I doubt that any competent GM would have difficulty deciding which of the >NPCs are consciously observing the area. > Which is famous for not actually being any kind of response that means anything. You wrote the spell, tell us what you mean. That is the purpose of a technical description. >>The multiplying PC checks are okay...However, do watchers get to make PC >>checks every time such an attack is made, or only once, or every pulse, >>regardless of strike checks? Personally, I favour every pulse, regardless of >>whether or not a strike check is attempted, until the concealed person (or >>people) move out of sensing range. > >Logically they get an appropriate perception check at the increased value >at the time the intrusion is made. They may then become conscious >observers, and get 1xPC checks when stealth rolls are failed. > There is no logic about any part of this spell, it's magic, for God's sake. >This could be fun to play... It's very driven by the PCs actions. Well, drowning puppies could be fun, too...I, however, reserve judgment. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 11:23:11 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA12266; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:23:11 +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 LAA12263 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:23:10 +1200 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p223-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.245.223]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id LAA14535 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:12:00 +1200 Subject: Re: Undetectability Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:15:30 +1200 Message-ID: <01bed885$eb6ea6e0$dff56dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0055_01BED8EA.80A386E0" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0055_01BED8EA.80A386E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I like Andrew's version of the spell, better than any other offered, so = far.=20 Everything else is either fiddly to administer, or creates strange = situations.=20 This is simple, easy, different from other concealment spells, and at = the same time offers ample opportunity for discovery. Jim. -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Withy (FAL AKL) To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Date: Tuesday, 20 July 1999 08:35 Subject: RE: Undetectability =20 =20 How about:=20 =20 ----------=20 S11. Undetectability=20 Range: 5 feet + 5 / Rank=20 Duration: concentration: maximum 10 minutes + 10 / Rank=20 Experience Multiple: 450=20 Base Chance: 15%=20 Resist: None=20 Storage: Potion=20 Target: Entity=20 Effect: One (+1 / 3, or fraction, Ranks) targets may pass = undetected by any entities (excluding targets of the same spell) while = stealthing. Once an entity stops stealthing, they may be perceived = normally, and may not be affected by the spell until they are not = observed and are stealthing again. =20 Leaving the spell range or initiating a melee attack dissipates = the effect on the target. Targets may only be detected indirectly by = observing footprints and other signs of passage that are outside the = spell range. Direct sensory magics such as Witchsight will not allow = perception of undetectable entities, but other detection magics will. =20 (Needs some english work)=20 =20 Andrew=20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0055_01BED8EA.80A386E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Undetectability
I like Andrew's version of the = spell, better=20 than any other offered, so far.
Everything = else is either=20 fiddly to administer, or creates strange situations.
This is simple, easy, different from other = concealment spells,=20 and at the same time offers ample opportunity for = discovery. 
Jim. 
 
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Andrew Withy (FAL AKL) <AndrewW@falum.co.nz>
To:= =20 dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date:=20 Tuesday, 20 July 1999 08:35
Subject: RE:=20 Undetectability

How about:=20

    ----------=20
            S11.    Undetectability=20
    Range: 5 feet + 5 / = Rank=20
    Duration: concentration: maximum = 10 minutes=20 + 10 / Rank
    Experience = Multiple:=20 450
    Base Chance: = 15%
    Resist: None =
    Storage: Potion
    Target: Entity
    Effect:=20 One (+1 / 3, or fraction, Ranks) targets may pass undetected by = any=20 entities (excluding targets of the same spell) while stealthing. = Once an=20 entity stops stealthing, they may be perceived normally, and may = not be=20 affected by the spell until they are not observed and are = stealthing=20 again.

    Leaving the spell = range or=20 initiating a melee attack dissipates the effect on the target. = Targets=20 may only be detected indirectly by observing footprints and = other signs=20 of passage that are outside the spell range. Direct sensory = magics such=20 as Witchsight will not allow perception of undetectable = entities, but=20 other detection magics will.

    (Needs some = english=20 work)

    Andrew=20

------=_NextPart_000_0055_01BED8EA.80A386E0-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 11:56:04 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA12309; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:56:04 +1200 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 LAA12306 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:56:02 +1200 Message-ID: <379E4451.A53230BD@peace.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:44:18 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Undetectability Content-Type: text/html; 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 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 Does it allow opportunity for discovery? As I read it, so long as you are attempting to stealth (successful or not), you are undetectable. It seems the only opportunities for discovery are if the targets deliberately chooses (e.g. want to cast a spell or do some other non-stealth action.)

It can also lead to some strange situtations. Consider: A bunch of guards are guarding a courtyard. Adventurer stealths in undetectable and goes to a position unobservable by any guards. There they do some non-stealth action, temporarily losing the undetectability. Unknown to them, there is someone else observing them (e.g. the party E&E using a wizard eye, but didn't bother to tell them.) Our adventurer starts stealthing and sneaks out of the hiding place expecting their undetectability to be reinstated, only to be jumped on by a bunch of guards. Our adventurer gets on the role of honour, and the E&E gets 'stupidest adventurer.'

I'm not saying this is bad, but it is a bit strange. Also, what counts as 'unobserved'? Is an ape or a yeti an observer? How about a cat sitting beside a vial of poison and a radiation detector? Will the spell work against non-sentients? If so, should they not count as observers? (In which case having a bird watching your hiding place prevents you from becoming undetectable again.)

What about non-entities? My feeling is they are unaffected (you still get mosquito bitten while undetectiable) but, like footprints in sand, observers cannot infer your existance by observing the activity of the Trained Killer Mosquito Horde.

Michael W.
 

Jim Arona wrote:

 I like Andrew's version of the spell, better than any other offered, so far.Everything else is either fiddly to administer, or creates strange situations.This is simple, easy, different from other concealment spells, and at the same time offers ample opportunity for discovery.Jim.

[...]

    Effect: One (+1 / 3, or fraction, Ranks) targets may pass undetected by any entities (excluding targets of the same spell) while stealthing. Once an entity stops stealthing, they may be perceived normally, and may not be affected by the spell until they are not observed and are stealthing again.

    Leaving the spell range or initiating a melee attack dissipates the effect on the target. Targets may only be detected indirectly by observing footprints and other signs of passage that are outside the spell range. Direct sensory magics such as Witchsight will not allow perception of undetectable entities, but other detection magics will.

    (Needs some english work)

    Andrew

-- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 12:03:11 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id MAA12331; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:03:11 +1200 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 SMTP id MAA12328 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:03:10 +1200 Received: by akl-notes.aj.co.nz(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (778.2 1-4-1999)) id 4C2567BB.008347C6 ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:53:55 +1200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: AJ.CO.NZ Message-ID: <4C2567BB.008346EC.00@akl-notes.aj.co.nz> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:53:53 +1200 Subject: Re: Undetectability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline From: Rosemary_Mansfield/AJNzl/NZ@aj.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 Ok, you've convinced me. I agree that of all the ideas floating around Andrew's works the best. My initial objection to it was that it was nothing like the original spell or the guidelines from the gods meetings, but the arguments put forward by the group, espcially Jim, are very persuasive. Rosemary Jim wrote: I like Andrew's version of the spell, better than any other offered, so far. Everything else is either fiddly to administer, or creates strange situations. This is simple, easy, different from other concealment spells, and at the same time offers ample opportunity for discovery. Andrew's Suggestion S11. Undetectability Range: 5 feet + 5 / Rank Duration: concentration: maximum 10 minutes + 10 / Rank Experience Multiple: 450 Base Chance: 15% Resist: None Storage: Potion Target: Entity Effect: One (+1 / 3, or fraction, Ranks) targets may pass undetected by any entities (excluding targets of the same spell) while stealthing. Once an entity stops stealthing, they may be perceived normally, and may not be affected by the spell until they are not observed and are stealthing again. Leaving the spell range or initiating a melee attack dissipates the effect on the target. Targets may only be detected indirectly by observing footprints and other signs of passage that are outside the spell range. Direct sensory magics such as Witchsight will not allow perception of undetectable entities, but other detection magics will. (Needs some english work) This message contains confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient any use, review, perusal, dissemination, distribution or copying of this document is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error please immediately telephone us on +64-9-356 4000 and destroy the original message. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 12:24:48 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id MAA12391; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:24:48 +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 MAA12388 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:24:45 +1200 Received: from falaklex00.falum.co.nz ([10.8.1.28]) by fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with ESMTP id nz for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:14:14 +1200 Received: by falaklex00.fcl.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:14:06 +1200 Message-ID: <311B3C3DD32FD311B33900805F770A729503@falaklex00.fcl.co.nz> Subject: RE: Undetectability Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 12:14:05 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BED88E.1AC211F0" 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 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_01BED88E.1AC211F0 Content-Type: text/plain Michael W; You have to succeed in stealthing. What it means is that Stealth (whihch is normally moving quietly & subtlely) can work even when you would be obviously visible. Once you are successfully stealthing (which you can't do while being observed - presumably by someone hostile), you are fine again. All; An option is for the spell to be on individual targets, rather than this group cone of death, but at least this way, the mind mage and associates all need to be competant at stealth, rather than just one or two slimy elves. Should the spell break for everyone if one person attacks - I think that might be easier, but then it is a EM 450 special...? Andrew > ---------- > From: Michael Woodhams[SMTP:michaelw@peace.com] > Reply To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Sent: Wednesday, 28 July 1999 11:44 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: Undetectability > > Does it allow opportunity for discovery? As I read it, so long as you are > attempting to stealth (successful or not), you are undetectable. It seems > the only opportunities for discovery are if the targets deliberately > chooses (e.g. want to cast a spell or do some other non-stealth action.) > > It can also lead to some strange situtations. Consider: A bunch of guards > are guarding a courtyard. Adventurer stealths in undetectable and goes to > a position unobservable by any guards. There they do some non-stealth > action, temporarily losing the undetectability. Unknown to them, there is > someone else observing them (e.g. the party E&E using a wizard eye, but > didn't bother to tell them.) Our adventurer starts stealthing and sneaks > out of the hiding place expecting their undetectability to be reinstated, > only to be jumped on by a bunch of guards. Our adventurer gets on the role > of honour, and the E&E gets 'stupidest adventurer.' > > I'm not saying this is bad, but it is a bit strange. Also, what counts as > 'unobserved'? Is an ape or a yeti an observer? How about a cat sitting > beside a vial of poison and a radiation detector? Will the spell work > against non-sentients? If so, should they not count as observers? (In > which case having a bird watching your hiding place prevents you from > becoming undetectable again.) > > What about non-entities? My feeling is they are unaffected (you still get > mosquito bitten while undetectiable) but, like footprints in sand, > observers cannot infer your existance by observing the activity of the > Trained Killer Mosquito Horde. > > Michael W. > > > Jim Arona wrote: > > I like Andrew's version of the spell, better than any other > offered, so far.Everything else is either fiddly to administer, or creates > strange situations.This is simple, easy, different from other concealment > spells, and at the same time offers ample opportunity for discovery.Jim. > > [...] > > Effect: One (+1 / 3, or fraction, Ranks) targets may > pass undetected by any entities (excluding targets of the same spell) > while stealthing. Once an entity stops stealthing, they may be perceived > normally, and may not be affected by the spell until they are not observed > and are stealthing again. > > Leaving the spell range or initiating a melee attack > dissipates the effect on the target. Targets may only be detected > indirectly by observing footprints and other signs of passage that are > outside the spell range. Direct sensory magics such as Witchsight will not > allow perception of undetectable entities, but other detection magics > will. > > (Needs some english work) > > Andrew > > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- > ------_=_NextPart_001_01BED88E.1AC211F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Undetectability

Michael W;
You have to succeed = in stealthing. What it means is that Stealth (whihch is normally moving = quietly & subtlely) can work even when you would be obviously = visible. Once you are successfully stealthing (which you can't do while = being observed - presumably by someone hostile), you are fine = again.

All;
An option is for = the spell to be on individual targets, rather than this group cone of = death, but at least this way, the mind mage and associates all need to = be competant at stealth, rather than just one or two slimy = elves.

Should the spell = break for everyone if one person attacks - I think that might be = easier, but then it is a EM 450 special...?

Andrew

    ----------
    From:   = Michael = Woodhams[SMTP:michaelw@peace.com]
    Reply To: =       dq@dq.sf.org.nz
    Sent:   = Wednesday, 28 July 1999 = 11:44
    To: =     dq@dq.sf.org.nz
    Subject: =        Re: Undetectability

    Does it allow opportunity for discovery? As I = read it, so long as you are attempting to stealth (successful or not), = you are undetectable. It seems the only opportunities for discovery are = if the targets deliberately chooses (e.g. want to cast a spell or do = some other non-stealth action.)

    It can also lead to some strange situtations. = Consider: A bunch of guards are guarding a courtyard. Adventurer = stealths in undetectable and goes to a position unobservable by any = guards. There they do some non-stealth action, temporarily losing the = undetectability. Unknown to them, there is someone else observing them = (e.g. the party E&E using a wizard eye, but didn't bother to tell = them.)=A0Our adventurer starts stealthing and sneaks out of the hiding = place expecting their undetectability to be reinstated, only to be = jumped on by a bunch of guards. Our adventurer gets on the role of = honour, and the E&E gets 'stupidest adventurer.'

    I'm not saying this is bad, but it is a bit = strange. Also, what counts as 'unobserved'? Is an ape or a yeti an = observer? How about a cat sitting beside a vial of poison and a = radiation detector? Will the spell work against non-sentients? If so, = should they not count as observers? (In which case having a bird = watching your hiding place prevents you from becoming undetectable = again.)

    What about non-entities? My feeling is they are = unaffected (you still get mosquito bitten while undetectiable)=A0but, = like footprints in sand, observers cannot infer your existance by = observing the activity of the Trained Killer Mosquito Horde. =

    Michael W.
    =A0

    Jim Arona wrote:

      =A0I like = Andrew's version of the spell, better than any other offered, so = far.Everything else is either = fiddly to administer, or creates strange situations.This is simple, = easy, different from other concealment spells, and at the same time = offers ample opportunity for discovery.Jim. =

      [...] =

                Effect: One (+1 / 3, or fraction, Ranks) = targets may pass undetected by any entities (excluding targets of the = same spell) while stealthing. Once an entity stops stealthing, they may = be perceived normally, and may not be affected by the spell until they = are not observed and are stealthing again. =

                Leaving the spell range or initiating a melee = attack dissipates the effect on the target. Targets may only be = detected indirectly by observing footprints and other signs of passage = that are outside the spell range. Direct sensory magics such as = Witchsight will not allow perception of undetectable entities, but = other detection magics will.

                (Needs some english work)

                Andrew

    -- see unsubscribe instructions in message = headers --

------_=_NextPart_001_01BED88E.1AC211F0-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 13:17:48 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA12468; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:17:48 +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 NAA12465 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:17:47 +1200 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p180-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.111.180]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id NAA09631 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:06:34 +1200 Subject: Re: Undetectability Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:10:06 +1200 Message-ID: <01bed895$ede224a0$b46f12ce@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01BED8FA.831704A0" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BED8FA.831704A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Withy (FAL AKL) To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Date: Wednesday, 28 July 1999 12:14 Subject: RE: Undetectability =20 =20 Michael W;=20 You have to succeed in stealthing. What it means is that Stealth = (whihch is normally moving quietly & subtlely) can work even when you = would be obviously visible. Once you are successfully stealthing (which = you can't do while being observed - presumably by someone hostile), you = are fine again. =20 All;=20 An option is for the spell to be on individual targets, rather than = this group cone of death, but at least this way, the mind mage and = associates all need to be competant at stealth, rather than just one or = two slimy elves. =20 Should the spell break for everyone if one person attacks - I think = that might be easier, but then it is a EM 450 special...? =20 =20 =20 Yes, it should break for everyone, even though it's an EM 450 = spell. The reason is that it's hard to administer, if the players are in = different states of concealment. And, frankly, I doubt that if the = concealment failed, then it wouldn't be obvious to everyone. I mean, if = you see someone suddenly become obvious to you, when they weren't = before, then you're going to be extremely suspicious. =20 Jim. =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BED8FA.831704A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: Undetectability
 
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Andrew Withy (FAL AKL) <AndrewW@falum.co.nz>
To:= =20 dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date:=20 Wednesday, 28 July 1999 12:14
Subject: RE:=20 Undetectability

Michael W; =
You have to succeed in = stealthing. What it=20 means is that Stealth (whihch is normally moving quietly & = subtlely) can=20 work even when you would be obviously visible. Once you are = successfully=20 stealthing (which you can't do while being observed - presumably by = someone=20 hostile), you are fine again.

All;
An option is for the spell to be on individual = targets,=20 rather than this group cone of death, but at least this way, the = mind mage=20 and associates all need to be competant at stealth, rather than just = one or=20 two slimy elves.

Should the spell = break for everyone=20 if one person attacks - I think that might be easier, but then it is = a EM=20 450 special...?

 

    Yes, it should = break for=20 everyone, even though it's an EM 450 spell. The reason is that it's = hard to=20 administer, if the players are in different states of concealment. = And,=20 frankly, I doubt that if the concealment failed, then it wouldn't be = obvious=20 to everyone. I mean, if you see someone suddenly become obvious to = you, when=20 they weren't before, then you're going to be extremely=20 suspicious.

Jim.

 

------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BED8FA.831704A0-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 13:33:53 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA12494; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:33:53 +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 NAA12491 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:33:51 +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 NAA06178 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:22:37 +1200 (NZST) Message-Id: <199907280122.NAA06178@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:26:11 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Three simple campaign questions 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 Q1: do we use ounces any more? Q2: If we do, how many are there to the pound? Please note that ALL equipment & weapons, except the dagger, is given in pounds or tenths of a pound. Q3: how much does 1,000 silver pennies weigh? Invested items weigh at least once ounce; Rune-mages refer to various things which weigh 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3, 5, or 8 ounces; and some old E&E rituals refer to 1-ounce doses/ingredients. Alchemists confuse the issue with their fluid ounces; & Mechanician's spell containers weigh [16-Rank] ounces. regards, Michael Parkinson -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 13:49:23 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA12525; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:49:23 +1200 Received: from westpac.co.nz (firewall1.westpac.co.nz [210.55.236.18]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id NAA12522 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:49:19 +1200 Received: by firewall1.westpac.co.nz id <32279>; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:39:59 +1200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: WESTPACTRUST Message-Id: <99Jul28.133959nzst.32279@firewall1.westpac.co.nz> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:46:51 +1200 Subject: Re: Undetectability Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline From: "Mark Simpson" 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 >You have to succeed in stealthing. What it means is that Stealth (whihch is normally moving quietly & subtlely) can work even >when you would be obviously visible. Once you are successfully stealthing (which you can't do while being observed - >presumably by someone hostile), you are fine again. This makes the spell far less powerful than it once was. What is the chance of all of a party (or the 3 or 4 targets if the spell is not cast on the whole party) all suceeding in a stealth roll? From my recollection a character who has not invested in stealth or the "stealth bonus" skills will only have around a 50% base chance depending on the individuals stats - the chance of one such non-stealthy party members failing is therefore very high - even 4 charcters with 80% average stealth are likely to be spotted. I didn't see anywhere in the description Andrew gave where it said you could attempt to stealth in a situation where you couldn't usually - and yet that is the only benefit of the spell under this proposed re-write over just using normal stealth (given that if you were just using normal stealth and you succeed in your stealth check you would be effectively "undectable" anyway). Yes people with witchsight can't see you if you make your stealth check - but they wouldn't see you if you made the stealth check without the spell be on. Is the purpose of this re-write to down power the spell or to make it easier to play? If the former I would suggest a drastic reduction in the em is indicated should this proposal be adopted. /\/\ark If this proposal -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 13:48:16 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA12518; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:48:16 +1200 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 SMTP id NAA12515 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:48:14 +1200 Received: by akl-notes.aj.co.nz(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.3 (778.2 1-4-1999)) id 4C2567BC.00090EDE ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:38:56 +1200 X-Lotus-FromDomain: AJ.CO.NZ Message-ID: <4C2567BC.00090E2C.00@akl-notes.aj.co.nz> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 13:38:54 +1200 Subject: Re: Three simple campaign questions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline From: Rosemary_Mansfield/AJNzl/NZ@aj.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 Yes we still use ounces, the whole of DQ is in imperial measurements. We did consider converting but imperial feels more 'fantasy' than metric. There are 16 ounces to a pound. (and 14 lbs to a stone - just to confuse you). The new price guide is in pounds and ounces, not 10ths of pounds. 1000 sp weighs 3 lbs 2 oz 20 silver pennies weigh 1 oz, or 5 coppers, or 20 gold, or 10 true silver coins Rosemary Michael wrote: Q1: do we use ounces any more? Q2: If we do, how many are there to the pound? Please note that ALL equipment & weapons, except the dagger, is given in pounds or tenths of a pound. Q3: how much does 1,000 silver pennies weigh? Invested items weigh at least once ounce; Rune-mages refer to various things which weigh 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3, 5, or 8 ounces; and some old E&E rituals refer to 1-ounce doses/ingredients. Alchemists confuse the issue with their fluid ounces; & Mechanician's spell containers weigh [16-Rank] ounces. This message contains confidential information intended only for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient any use, review, perusal, dissemination, distribution or copying of this document is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error please immediately telephone us on +64-9-356 4000 and destroy the original message. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 15:16:33 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA12608; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:16:33 +1200 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 PAA12605 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:16:32 +1200 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p168-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [216.100.154.168]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id PAA15590 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:05:16 +1200 Subject: Re: Undetectability Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:08:45 +1200 Message-ID: <01bed8a6$81f5e860$a89a64d8@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: Mark Simpson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Date: Wednesday, 28 July 1999 14:04 Subject: Re: Undetectability > > >>You have to succeed in stealthing. What it means is that Stealth (whihch >is normally moving quietly & subtlely) can work even >when you would be >obviously visible. Once you are successfully stealthing (which you can't do >while being observed - >presumably by someone hostile), you are fine again. > >This makes the spell far less powerful than it once was. What is the chance >of all of a party (or the 3 or 4 targets if the spell is not cast on the >whole party) all suceeding in a stealth roll? From my recollection a >character who has not invested in stealth or the "stealth bonus" skills >will only have around a 50% base chance depending on the individuals stats >- the chance of one such non-stealthy party members failing is therefore >very high - even 4 charcters with 80% average stealth are likely to be >spotted. Conversely, what is the chance of an Elf, who specialises in Stealth being detected, under the effects of this spell. To look at an extreme example, a 26 AG Elf with Rank 10 in Stealth, and Rank 5 in Spy, Assassin and Thief, will have a value of 163%, + Enchantment. This excludes bonuses from magic, as well, for example, Wraithcloak, or items or weird abilities. Consider that this Elf would be able to add another 10 points to that total, before having to go out on special games to get to Ranks 8, 9 or 10. No, I don't think it has been depowered. I think it has been made into a spell that advantages players with high Stealth values, and possibly, too well. > >I didn't see anywhere in the description Andrew gave where it said you >could attempt to stealth in a situation where you couldn't usually - and >yet that is the only benefit of the spell under this proposed re-write over >just using normal stealth (given that if you were just using normal >stealth and you succeed in your stealth check you would be effectively >"undectable" anyway). Yes people with witchsight can't see you if you make >your stealth check - but they wouldn't see you if you made the stealth >check without the spell be on. I agree that this should be included in the spell description. If nothing else, it makes it clearer that the purpose of the spell is to be able to let the subject(s) of the spell move without being detected. > >Is the purpose of this re-write to down power the spell or to make it >easier to play? If the former I would suggest a drastic reduction in the em >is indicated should this proposal be adopted. > I don't see a need to reduce the EM of the spell. It introduces a very powerful effect into the game, and, when you consider that it has no particular counter, except for high PC value and the alertness of one's guards. Personally, I think this spell is probably too powerful, and should apply a penalty of added multipliers to the reduction of Stealth. In other words, I suggest that the penalty against Stealth from the PC of observers should be doubled. Instead of a -1 to -3 PC modifier, that range should increase to -1 to -6. This means that at the top end of the game, the chance of a high AG elven sneak would be 59%, + whatever weirdness the character might have, in the least favourable situation. Otherwise, the chance would be well over 100%. Which means that the player has achieved such a high chance as to have only a 1% chance of being detected. There is precious little chance of the effect developing any useful tension for the game. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 15:58:51 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA12652; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:58:51 +1200 Received: from qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz ([203.97.23.141] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id PAA12649 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:58:47 +1200 Received: by qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:47:23 +1200 Message-ID: <15A7D8BC5E3ED2119E2E0000F82150FC0B8725@qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz> Subject: Agenda Items Required For Gods Meeting This Sunday Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:47:21 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain From: Stephen Martin 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 Sunday 1st August 1999, Noon. At: Michael Parkinsons', 20/5 Park Rd, Grafton. Chair: Stephen Second: William 1) Campaign Voting Issues 2) Rules Voting Issues 3) Campaign General Business 4) Rules General Business -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 16:34:31 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA12695; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:34:31 +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 QAA12691 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:34:25 +1200 Received: from falaklex00.falum.co.nz ([10.8.1.28]) by fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with ESMTP id nz for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:23:44 +1200 Received: by falaklex00.fcl.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:20:45 +1200 Message-ID: <311B3C3DD32FD311B33900805F770A72950C@falaklex00.fcl.co.nz> Subject: Agenda Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 16:20:44 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BED8B0.8F9D1510" 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 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_01BED8B0.8F9D1510 Content-Type: text/plain Illusory Animal change As per previous post - stats should relate to the animal, not to arbitrary set of stats, so that sparrow & horse aren't equally strong. I think this is a quick change and well-spelt out previously. Thanks Andrew ------_=_NextPart_001_01BED8B0.8F9D1510 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Agenda

Illusory Animal change
As per previous post - stats should = relate to the animal, not to arbitrary set of stats, so that sparrow = & horse aren't equally strong.

I think this is a quick change and = well-spelt out previously.

Thanks

Andrew

------_=_NextPart_001_01BED8B0.8F9D1510-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Wed Jul 28 17:37:03 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA12753; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:37:03 +1200 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 RAA12750 for ; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:37:02 +1200 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by kcbbs.gen.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA13592 for dq@dq.sf.org.nz; Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:20:21 +1200 (NZST) Message-ID: <379D3DFC.51027B73@games.co.nz> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 17:05:00 +1200 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Harder to learn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------BD3066ED9FAB5BA1378E1602" 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 --------------BD3066ED9FAB5BA1378E1602 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Woodhams wrote: > Michael Parkinson wrote: > > > The point is that some languages ARE harder to learn than others, even if > > you'll only admit to [quote] > > > > > Languages that are hard to learn are one's that constantly break their > > > own rules, or that don't have only a few rules. > > However, to my mind the fundamental point is that these differences are quite > unimportant to DQ, and not worth the rules complexity to support them. The EP > investment in a language is trivial compared to the time investment, so changing > the EP costs won't have much effect on player's perception of the difficulty of a > language. Changing the maximum rank to reflect these differences is simply wrong - > rank reflects the complexity and subtly with which things may be expressed, not > the difficulty of learning the language. Changing the ranking time would work, but > why make a major exception to the rules for such a minor point? > > If you want some languages to be thought of as difficult, convoluted etc. the best > way is to write a document describing the Allusian languages: > > Foobarian is spoken the north of the Foobar Archipeligo. It is famous for its > complex genders, extreme insults and many words related to fish. As a minor error > in grammar will turn almost any sentance into a deadly insult, and because the > islanders take (litterally) violent offense, there are very few non-native > speakers. Most sentences about fish can be expressed very compactly, but other > topics typically take several times longer to express than in most languages. Due > to the fact that questions are indicated by speaking while inhaling, many > circumlocutions have evolved to elicit information without directly asking a > question. I'm with Michael W. on this one. Apply KISS here. Keep It Simple, Stupid. By the way. Where can I learn Foobarian? It sounds like such fun! Had me rolling in the isles.... MTB --------------BD3066ED9FAB5BA1378E1602 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Woodhams wrote:
Michael Parkinson wrote:

> The point is that some languages ARE harder to learn than others, even if
> you'll only admit to [quote]
>
> > Languages that are hard to learn are one's that constantly break their
> > own rules, or that don't have only a few rules.

However, to my mind the fundamental point is that these differences are quite
unimportant to DQ, and not worth the rules complexity to support them. The EP
investment in a language is trivial compared to the time investment, so changing
the EP costs won't have much effect on player's perception of the difficulty of a
language. Changing the maximum rank to reflect these differences is simply wrong -
rank reflects the complexity and subtly with which things  may be expressed, not
the difficulty of learning the language. Changing the ranking time would work, but
why make a major exception to the rules for such a minor point?

If you want some languages to be thought of as difficult, convoluted etc. the best
way is to write a document describing the Allusian languages:

Foobarian is spoken the north of the Foobar Archipeligo. It is famous for its
complex genders, extreme insults and many words related to fish. As a minor error
in grammar will turn almost any sentance into a deadly insult, and because the
islanders take (litterally) violent offense, there are very few non-native
speakers. Most sentences about fish can be expressed very compactly, but other
topics typically take several times longer to express than in most languages. Due
to the fact that questions are indicated by speaking while inhaling, many
circumlocutions have evolved to elicit information without directly asking a
question.

I'm with Michael W. on this one. Apply KISS here.

Keep It Simple, Stupid.

By the way.  Where can I learn Foobarian? It sounds like such fun! Had me rolling in the isles....
 

MTB --------------BD3066ED9FAB5BA1378E1602-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --