Hi there Keith,
Your two comments appear (to me) to be mutually exclusive, at least in the
DQ gods world I know of, as you are seeking a miracle [no arguements before
selecting one solution, that every GM then uses exclusively]. I admit that
part of the contract for playing/GMing in DQ is that we abide by and use the
current set of rules (unless you are play testing something, which seems to
be most of the time, and so perhaps we need to be a bit more flexible on
this one).
I would prefer a set of accepted solutions for the GM to choose from, as
best for their campaign. A set of acceptable initiative rules would be
better for me than the current hodg-podg, where players do not know that
alternatives *exist*, until the first combat. Also, people are trialling
different solutions because they see different needs, and we should respect
those differences - one system may not suit all, nor all circumstances.
Forcing all to accept one solution automoatically disenfranchises those with
different needs.
On an aside, I am yet to understand Paul's system completely, but I trust
him to know that it is working for his campaign, and that it is (moderately)
fair. So far it is fun, but I am not sure that I would wish to use it when
GMing a bunny adventure nor when running many NPCs, as the amount of dice
rolling would kill me (rsi in the dice hand?? - well it is a novel excuse
!! - will hairy palms be teh sign of genetically modified GMs? or GMGMs? or
G2Msquareds ?).
Perhaps some others can assist with the miracles ? I note we have no saints
yet...only gods, and a fractious pantheon it is too.
Ian
-----Original Message-----
From: Keith Smith <phaeton@ihug.co.nz>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date: Sunday, 4 February 2001 09:59
Subject: Re: [dq] Initiative/Quickness
>
>>I would like to see some proposals to vary the calculation, maybe
>>introducing some new factors, such as weapon weight or working in
formation.
>> These should not be difficult even for the numerically challenged (or
>>'thick' as we in the trade calls them), as they only need to be calculated
>>once.
>>
>>Overall, the current plethora of trials on this subject suggest that there
>>is a widely perceived problem with initiative. I would not like a huge
>>arguement on who's solution is best.
>
>Neither do I.
>
>>I would much prefer to end up with a range of options for GM to choose
from,
>>much like the backfire table.
>
>That makes sense to me too although it would be nice to have one, accepted,
>solution so that the players don't get confused about which GM is running
>which option.
>
>Keith
>(phaeton@ihug.co.nz)
>
>
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --
>
-- to unsubscribe see http://www.kurahaupo.gen.nz/mailing-lists.html --
|