From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Nov 13 01:30:23 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id BAA20739; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:26:02 +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 BAA20736 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:25:58 +1300 Received: from internal-mail.uk.neceur.com by ingate.uk.neceur.com id Z2j30Of1iWJmg; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:22:47 GMT Received: from ccmeuro-nt.uk.neceur.com by internal-mail.uk.neceur.com id hje10Of1iWJdE; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:22:46 GMT from ccmeuro-nt.uk.neceur.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) id hje10Of1iWJdE for (3.3.2/3.1.31); Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:22:46 GMT Received: from ccMail by ccmeuro-nt.uk.neceur.com (IMA Internet Exchange 3.13) id 0003DD9B; Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:27:44 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:24:29 +0000 Message-ID: <0003DD9B.C21336@uk.neceur.com> Subject: Re:RE: MR as Stat Check [was Re: November meeting minutes] 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 I'm going to add my comment to this continuing saga. First of all I will disregard this change if it is actually forced into the rules because I don't agree with its basis and I don't like its effects. However I would say that I am quite happy to ignore this ruling as it certainly didn't meet the basic criteria of being an acceptable change. 1) This is not a minor change as it has major implications for high level games (where has my 30% extra MR gone?). Rather than failing 1% of the time most characters will fail 10% of the time. Having gone to a lot of effort to not have this happen suddenly whole game plans must be changed to take this into account. This will immediately induce a greater level of cowardice in Guild members. 2) I really don't like that fact the there was no warning of this change before hand. This changing the rules without warning really gives the gods a very bad reputation. I'm not all that interested in any technical justification of the change (note that it is a change, not a clarification, since when it is not stated that it is a stat check means that is not a stat check, not that the status is uncertain). I think this change would have a negative impact on the game and that is enough to reject Eurocrat Harmonisation. Ross "Rule Britainia" Alexander -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Nov 13 01:45:30 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id BAA20768; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:35:04 +1300 Received: from mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id BAA20765 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:35:03 +1300 Received: from geocities.com ([203.99.70.172]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz (InterMail v4.01.01.00 201-229-111) with ESMTP id <19991112123222.YBKA443427.mta3-rme@geocities.com> for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:32:22 +1300 Message-ID: <382C095A.B9807138@geocities.com> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:34:34 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: MR as Stat Check [was Re: November meeting minutes] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------B5BE4FD7E3CD3B005419D2E4" From: Dean Ellis 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 --------------B5BE4FD7E3CD3B005419D2E4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Michael Parkinson wrote: > >What other stat checks are there in the > > RULES not covered by a skill? MR is one. > > No it is NOT an *other* one -- it IS the exception. Martin's argument that > if it's not a stat-check, what is it still applies. As far as I'm aware, the > only argument *against* it being a stat check is that you usually only ever > have a 1x multiplier. > > > If we are to go the whole hog, how about SC > > (Strike Chance) > > which has an MD component and Stun Recovery (and which stat would > > you use out of WP and FT?). > > a) no stat check has more than one stat. > > b) by your argument there is no such thing as a skill check -- they are all > stat checks since they have factors based on stats > > c) don't use stupid examples -- they weaken your cause. I prefer the reling > as it was made; but I suspect I could be won around by sensible arguments; > not drivel like this. > > -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- Tell it like it is Mike, I appreciate you helpful comments. Having actually now read the rulebook, and as we seem to be rules lawyering at the moment how about a sensible argument for you all. I quote from the book (Page 8): 3 Effects of Characteristics The characteristics do not blah blah blah. If a character attempts a feasible task not specifically explained in a rule, the GM derives a percentage chance of the character succeeding end quote What clarification can you guys possibly have thought was needed? This section of the rulebook categorically states what a Stat Check is and when one is considered needed. As MR is 'specifically explained in a rule' it is not a stat check, end of story. Ciao for now, Dean --------------B5BE4FD7E3CD3B005419D2E4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

Michael Parkinson wrote:

>What other stat checks are there in the
> RULES not covered by a skill? MR is one.

No it is NOT an *other* one -- it IS the exception.  Martin's argument that
if it's not a stat-check, what is it still applies.  As far as I'm aware, the
only argument *against* it being a stat check is that you usually only ever
have a 1x multiplier.

> If we are to go the whole hog, how about SC
> (Strike Chance)
> which has an MD component and Stun Recovery (and which stat would
> you use out of WP and FT?).

a) no stat check has more than one stat.

b)  by your argument there is no such thing as a skill check -- they are all
stat checks since they have factors based on stats

c) don't use stupid examples -- they weaken your cause.  I prefer the reling
as it was made; but I suspect I could be won around by sensible arguments;
not drivel like this.

-- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --

Tell it like it is Mike, I appreciate you helpful comments. Having actually now read the rulebook, and as we seem to be rules lawyering at the moment how about a sensible argument for you all. I quote from the book (Page 8):

3 Effects of Characteristics

The characteristics do not blah blah blah.

If a character attempts a feasible task not specifically explained in a rule, the GM derives a percentage chance of the character succeeding

end quote

What clarification can you guys possibly have thought was needed? This section of the rulebook categorically states what a Stat Check is and when one is considered needed. As MR is 'specifically explained in a rule' it is not a stat check, end of story.

Ciao for now,

Dean
  --------------B5BE4FD7E3CD3B005419D2E4-- -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Nov 13 02:00:43 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id BAA20820; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:57:43 +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 BAA20817 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:57:42 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p252-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.111.252]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id BAA32449 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:55:32 +1300 Subject: Re: Namer Draft Special Rituals Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:54:25 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf2d0d$0cb55b60$fc6f12ce@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 It occurs to me that there is no ritual that grants immunity or resistance, in the game, and yet, this is a common enough effect. I suggest that there be such a ritual for Namers. The target becomes either resistant or immune to the effects of one spell from one college. Duration should be quite long, though, perhaps even measured in days, and the target should not be able to benefit from more than one immunity/resistance. This should not be a spell, otherwise you'd have elementals and other summonables immune to the appropriate counterspell that comes from the college of Naming Incantations. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Nov 13 02:01:37 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id BAA20811; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:52:31 +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 BAA20808 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:52:30 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p252-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.111.252]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id BAA32329 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:50:19 +1300 Subject: Re: Re:RE: MR as Stat Check [was Re: November meeting minutes] Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 01:49:12 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf2d0c$524b7e80$fc6f12ce@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 Ross wrote: >Rather than failing 1% of the time most characters will >fail 10% of >the time. Having gone to a lot of effort to not have this happen suddenly whole >game >plans must be changed to take this into account. This will immediately induce a >greater >level of cowardice in Guild members. Character courage is not defined by the rules, of any game. You can say that a character is brave or cowardly, and that will apply, whatever the game or the incidence of some dumb rule. You cannot legislate for courage. You can, however, encourage pro-active play. Is this what you mean? Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Nov 13 10:45:13 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA21236; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:34:00 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id KAA21233 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:33:59 +1300 Received: from paul (p394-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.136.154]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id KAA28770 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:31:35 +1300 Message-ID: <002a01bf2d55$3798e3e0$6564640a@paul> Subject: Re: Comments on Namer Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:30:58 +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@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: "Paul Schmidt" , dq@dq.sf.org.nz >>> I think that it's a ritual which could lend a certain comfort factor when >>> going into unknown planes but in practical escape terms is not very >>> effective. The ritual will do little to the game in practical terms because if the GM doesn't want you to be able to escape in this fashion you can't. What the ritual and the comments around it does say however, is lots about the Guild. It tells us that many in the Guild feel they need an ability of this sort because of either the standard of GMing they meet is poor, or characters lack the bravery to commit to a line of interaction (taking some free EP and then going home when it gets tough - which is why EP should be handed out after a game finishes and with its per game value escalating towards the end of the adventure assuming the player has attended most games). A solution is to allow the ritual (because some GM's allow/require escape as part of a storyline), but let individual GM's rule on a case by case basis if the ritual will work. In other words the status quo. As an example, I allow Banishment to work in some parts of Greyhawk but not from the Underdark (due to weird Underdark radiations). Equally you can banish from the Ethereal and Plane of Shadow, can't from the Elemental planes (but you can be summoned) and banishment from the Astral sends you to the nearest plane at the time - whatever it is. In Hell you just get "banished" deeper in to Hell. A better comment on this ritual might be to have a forum, as Jono has agitated for, on improving GMing in general. We "GM Gods" can pass our knowledge on to the lesser GM's out there (strikes heroic Lenin style pose). The format for this would not be a discussion of GM style etc, but a series of two hour mini games with four players and a GM, while others took notes on what the GM did right (you copy it), and wrong - you critique it. Cheers Paul -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Nov 13 11:19:34 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id LAA21276; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:05:24 +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 LAA21273 for ; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:05:23 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p242-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [206.18.111.242]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id LAA21733; Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:02:59 +1300 Subject: Re: Comments on Namer Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:01:49 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf2d59$85006c80$f26f12ce@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 Paul Schmidt wrote: >A solution is to allow the ritual (because some GM's allow/require escape as >part of a storyline), but let individual GM's rule on a case by case basis >if the ritual will work. In other words the status quo. The problem with the status quo is that it doesn't provide player's with any real information about what can be expected. In other words, this little set of rules called 'Expulsion', doesn't provide players and DMs with a platform from which to share the world. In effect, this ritual as it stands means that the DM must unilaterally decide, presumably because of the requirements of his story, when and where this ritual will work, if they're going to allow it to work in some story-congruent fashion at all. It is better to have something that DMs can accept, than to have something that will work okay in some games, but not in others. Undetectability is a good example of a spell that has never enjoyed great DM acceptance, and you only have to look around you to see how variably it's played. This ritual would end up creating the same effect, and have to be addressed later on, anyway. It seems to me that this would be better dealt with now, rather than after all the tears and the screaming. However, whatever else happens, I KNOW what my response is going to be. I take executive control of my game, and won't be dictated to by a piece of paper or string of electrons. The story comes first. Rules are somewhere behind that. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --