From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Oct 21 01:09:40 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) id BAA05053; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:06:10 +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 BAA05050 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:06:07 +1300 Received: from ihug.co.nz (p189-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.216.189]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id BAA20358 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:06:02 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp1.ihug.co.nz: Host p189-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.216.189] claimed to be ihug.co.nz Message-ID: <39F14CEC.14FC8911@ihug.co.nz> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:59:40 -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 O, grow up, George. Mandos Mitchinson wrote: > > > 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 -- -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Oct 21 01:29:30 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) id BAA05112; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:23:29 +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 BAA05109 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:23:27 +1300 Received: from ihug.co.nz (p189-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.216.189]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id BAA20707 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:23:26 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp1.ihug.co.nz: Host p189-tnt2.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.216.189] claimed to be ihug.co.nz Message-ID: <39F15102.660306D7@ihug.co.nz> Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:17:06 -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 > > 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. No, you will stoop, instead, to just not saying anything very useful. > > 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 know of six that find it better. Does that progress any point, whatsoever? > > 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. None of your proposed solutions would deal with this 'problem'. I don't know what it is, but renaming the Talent to Wizardsight, I venture, would have no impact on the ambush. Neither would changing the Wiccan version, unless the player in question happened to be one, and even if it did, I suspect that it would be knee jerk problem solving. Neither would giving the Celestial spell a base chance, seeing as it would then have the same problem that pertained prior to the change. And, finally, reducing the Base Chance does nothing useful at all, because the spell wouldn't be cast until it was Rank 16+, which means that you're merely delaying what you percieve as a problem. NONE OF THIS IS A SOLUTION. NONE OF THIS OFFERS A WAY FORWARD TO A PROBLEM, PERCEIVED OR OTHERWISE. It is simply an opportunity to discuss, again, a way of dealing with Witchsight and Walking Unseen. If there were something new added to the mix, then there might be something to discuss. Three DMs choose not to play the new rule. Big deal. Maybe when they become used to it, they will. Maybe, they'll come up with something better. Until they do, then this isn't a discussion about how to make the game better. It's merely whining about the way the game works, at the moment. If Jacqui or anyone were offering a solution to the 'problem', then fine. But, at the moment, that isn't the case. Instead, it seems to be an attempt to poll the disaffected. Well, here's a big surprise. In any group of people, there is always going to be someone disaffected. A policy of pandering to the disaffected means that the game has no thematic element, as it is redressed to the favour of one political entity, and then the next, in an attempt to curry favour with as many people. Any attempt to move the game forward in a productive way is lost against one PR campaign after another. There are better things to be doing, other than fomenting dissent. -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Oct 21 10:29:28 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) id KAA06817; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:28:40 +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 KAA06814 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:28:37 +1300 Received: from work.ihug.co.nz (p160-tnt7.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.206.160]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id KAA02898 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:28:35 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp1.ihug.co.nz: Host p160-tnt7.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.206.160] claimed to be work.ihug.co.nz Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20001021100724.00b4baf0@pop.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: flamis@pop.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 10:29:31 +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 01:17 21/10/00 -0700, you wrote: >None of your proposed solutions would deal with >this 'problem'. I don't know what it is, but >renaming the Talent to Wizardsight, I venture, >would have no impact on the ambush. That was passed into the rules. If you had bothered to actually READ my original posting instead of reacting without thinking first, then you would have seen that I was restating the original proposal, which I had been asked to prepare for the gods meeting. >Neither would changing the Wiccan version, unless >the player in question happened to be one, and >even if it did, I suspect that it would be knee >jerk problem solving. It was also passed. There was an error. It was corrected. You can call that a reflex, if you like. >Neither would giving the Celestial spell a base >chance, seeing as it would then have the same >problem that pertained prior to the change. >And, finally, reducing the Base Chance does >nothing useful at all, because the spell wouldn't >be cast until it was Rank 16+, which means that >you're merely delaying what you percieve as a >problem. And again you've missed the point. The issue was that the Celestial version of the spell should not work automatically ONCE CAST. This was perceived as a problem by a number of people. There needed to be a base chance for the recipient of the spell using witchsight, as well as the caster giving them the ability. >> 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. > None of your proposed solutions would deal with >this 'problem'. However, returning to something resembling the earlier version of witchsight would. The contention is that the problems with the new version of witchsight are worse than those with the old. 1. Anyone with witchsight automatically notices the presence of someone passing invisible or unseen. They may not be able to identify them or target them but they know that something is there. And therefore will react appropriately. So invisibility is rendered far less useful for sneaking purposes. 2. While an invisible person may not be able to be directly targeted, their rough position can always be sensed. So they can be the victim of area effect spells, certain entity types like fire elementals, and area effect weapons like grenados. So invisibility is rendered far less useful for combat purposes. This may not be how you wanted it played, but it's what the rules currently say. Jacqui -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sat Oct 21 12:20:35 2000 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mae.sub.net.nz (8.9.3/NZSFI-20000705) id MAA06959; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:18:07 +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 MAA06956 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:18:06 +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 iconz (mandos.internet.co.nz [210.48.42.117]) by mail.iconz.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA025030972083885 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:18:05 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:18:42 +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 V5.00.2615.200 Subject: RE: Witchsight 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 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 O, grow up, George. > > 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. > O, grow up, George. It is good to see the true extent of your hypocrasy at work Jim. My thoughts go back to November 98 when we saw this little rant from Jim. --- This is a community. A principle of living in communities is that we have some basic and underlying concepts that determine our behaviour. One of the most basic of these principles is that you are allowed to defend yourself, unless there is an agency that is available to protect you. Very few of you people offer public support when I'm attacked in this way, although you expect it not to happen. I recieve private emails offering support, but very few of you are actually prepared to do anything more than take the apparent moral high ground, and excercise finger waving. I do not start these personal attacks. I see no reason why I should have to suffer them, in the face of a community to cowardly to offer public outrage when they see such behaviour. I am allowed to defend myself and my reputation, particularly if you won't do anything to offer such a defence for me. Jim. --- Practice what you preach Jim. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --