From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 15 01:28:26 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id BAA04325; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:28:26 +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 BAA04322 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:28:25 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p79-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.245.79]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id BAA06497 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:27:28 +1300 Subject: Re: Cliques Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:28:17 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf163f$97fc2c60$4ff56dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz There have been a number of posts, recently, on new players being excluded from games, because the games have been prebooked, reducing the number of available DMs. I think that anyone can say that their reasons for excluding players are completely fair ones, and are not the cause of the want of games for new players. These reasons may be completely reasonable ones. Unfortunately, it doesn't move us any further forward in finding a way to make sure that players can all have games, that DMs can encounter new pcs, that players that have played under a few DMs can experience other ones. When one looks at the Guild, it is a pretty naff structure, offering very few advantages that, really, couldn't be better done another way. It does, however, offer one quality that doesn't exist any where else. And that is that it is a venue that offers a great deal of variety. This is the strength of the Guild, and by narrowing down the games on offer, we are playing to our greatest area of weakness, rather than to our greatest strength. Let us, then, eschew reasons why other players couldn't have been invited on a particular game, and work on ways that will ensure that players and DMs have plenty of opportunity to interact with new people. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 15 01:43:49 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id BAA04351; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:43:49 +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 BAA04348 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:43:48 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p79-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.245.79]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id BAA07931 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:42:50 +1300 Subject: Re: Cliques Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 01:43:41 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf1641$be722460$4ff56dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz William wrote: >At the last God's meeting there was much frustration vented at not being >able to interact with the world at large. This is what player organised >and/or sponsored missions should address. There is also a growing tendancy >against the 'Star Trek' syndrome where each adventure really has nothing to >do with the next. Witness such changes from the standard format like Mandos' >ongoing saga. There is a place for the multi-season adventure, as there is an equal place for episodic adventures. Each offers different kinds of play. Let us, however, not blind ourselves to one kind of play, by ignoring another. And, let us also keep an eye to the importance of new players to each DMs game. If you run a game and don't rotate new players in (and I don't mean players that you haven't DMed recently), then you are doing them and yourself a disservice. Roleplaying is social in nature, and new players offer fertile ground for jaded DMs. > I suggest a radically different format to adventuring. I suggest we mix >characters of different levels that go and do an adventure. This is a lot >like the Ars Magica format. Have one or two highs (the heroes), one or two >lows/beginners (the apprentices/grogs) and the rest with that large field >termed medium (companions). In such an arrangement the heroes provide >leadership and major plot elements. The mediums actually do all the work and >the lows do all the support stuff. Everyone is involved at interaction >stages and it becomes the duty of the hero/leader to asign actions to their >followers giving them a chance to bask in the glory that is their skill >area. No longer is there a need for unbelievably powerful enemies in such >numbers. High magic ceases to be the concern that it is at the moment as >only one player has it. Low level adventurers can make a name for themselves >on issues that are not totally trivial. >It's just a mad idea. Try not to take it personally. You're welcome to try, William. Personally, I don't think many people are going to be keen on that patronising a game system. When I was looking at Ars Magica, all I noticed was that players were not interested in taking grogs. They were keen on being mages. If they had to be grogs, they weren't terribly happy about it. In the end, a kind of roster system was used. I have never seen the level of absenteeism as I saw in Ars Magica, although not if the player was going to be playing their mage that night. The reason a player wants to have good magic is because they want 1) security, 2) to be cool, and 3) to be useful to the rest of the party. It seems pretty unrealistic to me to assume that the only thing you're going to do with ep is to paint your name in chocolate on a hobbit's forehead. You can spend it there if you want to, there's no rule against it, and the ep is yours. However, I think you'd be on your own. Most players are going to spend their ep in ways that ensure their increased security, their ability to do some pretty cool things, and their ability to support the party. I don't see this as a mad dash to high ranks. I see this as development. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 15 07:44:59 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id HAA04657; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:44:59 +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 HAA04654 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:44:58 +1300 Received: from paul (p41-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [216.100.154.41]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id HAA07375 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:43:48 +1300 Message-ID: <001701bf1674$02906c60$6564640a@paul> Subject: Changes to SOP - standing operating procedures Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:43:25 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Paul Schmidt" To: dq-announce@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq-announce@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: "Paul Schmidt" , dq@dq.sf.org.nz Suggestion.... I'd like to tweak our standard operating procedure as regarding re-writing rules and spells. Essentially what this would be is if the person who proposed a rule change is convinced within a 2 week period that the proposal they have succesfully had voted in is in error, then the change lapses back to the previous status quo. This would allow a quick resoloution of errors, yet not lock the process in to cycles of continouous debate, as the only person who could ask "leave to withdraw" would be the original source of the proposition. Barring this then voted changes would have to be re-resolved as normal. Considering the process is one where the only person who can ask is a) the original proposer and b) the lapse is back to the previous status quo, I can't see too many problems with this. Cheers Paul -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 15 08:02:57 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA04691; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:02:57 +1300 Received: from enterprise.iconz.co.nz (enterprise.iconz.co.nz [210.48.22.40]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id IAA04688 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 08:02:56 +1300 Received: (qmail 5018 invoked from network); 14 Oct 1999 19:04:55 -0000 Received: from e0.firewall.ak.iconz.net.nz (HELO schroedinger) (202.14.100.208) by enterprise.iconz.co.nz with SMTP; 14 Oct 1999 19:04:55 -0000 Subject: Adventure styles. Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:59:52 +1300 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Mandos D Shadowspawn Esq" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > When one looks at the Guild, it is a pretty naff structure, offering >very few advantages that, really, couldn't be better done another way. It >does, however, offer one quality that doesn't exist any where else. And that >is that it is a venue that offers a great deal of variety. This is the >strength of the Guild, and by narrowing down the games on offer, we are >playing to our greatest area of weakness, rather than to our greatest >strength. > Let us, then, eschew reasons why other players couldn't have been >invited on a particular game, and work on ways that will ensure that players >and DMs have plenty of opportunity to interact with new people. One thing that does seem to be a little flawed at the moment with the guild seems to be that there is a lack of aproachability of Gm's. I sence that the GM's are very busy people at Guild meetings, they have to organise the next game, finish off any loose ends from the last game, get themselves a game, as well as "attend the meeting". I think we should investigate ways of allowing the currently active GM's to be approached and to introduce new players to them to foster the social aspects of the game. I am currently short of idea's to push this concept forward but I am sure someone can think of something that may help. > >At the last God's meeting there was much frustration vented at not being > >able to interact with the world at large. This is what player organised > >and/or sponsored missions should address. There is also a > growing tendancy > >against the 'Star Trek' syndrome where each adventure really has > nothing to > >do with the next. Witness such changes from the standard format like > Mandos' > >ongoing saga. > > There is a place for the multi-season adventure, as there is an equal > place for episodic adventures. Each offers different kinds of > play. Let us, however, not blind ourselves to one kind of play, by ignoring another. Very true, the length of an adventure is completly uncontected to the enjoyment gained from that adventure. I do long sessions cos I don't like to rush an idea rather than any belief that long games are better. They simply suit me. If anything we as GM's should be aiming for short adventures as it allows more of a mixing of the player base, but to each his own :-) > > I suggest a radically different format to adventuring. I > > suggest we mix characters of different levels that go and do > > an adventure. > >It's just a mad idea. Try not to take it personally. > > You're welcome to try, William. Personally, I don't think many people > are going to be keen on that patronising a game system. > When I was looking at Ars Magica, all I noticed was that players were > not interested in taking grogs. They were keen on being mages. If they had > to be grogs, they weren't terribly happy about it. In the end, a kind of > roster system was used. I have never seen the level of > absenteeism as I saw in Ars Magica, although not if the player was going > to be playing their mage that night. I think this depends on the GM and the players you have. I know it does work (although not in quite the structured format William mentions) most of my adventures these days are mixed level and they do indeed fit well into how I GM. The problem is that GM'ing style and player personalities are the key to these mixed parties. If you are running an all action game with pushy high level characters and quiet new players then it is gonna fall on it's face very quickly. On the other hand, a mixed focus game with team-playing high characters and low characters who pitch in and you have a wonderful and enjoyable game. All in all what I am trying to say is while both mixed and leveled adventures both work we need exactly that, a mix. They both have merits and downsides and neither should really be "a standard". It is all in the GM and how they play the game. Mandos /s -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 15 10:20:13 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA04934; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:20:13 +1300 Received: from qedweb.qed.co.nz ([203.97.23.140] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id KAA04931 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:20:11 +1300 Received: by QEDWEB with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <45ZC7B7Y>; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:18:03 +1300 Message-ID: Subject: RE: Fire 2.0 PDF Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:18:02 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) 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 Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Infravision: I would prefer something that let you see moderately well in the dark with range increasing with rank. Can see through smoke and fire with range increasing per rank. The ability to see invisible at rank 10 (as per witchsight but at Rank - 10). The ability to see visions in flame, BC% increases with rank, if successful thay see a vision, the vision is more likely to be relevant and accurate as rank increases. "DA of flame" percentage ability to discerne aspects of flame, higher rank more detail. Types of things they can tell are: Magical vs Normal, what is burning, how long it has been burning and how long it will probably burn for, the spell/ritual that caused the magical flame, and its rank. Bolt of Fire: I think that Fire should have a General Knowledge attack spell, but it should be toned down. Eg. Range: 15 (+15/Rank), Damage: [D-4] (+1/Rank), Resist: Active/Passive. Otherwise as written. If they're a high MA fire mage it becomes pretty cheap, but as it's a low MA college it may encourage pure-mage fire mages. I saw something like this version of Lesser Efreeti a while ago and suggested an alternative as below... Summoning and Binding Lesser Efreeti (Special Ritual) EM: 350 BC: 20% (+3 per rank) Cast Time: 120 Minutes (-5 per rank) Duration: Concentration Max 1 Hour (+1 per rank) Materials: Normal Fire Effect: The adept may summon and bind a Lesser Efreeti from the Elemental Plane of Fire. The adept must be in the presence of a normal fire (i.e. not magical), the power of the summoned Lesser Efreeti is limited by the rank of the adept and the size of the fire as follows: 1 hex bonfire - use the adepts' rank, less than 1 hex fire (Camp or cooking fire) - rank / 2, torch or similar small flame - rank / 4, mega-hex bonfire - rank + 1 (max 20), larger than a mega-hex bonfire - rank + 2 (max 20). The summoned creature will perform any task for the adept regardless of its own safety, the adept may command the creature at will while in physical contact with it, or they may perform pass actions to command it at up to 5 feet (+5 per rank) range. It will only respond to the adepts commands. When the adept ceases their concentration or the Lesser Efreeti is killed it will dissapate and return to its home plane. As the adept increases in rank they may let their concentration lapse for up to 30 seconds per rank, during which time the Lesser Efreeti will passively wait for its next command. Lesser Efreeti PS 30 (+1 per rank) MD 0 AG 20 (+1 per rank) WP 10 MA 0 EN 20 (+1 per rank) FT 30 (+2 per rank) TMR 6 (+1 per 2 full ranks) A Lesser Efreeti manifests as a non-sentient magical construct composed entirely of fire. It may take vague form at the will of its summoner but generally it will appear as an 8 foot tall pillar of flame. At rank 12 it will occupy 2 hexes and 3 hexes at rank 20. A Lesser Efreeti may engulf and carry willing passengers that are no larger than it is (Rk 0 could carry a 1 hex entity, rk 20 could carry 3 1-hex entities or 1 3-hex entity). It may travel its full TMR along the ground or leap half its TMR in any direction. It will inflict D (+1 per 2 ranks) normal fire damage to an entity or object in one of its hexes and half that amount to adjacent hexes every pulse. It may attack an entity by charging into close and engulfing them with magical flame, the base chance of this attack is 40% (+2 per rank) and it causes D (+1 per 2 ranks) magical fire damage, resist for half. It can only be harmed by silver or magical weapons, it is immune to normal and magical fire damage and takes half damage from non-elemental magical attacks. Cheers, Stephen. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 15 10:24:04 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA04962; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:24:04 +1300 Received: from qedweb.qed.co.nz ([203.97.23.140] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id KAA04959 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:24:02 +1300 Received: by QEDWEB with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <45ZC7B76>; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:21:55 +1300 Message-ID: Subject: RE: Changes to SOP - standing operating procedures Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:21:55 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) 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 Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Seems a reasonable addition. I'm for it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Schmidt [SMTP:rodking@ihug.co.nz] > Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 7:43 AM > To: dq-announce@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Changes to SOP - standing operating procedures > > Suggestion.... > > I'd like to tweak our standard operating procedure as regarding re-writing > rules and spells. > > Essentially what this would be is if the person who proposed a rule change > is convinced within a 2 week period that the proposal they have > succesfully > had voted in is in error, then the change lapses back to the previous > status > quo. > > This would allow a quick resoloution of errors, yet not lock the process > in > to cycles of continouous debate, as the only person who could ask "leave > to > withdraw" would be the original source of the proposition. > > Barring this then voted changes would have to be re-resolved as normal. > > Considering the process is one where the only person who can ask is a) the > original proposer and b) the lapse is back to the previous status quo, I > can't see too many problems with this. > > Cheers > Paul > > > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 15 10:55:05 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA04995; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:55:05 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id KAA04991 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:55:01 +1300 Message-ID: <380650D8.119CEE42@peace.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:53:33 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Changes to SOP - standing operating procedures Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz It looks really silly to me. 1) We are talking about what happens *after* it has been voted in by the Gods. If it is such a terrible idea, why did it get voted in? (OK, so sometimes it happens - like the new Witchsight rules that almost nullify invisibility.) 2) How is it that one person gets this power to override the Gods decision? (I can even imagine someone reasoning 'This stupid idea is going to be proposed formally at some point, and might even pass. I better be the one to propose it, then if it passes I can be 'convinced' a week later and sink it.") 3) How and where does this 'convincing' take place? How are people without e-mail going to feel when they have fought long and hard to get in a rule that will greatly improve the game (in their opinion) against the fanatical opposition of some short sighted morons, only to find that it has evaporated a week later, because the short sighted morons have leaned heavily on the proposer-of-record on the e-mail group, with our hero having been unaware and unable to present counter arguments? Sorry for the diatribe - I was hoping this idea would sink into well deserved oblivion and we could avoid Yet Another Long Pointless Debate, but apparently my hope was unfounded. As if debating rules were not bad enough - now we are debating meta-rules. Stephen Martin wrote: > Seems a reasonable addition. I'm for it. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Schmidt [SMTP:rodking@ihug.co.nz] > > Sent: Friday, October 15, 1999 7:43 AM > > To: dq-announce@dq.sf.org.nz > > Subject: Changes to SOP - standing operating procedures > > > > Suggestion.... > > > > I'd like to tweak our standard operating procedure as regarding re-writing > > rules and spells. > > > > Essentially what this would be is if the person who proposed a rule change > > is convinced within a 2 week period that the proposal they have > > succesfully > > had voted in is in error, then the change lapses back to the previous > > status > > quo. > > > > This would allow a quick resoloution of errors, yet not lock the process > > in > > to cycles of continouous debate, as the only person who could ask "leave > > to > > withdraw" would be the original source of the proposition. > > > > Barring this then voted changes would have to be re-resolved as normal. > > > > Considering the process is one where the only person who can ask is a) the > > original proposer and b) the lapse is back to the previous status quo, I > > can't see too many problems with this. > > > > Cheers > > Paul > > > > > > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- > > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 15 11:03:20 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA05014; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:03:20 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id LAA05011 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:03:19 +1300 Message-ID: <380652CF.E22FF1A6@peace.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:01:51 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Those on the side of light Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq-pub@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-pub@dq.sf.org.nz Barth Wader, a recent guild recruit and member of the obscure Samaelite Order of the Giddi Knights, is trying to compile a list of the guild members aligned with the Powers of Light. The list so far is: Barth Wader - member of a Samaelite order of knights Ithlemore - pacted to Samael Blitzkrieg - Samaelite knight, possibly pacted Anathea - currently in training for the Raphaelite priesthood A binder formerly known as Fenton - Gabrielite priest Are there any more? How about characters who are faithful worshipers, but not under vows? -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 15 11:36:57 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA05068; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:36:57 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id LAA05065 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:36:55 +1300 Message-ID: <38065AAE.6A3F2A26@peace.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:35:26 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Those on the side of light Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq-pub@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-pub@dq.sf.org.nz Keith Smith wrote: > >Barth Wader, [...] is trying to compile a list of the guild > >members aligned with the Powers of Light. > > Just as an aside here, are we talking just the Big Five, or any other > Powers that are also in the side of Good? Barth is only counting on the Big Five. But others are welcome to the discussion. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 15 11:42:04 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA05095; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:42:04 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id LAA05092 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:42:02 +1300 Message-ID: <38065BE1.E84D240F@peace.com> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 11:40:34 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Those on the side of light Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq-pub@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq-pub@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-pub@dq.sf.org.nz (Should have been in the last post, but Netscape got into a buggy 'WYSINWYG' mode and I deleted it accidentally.) Keith Smith wrote: > Just as an aside here, are we talking just the Big Five, or any other > Powers that are also in the side of Good? > > If the latter, there's Phaeton, pacted to Diencecht, God of Healing. He was > an ex-Raphaelite. Barth starts a new list labeled 'Apostate' and puts Phaeton's name on it. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 15 14:47:14 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA05396; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:47:14 +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 OAA05393 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:47:11 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p313-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.136.73]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id OAA31954 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:45:53 +1300 Subject: Re: Changes to SOP - standing operating procedures Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:46:53 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf16af$288bc640$49886dcb@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Michael Woodhams wrote: >1) We are talking about what happens *after* it has been voted in by the Gods. >If it is such a terrible idea, why did it get voted in? (OK, so sometimes it >happens - like the new Witchsight rules that almost nullify invisibility.) And, herein, I deduce, lies much of the basis of your opposition. You don't like what has happened to Witchsight, and so are spreading your dissatisfaction far and wide. Pathetic. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 15 15:12:14 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA05501; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:12:14 +1300 Received: from enterprise.iconz.co.nz (enterprise.iconz.co.nz [210.48.22.40]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id PAA05498 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:12:12 +1300 Received: (qmail 12129 invoked from network); 15 Oct 1999 02:14:00 -0000 Received: from e0.firewall.ak.iconz.net.nz (HELO schroedinger) (202.14.100.208) by enterprise.iconz.co.nz with SMTP; 15 Oct 1999 02:14:00 -0000 Subject: RE: Changes to SOP - standing operating procedures Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:08:56 +1300 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Mandos D Shadowspawn Esq" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Michael Woodhams wrote: > >1) We are talking about what happens *after* it has been voted in by the > Gods. > >If it is such a terrible idea, why did it get voted in? (OK, so sometimes > it > >happens - like the new Witchsight rules that almost nullify > invisibility.) > > And, herein, I deduce, lies much of the basis of your opposition. You > don't like what has happened to Witchsight, and so are spreading your > dissatisfaction far and wide. Pathetic. > Jim. But not quite as pathetic as the pointless sniping that seems to follow your Emails at the moment. His comments are quite reasonable regardless of the examples used. Mandos /s -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 15 22:43:21 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id WAA06038; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 22:43:21 +1300 Received: from ingate.uk.neceur.com (ingate.uk.neceur.com [193.116.254.1]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id WAA06035 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 22:43:14 +1300 Received: from internal-mail.uk.neceur.com by ingate.uk.neceur.com id ufo00Ciz6W3Xk; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:41:23 +0100 (BST) Received: from ccmeuro-nt.uk.neceur.com by internal-mail.uk.neceur.com id MN6308iz6WZkM; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:41:22 +0100 (BST) from ccmeuro-nt.uk.neceur.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) id MN6308iz6WZkM (3.3.2/3.1.31); Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:41:22 +0100 (BST) Received: from ccMail by ccmeuro-nt.uk.neceur.com (IMA Internet Exchange 3.13) id 00022B09; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:44:48 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:43:14 +0100 Message-ID: <00022B09.C21336@uk.neceur.com> Subject: Re[2]: Rune 2.1 (previous attachment bad) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: cc:Mail note part From: Ross.Alexander@uk.neceur.com (Ross Alexander) To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz A little history is in order. First the rider that any ability greater than Rank 5 takes [Rank / 2] days to complete. This solves the 1 hour problem. Originally this "spell" has a general ritual which I moved to being a spell. The reason for this is that Rune by its nature is heavily ritualised. But the original work done by myself et al left Rune with 5 general spells and 5 general rituals. That is why I made Healing a general spell, Warding a special spell (both were rituals) and changed Torment into a general spell from being a special spell. I arbitarily decided that as a player character college having four general rituals (3 + purification) was enough. If you think otherwise please tell me. Yes I agree with you that as a spell this would well be considered too tough. There are basically two solutions which are to increse the EM or depower the spell. As there are a limited number of generals I favour increasing the EM of the spell. Also, I can't see why it wouldn't extend life (something an ancient mage would have REALLY liked to do). The basic restrictions are that it doesn't work on dead things (essentially so it doesn't step to heavily on the toes of Healer). I agree that at Rank 20 it could do a full regeneration in 5 days. As a ritual this was fine because would have taken the PC 210 weeks to rank (4 years). A third option is to make it back into a ritual. ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: Re: Rune 2.1 (previous attachment bad) Author: "Jim Arona" Date: 14/10/99 13:26 Hi, Ross. I've looked at the college and it looks okay, to me. EXCEPT The Healing spell you have written means that for the expense of 63,000 ep, potentially as little as 31,500, a character that has taken a spec.griev injury that doesn't kill them outright can be up and fighting fit in an hour. That is just ludicrous. So what if you can't Preserve or Raise the Dead or Extend an entity's Life? So long as an entity isn't actually dead, you could regenerate all of their missing body parts and have them up fully healed. And all in the passage of an hour? Jesus wept. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 15 23:18:44 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id XAA06074; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:18:44 +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 XAA06071 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:18:43 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p79-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.111.79]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id XAA22352 for ; Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:17:14 +1300 Subject: Re: Re[2]: Rune 2.1 (previous attachment bad) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:18:01 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf16f6$8fc23aa0$4f6f12ce@jimarona.ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Precedence: bulk X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >Yes I agree with you that as a spell this would well be considered too tough. >There are basically two solutions which are to increse the EM or depower the >spell. As there are a limited number of generals I favour increasing the EM >of the spell. I'm against increasing the EM. After all, the EM can be modified down for high MA. I think that it'd be better if the ritual form (which I don't have a problem with, per se) should just not do things that Healers can do. I prefer the idea of healing Rank targets with the Ritual form. It's nice without being horribly tough, except on a battle field, and even there isn't going to be terribly unbalancing. > Also, I can't see why it wouldn't extend life (something an >ancient mage would have REALLY liked to do). I don't mind if it extends life, either, so long as it doesn't do it as well as the Necromancer Ritual. > The basic restrictions are that it >doesn't work on dead things (essentially so it doesn't step to heavily on the >toes of Healer). Healers, mostly, work on living things. That's why they're called Healers. Only Rank 8 Healers and higher, who aren't elves can work at all on dead things. Rank 5 Healers can preserve the dead, but realistically, that's a pretty minor ability, and every Healer is pretty soundly going to have their toes trod on by a ritual that can do most of what they can do. > I agree that at Rank 20 it could do a full regeneration in >5 days. As a ritual this was fine because would have taken the PC 210 weeks >to rank (4 years). A third option is to make it back into a ritual. It's a spell, though, that has the option of being cast as a ritual, isn't it? That means it ranks as a spell, unless you specifically state that it's a ritual, that can be cast as a spell. But, that would make the college ritual bound, again. I thought the point of making it a spell was to make it so that there were less rituals in the college. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --