From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 20 01:52:29 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) id BAA32646; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:29:43 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@smtp2.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.8]) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id BAA32643 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:29:41 +1300 Received: from ihug.co.nz (p107-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.192.107]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id BAA22441 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:29:39 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp2.ihug.co.nz: Host p107-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.192.107] claimed to be ihug.co.nz Message-ID: <39F000F3.F96C3074@ihug.co.nz> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:23:15 -0700 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Witchsight 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 request to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. To unsubscribe from all lists on this site, send a request to all-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Jacqui Smith wrote: > > >However, if we want to replace them with something else new, rather than > >simply reverting to the old system, then we need time for > >squabbling^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion about the replacement. > > Actually the original proposal I made on the subject was all that was > necessary... If, and only if, this were a contest to measure arrant stupidity, Jacqui. Your post is pointless, trivial, and mindless. Less from you would increase the net value of a conversation > 1. Rename E&E "witchsight" to "wizardsight". Which is a comment that means nothing, adds nothing, and wastes my time. Less is more. > 2. Fix a small error in the Wiccan version (they couldn't attempt to > spot invisible objects or something). Which small thing should we start with? Your brain? > 3. Give the Celestial Spell version a base chance so that it's not > automatic on all targets once successfully cast. Which is the same hassle, in a different format. > I would consider a reduction to the base chance based on the rank of > invisibility as being more appropriate than what we now have. I would not have believed that the verb 'consider' and you had actually made acquaintance with one another. Live and learn. -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 20 02:00:56 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) id BAA32661; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:40:03 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@smtp1.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.7]) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id BAA32658 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:40:02 +1300 Received: from ihug.co.nz (p107-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.192.107]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id BAA12641 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:40:00 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp1.ihug.co.nz: Host p107-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.192.107] claimed to be ihug.co.nz Message-ID: <39F00360.15A73EBF@ihug.co.nz> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:33:36 -0700 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Witchsight 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 request to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. To unsubscribe from all lists on this site, send a request to all-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote: > > I was thinking of a slightly more open discussion. > 1) Does the current Witchsight solution work? Yes. > 2) What problems does it have? DMs and players are not used to it. > 3) Does it achieve the goals it set out to achieve? Yes > 4) Are these goals still relevant? Yes > 5) Did the old version "work" better? No, it stunk. > And only after all of that, (6) are there any alternatives that we haven't > trialed/considered that might work better? Who knows. Are you offering one? Or just saying that we should get rid of the current solution, because that way we might attract a better one? > My thoughts are: > 1) ish, but not well at all levels If it's a thought that you have, I'd be interested in you expressing in what way it works 'ish'. I, sadly, am not gifted enough to penetrate the workings of your mind. > 2) (a) the all there / blue glow / nothing there trinary state is confusing > to many (this may lessen with time) Who knows. You haven't actually stated that it is a problem. Without knowing what you're talking about, I don't see how it's any different to the intensely binary state of every player, and every NPC has to roll to determine whether or not they can see the Invis, and every entity gifted or cursed with the ability then has to keep track of who can see what. I can see how it's a great deal better > (b) it devalues walking unseen on low to medium games (where some people > have some witchsight, but it wasn't automatic) Walking Unseen and Blending were incredibly powerful effects, at low, med or high levels, and they meant that there was no reason to rank them beyond 7 or so. Then, it was a matter of increasing your Rank in Witchsight to the point that you could see 99% of unseen, blended or invisible things. Which, is pretty bloody boring. By the way, if you're a Celestial, the Witchsight Spell went to 10, and stopped there. > (c) the "I can see something but I can't target it" is only a functional > distinction in combat - its otherwise obvious to all with Rank 0 witchsight > that a rank 20 invis person is going by, No, it's not. It means that a person with Rank 20 Unseen or Invis might be able to sneak past anyone with lower than Rank 20 Witchsight. It is not completely obvious. If it is being played that way, then people are mistaking what was intended. > (d) it creates confusion in parties where people can't target each other > because the invis's are too high Well, you can always cast Invis or Unseen lower than the player's Rank in Witchsight. If people choose NOT to do that, then that's there problem. It's not a problem with design. It's a problem with common sense. -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 20 08:19:31 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) id IAA01641; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:16:04 +1300 Received: from dslak11.datacom.co.nz (dslak11.datacom.co.nz [202.27.76.113]) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with SMTP id IAA01638 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:16:01 +1300 Received: from dslak12.dslak.co.nz (192.203.216.23) by dslak11.datacom.co.nz Friday, October 20, 2000 08:15:02 Message-ID: Received: by dslak12.dslak.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <451M73KW>; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:15:02 +1300 Message-ID: <47E0B9F9F429D311958600508B4AB6E9033B5958@dslak12.dslak.co.nz> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:15:01 +1300 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Subject: RE: Witchsight From: "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" 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 request to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. To unsubscribe from all lists on this site, send a request to all-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Intellectually, I agree with most of Jim's points on the new Witchsight, but then when I see the effects in action in the game, I wonder why it doesn't feel "right". It could be just a matter of getting used to the changes. I would be interested in hearing from more people to get an idea of who is finding the new Witchsight difficult to adjust to or fundamentally flawed, and who is finding it better. Jim - the reason that I didn't put forward concrete or structured argument for my position is because I am trying to air a nagging doubt and see if others have the same or similar doubts, rather than declaiming an unchangable opinion. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Jim Arona [mailto:jimarona@ihug.co.nz] Sent: Friday, 20 October 2000 9:34 p.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: Witchsight "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote: > > I was thinking of a slightly more open discussion. > 1) Does the current Witchsight solution work? Yes. > 2) What problems does it have? DMs and players are not used to it. > 3) Does it achieve the goals it set out to achieve? Yes > 4) Are these goals still relevant? Yes > 5) Did the old version "work" better? No, it stunk. > And only after all of that, (6) are there any alternatives that we haven't > trialed/considered that might work better? Who knows. Are you offering one? Or just saying that we should get rid of the current solution, because that way we might attract a better one? > My thoughts are: > 1) ish, but not well at all levels If it's a thought that you have, I'd be interested in you expressing in what way it works 'ish'. I, sadly, am not gifted enough to penetrate the workings of your mind. > 2) (a) the all there / blue glow / nothing there trinary state is confusing > to many (this may lessen with time) Who knows. You haven't actually stated that it is a problem. Without knowing what you're talking about, I don't see how it's any different to the intensely binary state of every player, and every NPC has to roll to determine whether or not they can see the Invis, and every entity gifted or cursed with the ability then has to keep track of who can see what. I can see how it's a great deal better > (b) it devalues walking unseen on low to medium games (where some people > have some witchsight, but it wasn't automatic) Walking Unseen and Blending were incredibly powerful effects, at low, med or high levels, and they meant that there was no reason to rank them beyond 7 or so. Then, it was a matter of increasing your Rank in Witchsight to the point that you could see 99% of unseen, blended or invisible things. Which, is pretty bloody boring. By the way, if you're a Celestial, the Witchsight Spell went to 10, and stopped there. > (c) the "I can see something but I can't target it" is only a functional > distinction in combat - its otherwise obvious to all with Rank 0 witchsight > that a rank 20 invis person is going by, No, it's not. It means that a person with Rank 20 Unseen or Invis might be able to sneak past anyone with lower than Rank 20 Witchsight. It is not completely obvious. If it is being played that way, then people are mistaking what was intended. > (d) it creates confusion in parties where people can't target each other > because the invis's are too high Well, you can always cast Invis or Unseen lower than the player's Rank in Witchsight. If people choose NOT to do that, then that's there problem. It's not a problem with design. It's a problem with common sense. -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 20 08:39:47 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) id IAA01719; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:38:35 +1300 Received: from mail.iconz.co.nz (etrn.iconz.co.nz [210.48.22.36]) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id IAA01716 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:38:34 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: mae.sub.net.nz: Host etrn.iconz.co.nz [210.48.22.36] claimed to be mail.iconz.co.nz Received: from escher (newfirewall.ak.iconz.net.nz [202.14.100.202] (may be forged)) by mail.iconz.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA270790971984313 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:38:33 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:36:54 +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 V5.00.2314.1300 Subject: RE: Witchsight From: "Mandos Mitchinson" 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 request to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. To unsubscribe from all lists on this site, send a request to all-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Which small thing should we start with? Your > brain? Jim, comments like this are irrelevent and achieve nothing other than pissing people off. Please refrain from personal attacks. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 20 09:09:38 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) id JAA01783; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:04:40 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@smtp2.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.8]) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id JAA01780 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:04:38 +1300 Received: from work.ihug.co.nz (p46-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.218.46]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id JAA11363 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:04:37 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp2.ihug.co.nz: Host p46-tnt1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.218.46] claimed to be work.ihug.co.nz Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20001020085001.00ac3ee0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: phaeton@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:51:41 +1300 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: RE: Witchsight From: Keith Smith 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 request to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. To unsubscribe from all lists on this site, send a request to all-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >Jim, comments like this are irrelevent and achieve nothing other than >pissing people off. Please refrain from personal attacks. Thank you Mandos. Please lets keep the flames to a minimum. (Pulls out fire extinguisher and discharges the contents) Keith (phaeton@ihug.co.nz) -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Fri Oct 20 13:49:53 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) id NAA02651; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:47:02 +1300 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@smtp2.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.8]) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) with ESMTP id NAA02648 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:47:00 +1300 Received: from work.ihug.co.nz (p117-tnt5.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.210.117]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id NAA16115 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:46:57 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp2.ihug.co.nz: Host p117-tnt5.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.210.117] claimed to be work.ihug.co.nz Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20001020133446.00ca3cb0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: flamis@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:50:30 +1300 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: Witchsight From: Jacqui Smith 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 request to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. To unsubscribe from all lists on this site, send a request to all-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz At 01:23 20/10/00 -0700, you wrote: >Jacqui Smith wrote: > > > > >However, if we want to replace them with something else new, rather than > > >simply reverting to the old system, then we need time for > > >squabbling^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion about the replacement. > > > > Actually the original proposal I made on the subject was all that was > > necessary... > >If, and only if, this were a contest to measure >arrant stupidity, Jacqui. >Your post is pointless, trivial, and mindless. >Less from you would increase the net value of a >conversation If that's your opinion, why waste bandwidth replying? As it is, I will not stoop to your level of blatant insult, and instead explain further why the rule is broken. Please note that I did not initiate discussion on the topic. As it happens, I know of three GMs currently running games who see the latest version of witchsight as sufficiently flawed as to refuse to use it. Does that not suggest that it might not be failing in playtest? I can also cite a clear incident from play where one player character with low-ranked witchsight made a serious mess of the GMs ambush. The problem is that we have a small group of area effect spells, able to do serious damage without any necessity for the PC to actually target any individuals. There are also monsters, such as fire elementals, which can inflict damage by simply entering a hex. > > 1. Rename E&E "witchsight" to "wizardsight". > >Which is a comment that means nothing, adds >nothing, and wastes my time. Less is more. > > > 2. Fix a small error in the Wiccan version (they couldn't attempt to > > spot invisible objects or something). > >Which small thing should we start with? Your >brain? I can think of smaller things. The intellectual capacity of people who choose to contaminate this list with base insults, for example. > > 3. Give the Celestial Spell version a base chance so that it's not > > automatic on all targets once successfully cast. > >Which is the same hassle, in a different format. > > > I would consider a reduction to the base chance based on the rank of > > invisibility as being more appropriate than what we now have. > >I would not have believed that the verb 'consider' >and you had actually made acquaintance with one >another. Live and learn. > > >-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --