<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I disagree with changing the rules because one person is unclear.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Lets take this back a step and clearly identify the problem - then address that problem. &nbsp;Too many of the discussions at the moment are people being picky on language - and fixing language is fine when being done in conjunction with other fixed but is just 'make work' otherwise. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I've seen several instances recently of us making a change to 'clarify' a rule and the result has been far more confusion than the original rule (as GM's remember the discussions and not the final ruling).</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">On this specific topic </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">1)Stephen is right, the only real issue has been people wanting to not resist beneficial spells when preparing for, or in combat, specifically Quickness.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">2) Resistance is too intrinsic to the game for us to muck it up. &nbsp; Before we go any further can anyone identify any other IN GAME issues (as opposed to reading the rules during this discussion and getting confused).</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rosemary</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Stephen Martin &lt;stephenm@qed.co.nz&gt;<br>
<br>
&gt;I don't see the confusion on these...<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
&gt;How this is actually played varies a lot! &nbsp;Mainly because quickness is<br>
&gt;resistable and while everyone wants to have it take effect, nobody wants to<br>
&gt;not resist for an entire pulse.<br>
&gt;Option 1) Make quickness un-resistable and play the rules as stated.<br>
<br>
&gt;Option 2) Implement one of the alternatives which is currently played - the<br>
&gt;one Clare mentioned would get my vote.<br>
<br>
Clare's (OK, Clare posted it, I have no idea if she is claiming copyright)<br>
gets my vote<br>
<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;Cheers, Stephen.<br>
&gt;<br>
<br>
<br>
I volunteer to draft up the implementation of what the God's decide. Of<br>
course, this would require a Gods' Meeting to happen.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Errol</font>
<br>

I disagree with changing the rules because one person is unclear.

Lets take this back a step and clearly identify the problem - then address
that problem.  Too many of the discussions at the moment are people being
picky on language - and fixing language is fine when being done in
conjunction with other fixed but is just 'make work' otherwise.

I've seen several instances recently of us making a change to 'clarify' a
rule and the result has been far more confusion than the original rule (as
GM's remember the discussions and not the final ruling).


On this specific topic
1)Stephen is right, the only real issue has been people wanting to not
resist beneficial spells when preparing for, or in combat, specifically
Quickness.
2) Resistance is too intrinsic to the game for us to muck it up.   Before
we go any further can anyone identify any other IN GAME issues (as opposed
to reading the rules during this discussion and getting confused).

Rosemary




-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Martin <stephenm@qed.co.nz>

>I don't see the confusion on these...



>How this is actually played varies a lot!  Mainly because quickness is
>resistable and while everyone wants to have it take effect, nobody wants
to
>not resist for an entire pulse.
>Option 1) Make quickness un-resistable and play the rules as stated.

>Option 2) Implement one of the alternatives which is currently played -
the
>one Clare mentioned would get my vote.

Clare's (OK, Clare posted it, I have no idea if she is claiming copyright)
gets my vote

>
>Cheers, Stephen.
>


I volunteer to draft up the implementation of what the God's decide. Of
course, this would require a Gods' Meeting to happen.

Cheers
Errol


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

<apologies in advance to people who have received this message many 
times>

To celebrate moving into our new flat, and (belatedly) our engagement we 
would like to invite you all to visit us sometime during the afternoon 
and evening of Saturday April 7.

Activities will depend on who is here when but planned to include:

BBQ around dinner time (byo meat)
Chocolate Fondue around dessert time
Board games
cards
whatever other silliness people want to indulge in

Where:

31A Savoy Road
Glen Eden
Ph: 818 8926

When:

Saturday April 7, noon til late

BYOB

hope to see you all there,

clare and Nick


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-pub-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

RMansfield@aj.co.nz wrote:
> 
> I disagree with changing the rules because one person is unclear.
> 
> Lets take this back a step and clearly identify the problem - then
> address that problem.  Too many of the discussions at the moment are
> people being picky on language - and fixing language is fine when
> being done in conjunction with other fixed but is just 'make work'
> otherwise.
> 
> I've seen several instances recently of us making a change to
> 'clarify' a rule and the result has been far more confusion than the
> original rule (as GM's remember the discussions and not the final
> ruling).
> 
> On this specific topic
> 1)Stephen is right, the only real issue has been people wanting to not
> resist beneficial spells when preparing for, or in combat,
> specifically Quickness.

No. That's an interpretation that other people have put on the matter.
The rules state that an entity may resist passively.
The word 'may' is a modal auxialiary verb, indicating that the entity
has the choice.
They may choose not to. It is entity discretionary.
There are, however, situations where the DM may rule that the entity has
no idea that a beneficial spell is being cast, and so cannot waive their
resistance to THAT SPECIFIC SPELL. 
That is a DM call. There is no need to make it into a rule.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Could you please state exactly what part of the rules you are quoting here.

The first sentence of 'Passive Resistance' in 7.8 'Magic Resistance' does
indeed state
"When a spell that is passively resistible impacts on an entity, the entity
may attempt to resist the effects of the spell."

This would imply that any passive resistance is optional. This is
contradicted by several sentences later in the same paragraph, including
"While choosing to not resist, an entity may only perform a pass action", as
well as the definitions section of 7.1 'Introduction to Magic'.

The rulebook could certainly be clearer.
If  you ignore the 'may' in the first sentence, the rulebook still seems
illogical to me. You are not able to lower passive resistance while moving
full TMR, but you can while moving two hexes, changing facing, and preparing
a spell (as preparing is a pass action).

Cheers
Errol

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Arona <jimarona@ihug.co.nz>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date: Tuesday, 3 April 2001 16:16
Subject: Re: [dq] Choosing not to Passively resist


>
>No. That's an interpretation that other people have put on the matter.
>The rules state that an entity may resist passively.
>The word 'may' is a modal auxialiary verb, indicating that the entity
>has the choice.
>They may choose not to. It is entity discretionary.
>There are, however, situations where the DM may rule that the entity has
>no idea that a beneficial spell is being cast, and so cannot waive their
>resistance to THAT SPECIFIC SPELL.
>That is a DM call. There is no need to make it into a rule.
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

From Errol

-----Original Message-----
From: RMansfield@aj.co.nz <RMansfield@aj.co.nz>


>
>I disagree with changing the rules because one person is unclear.
>


In the case of active resistance, the point in question appears in two
different sections of the rules. One section is clear on what happens (7.8
states that 'In combat, Active Resistance is a Pass Action." ) while the
other is unclear (3.8 "An entity may actively resist a spell during combat
by implementing a pass action"). Changing the wording of the unclear section
to agree with the clear section (at the next convenient opportunity) seems
the logical step. This does not involve changing the rules, only making the
rules easier to understand (especially for a beginning player).

Is there some problem with this?



Passive resistance (and 'dropping' it) is a different problem.
Most GMs do not play the rules as written. (My perception is that most of
those GMs 'break' the rules in similar ways, BTW). In a environment where
rule changes are meant to be done by consensus (or large majority) THIS IS A
PROBLEM in itself. It probably says something about the change procedure as
well.

Players should be able to expect that the rules will be generally be played
as written (and available to them). It is the same logic that goes with
'Ignorance of the law is no excuse" - part of this is that all laws and
regulations are available for everyone to inspect.

The fact that most GMs play differently from the rules implies that either:
a. most GMs are ignorant of the rules (which I don't think applies in this
case) or
b. most GMs think the rules are 'broken'



>Lets take this back a step and clearly identify the problem - then address
>that problem.

See above

 >Too many of the discussions at the moment are people being
>picky on language - and fixing language is fine when being done in
>conjunction with other fixe[s] but is just 'make work' otherwise.
>


Ian and I apologize for having the time to read the rules (for various
reasons, not with the express purpose of finding every inconsistency) and
saying "hey, there is meant to be a new rulebook around the middle of the
year, lets fix the language so that anyone can pick up the rulebook and
fairly easily understand what is most likely to happen when they play DQ".

Fixing language so that everyone who reads the rulebook is clear on the
rules is not make-work. It is, after all, the purpose of the rulebook.

>I've seen several instances recently of us making a change to 'clarify' a
>rule and the result has been far more confusion than the original rule (as
>GM's remember the discussions and not the final ruling).
>

In the case of confusion over stun recovery, this was more a consequence of
there not being a record of the final ruling, (so that it is not possible to
check that the rulebook reflects the ruling), rather than the desire that
the rulebook be clarified.

I am not able to comment on any other instances of confusion over
'clarifications'.

>On this specific topic
>1)Stephen is right, the only real issue has been people wanting to not
>resist beneficial spells when preparing for, or in combat, specifically
>Quickness.


Yes, this is the real issue. Quickness is the main instance of a beneficial
spell that is cast in combat. There are others which occur less often.

One approach is to change Quickness so that it is not resistible (basically
by decree for gameplay reasons, not basing it only any specific in-game
logic (is there one?)), and say tough luck for strength of stone, 'friendly
counterspells', and any other 'beneficial' magics that can be resisted.
(whether GMs take much notice of the effect on 'other beneficial magics' is
a consideration).
Another approach is to review the resistibility of all spells in light of
gameplay reasoning (or come up with a in-game logic that closely matches the
desired gameplay result) - presumably 'compliance' would not be too much of
an issue if there was reasonable agreement on what is 'beneficial magic.'
A third is to change rules on lowering passive resistance to be in (roughly)
line with what is (generally) played.
Or we could let the current situation of widespread 'non-compliance' (sorry,
this is the terminology I've used in my work life) continue, perhaps with
two or three 'options' like we are moving towards on initiative.



>2) Resistance is too intrinsic to the game for us to muck it up.   Before
>we go any further [i.e. before making any firm proposals to change the
rules on lowering resistance (Errol)] can anyone identify any other IN GAME
issues (as opposed
>to reading the rules during this discussion and getting confused).
>


Agreed.

A related issue that some of us have been discussing (in connection with the
counterspell re-write in conjunction with Namer re-write) is resisting
counterspells intended to remove spell effects (eg Damnum Minatum, Sleep). I
do not believe that this impacts on what is being discussed on-list. Any
actual proposed changes to is area will be proposed and discussed in the
normal way.

Cheers
Errol



>Rosemary
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Martin <stephenm@qed.co.nz>
>
>>I don't see the confusion on these...
>
>
>
>>How this is actually played varies a lot!  Mainly because quickness is
>>resistable and while everyone wants to have it take effect, nobody wants
>to
>>not resist for an entire pulse.
>>Option 1) Make quickness un-resistable and play the rules as stated.
>
>>Option 2) Implement one of the alternatives which is currently played -
>the
>>one Clare mentioned would get my vote.
>>
>>Cheers, Stephen.
>>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Ian Wood & Ellen Hume & Adara Wood wrote:
> 
> Could you please state exactly what part of the rules you are quoting here.
> 
> The first sentence of 'Passive Resistance' in 7.8 'Magic Resistance' does
> indeed state
> "When a spell that is passively resistible impacts on an entity, the entity
> may attempt to resist the effects of the spell."

This is the original rule in the published book.
> 
> This would imply that any passive resistance is optional. This is
> contradicted by several sentences later in the same paragraph, including
> "While choosing to not resist, an entity may only perform a pass action", as
> well as the definitions section of 7.1 'Introduction to Magic'.

This was a supposed clarification by us lot.
> 
> The rulebook could certainly be clearer.

We had no need to change it.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --