From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 15 08:35:49 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA24454; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:15:12 +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 IAA24451 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:15:10 +1300 Message-ID: <382F0937.C79D3C9B@peace.com> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:10:47 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: MR as Stat Check [was Re: November meeting minutes] Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson 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 Dean Ellis wrote:
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):
If a character attempts a feasible task not specifically explained in a rule, the GM derives a percentage chance of the character succeeding
...
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.


Doh!  RTFM... now that's a bit radical don't you think?  So MR is not a stat check.  It is an unnamed secondary characteristic/base chance sort of thing.  And probably Stun Recovery is another of the same ilk.  Perhaps they should have a name/type... perhaps it doesn't matter.

Important thing is, the "MR as Stat Check" was considered a clarification... and it would appear to not be supported by the published rules.

Cheers,
            Martin

--

 _/_/  Peace Software New Zealand Ltd   Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401
       Analyst                          Phone: +64-9-373-0400
  -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 15 17:00:24 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id QAA25346; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:55:11 +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 QAA25343 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:55:09 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p271-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.232.17]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id QAA15100 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:51:28 +1300 Subject: Re: Comments on Names Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:50:10 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf2f1c$83ce7a40$11e86dcb@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 Ranking Names Once acquired, an Individual or Generic Name may be studied and fully learnt. Generic Names take one day of study to be learned (that is reach Rank 0) while Individual Names take one week in study after the Name has been acquired. Individual names (except for a entity's own name) count against Magical Aptitude in the same way as spells. Only Adepts of the College of Naming Incantations can acquire Rank of greater than 0 with names The maximum Rank of an Individual or Generic Name is 20. There is no reason to limit the ability of non-Namers with regard to ranking Names. Characters should be able to rank Names as much as they like. After all, unless a non-Namer character gets their hands on a special ability of some kind, then their ranks in Names do them no particular good. And, denying them the opportunity to rank them means that we narrow their alternatives needlessly. We should only concern ourselves with things to do with the balance and development of the game, not on nailing down what is, after all, purely flavour and colour in any other college. A character may have a very good in character reason for ranking Names, and so long as it doesn't threaten the balance and development of the game (as opposed to the various rationalisations of its causalilty) we should leave it well alone. It is not, at this point in time, broken. Let's leave it that way, lest we break something else in the process of dotting every i, and crossing every tittle. Additionally, I see no good reason for having Names of any sort counting against MA. It may be that the new ranking time creates a problem within the game. Let's wait and see if that's the case, before solving it. It may be that a solution is required, but there's no guarantee that this is the right solution. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 15 17:29:04 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA25387; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:19:31 +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 RAA25384 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:19:29 +1300 Message-ID: <382F88BA.31D730D9@peace.com> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:14:51 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Comments on Names Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson 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 Hi Jim, Jim Arona wrote: > Individual names (except for a entity's own name) count against > Magical Aptitude in the same way as spells. > Only Adepts of the College of Naming Incantations can acquire Rank of > greater than 0 with names > > There is no reason to limit the ability of non-Namers with regard to > ranking Names. I have no particular strong feeling either way -- although I have a slight preference for open slather as this makes names more fully part of the shared universe. However, a majority of those present at the two Namer workshops felt that only Namers should be able to Rank them. If sufficient people's opinions have changed I will remove the limitation. > Additionally, I see no good reason for having Names of any sort counting > against MA. > It may be that the new ranking time creates a problem within the game. > Let's wait and see if that's the case, before solving it. It may be that a > solution is required, but there's no guarantee that this is the right > solution. This was not intended as a pre-emptive solution to the change in ranking times -- rather to explain the comparative rarity of information on ITNs and the difficulty in finding them written down, etc., and prevent proliferation within the PC community too. A GM may grant an important ITN as treasure (e.g.. a Demon's name) and without some form of limiter this name will quickly find its way into several other hands. The MA limit is designed to a) give ITNs some actual though intangible worth -- and perhaps make PCs perhaps a little more reluctant to part with this valuable data, b) encourage ranking, c) make PCs consider whether they want this information, weighty as it is, d) provide a small benefit to the fairly rare high-ish MA namers, and e) explain in part the rarity of ITNs. I think the MA limit rule is a very simple mechanism that achieves what I see as desirable pressures. Obviously if sufficient people feel it is unnecessary or undesirable it can be altered or dropped. Regards, Martin -- _/_/ Peace Software New Zealand Ltd Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com _/ Martin Dickson Fax : +64-9-373-0401 Analyst Phone: +64-9-373-0400 -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 15 18:03:28 1999 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id RAA25507; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:53:24 +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 RAA25504 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:53:23 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p271-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.232.17]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id RAA25051 for ; Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:49:41 +1300 Subject: Re: Comments on Names Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:48:23 +1300 Message-ID: <01bf2f24$a62f2960$11e86dcb@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 -----Original Message----- From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Date: Monday, 15 November 1999 17:25 Subject: Re: Comments on Names >Hi Jim, > >Jim Arona wrote: > >> Individual names (except for a entity's own name) count against >> Magical Aptitude in the same way as spells. >> Only Adepts of the College of Naming Incantations can acquire Rank of >> greater than 0 with names >> >> There is no reason to limit the ability of non-Namers with regard to >> ranking Names. > >I have no particular strong feeling either way -- although I have a slight >preference for open slather as this makes names more fully part of the shared >universe. However, a majority of those present at the two Namer workshops felt >that only Namers should be able to Rank them. If sufficient people's opinions >have changed I will remove the limitation. This isn't a democracy. If that were the case, then nothing would have any flavour, because it would be moderated by everyone's input. It's irrelevant what the majority think. What is good is good, regardless of the opinions of a crowd of other people. > >-- rather to explain the comparative rarity of information on ITNs and the >difficulty in finding them written down, etc., and prevent proliferation within >the PC community too. A GM may grant an important ITN as treasure (e.g.. a >Demon's name) and without some form of limiter this name will quickly find its >way into several other hands. > >The MA limit is designed to a) give ITNs some actual though intangible worth -- >and perhaps make PCs perhaps a little more reluctant to part with this valuable >data, Don't see how that rule does that. It just makes them rarer. To have value, a thing must be wanted in the first place, and a restriction placed on the supply. All this does is put a restriction on the supply. You have cancelled any interest in acquiring a name, by only allowing a Namer to rank Names higher than 0. b) encourage ranking, A Namer (low MA casters, usually) will be encouraged to rank, because the Name would count against their relatively limited amounts of MA, but, it would also apply a negative pressure, as well. Player's whose MA is full, will tend not to be interested in acquiring new ITNs.This may create a pressure to rank the ones they know, but, given that you get a bonus to rank them, and the bonus isn't as high, then I just don't see how this does much to encourage ranking. c) make PCs consider whether they want this >information, weighty as it is, I can see how this might apply. d) provide a small benefit to the fairly rare >high-ish MA namers, And, I can see how this applies. and e) explain in part the rarity of ITNs. Rarity is easy. You don't award too many of them. You don't need to do more than that. This one can be covered by saying that ITNs are rare. You don't need to explain it, anymore than you need to write a rule that says the Sun will come up in the morning. > >I think the MA limit rule is a very simple mechanism that achieves what I see as >desirable pressures. Obviously if sufficient people feel it is unnecessary or >undesirable it can be altered or dropped. I don't. I think it just narrows options to no useful purpose. Already, players have to look for reasons to bother with Names, even though they are rare enough, and give a good bonus. The length of time required to learn them is probably the most demoralising part of it, and you have removed that. Jim. -- see unsubscribe instructions in message headers --