>PS - I vote for Clare's house, which I hope to make on teh way back from
>Tauranga - unless everyone wishes to crash at Dad's for the weekend...<g>
>
>PPS Errol also votes for Clare's house...

I've got no problem with that. What's the address?

Keith.


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

On Tuesday, May 29, 2001, at 08:02  AM, Keith Smith wrote:

>
>> PS - I vote for Clare's house, which I hope to make on teh way back 
>> from
>> Tauranga - unless everyone wishes to crash at Dad's for the 
>> weekend...<g>
>>
>> PPS Errol also votes for Clare's house...
>
> I've got no problem with that. What's the address?

31a Savoy Road
Glen Eden
Ph: 818 8926

It is the house at the back.

clare


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

Hmmm.. for control person, control should NOT be regained if the target
moves beyond range and then re-enters range. Otherwise what we are saying
that the target  acquires a channel that leaves the mind open to the Adept
even beyond range and positive control is a function of range, not the
spell.
Should teach those pesky mind mages to be careful with those they control.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Wood & Ellen Hume & Adara Wood" <adara@ihug.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 9:34 PM
Subject: [dq] Mind college


>
> Dear All,
>
> please find attached the latest version of the Mind college verification.
>
> Due to popular protest it goes back towards some bits that were dropped
> earlier...<g>
>
> I would like to see this progress. Either at the gods meeting or at the
> Guild meeting.
>
> Reccommendation:
>
> 1    that the Clarification be received
> 2        Either
>     THAT the Clarification be adopted as the Probationary Mind College,
for
> review after two years
>         Or
>     THAT the Clarification be entered into Playtest for the next year,
with
> provission for review each quarter
>
> cheers Ian
>
> PS - I vote for Clare's house, which I hope to make on teh way back from
> Tauranga - unless everyone wishes to crash at Dad's for the weekend...<g>
>
> PPS Errol also votes for Clare's house...
>
>
>
>


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

Re Mind Speech

I'd like to see a greater range on this spell, something like 1 mile plus 1
per Level, or possibly even greater, rather than 30 feet plus 30 per.
Whilst it was a little OTT having in work anywhere on the same plane, as
i've seen the old version played, I don't think its unreasonable for it to
work, say, within a city throughout which  party members are dispersed.
This would add to the utility without making it too powerful, and given the
em of 400 I dont think that is unreasonable.

/\/\ark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

This spell encourages parties to split up. As a GM, that is generally a bad
thing, but this allows more player interaction while split up, which
ameliorates it. A slightly higher range would also help while flying -
otherwise people have to fly really close together to talk.

I'd be happy with the current range, or reduced to 10'/Rank to only use in a
building, or up to 100'/Rank (which contains most small towns at Rank 6).
More than that encourages remote control roleplaying with everyone in on the
action and excitement but only one or two taking the risks.

It should never encourage people to travel apart, which mile/Rank does.

Andrew


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Simpson [mailto:Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2001 11:22 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind college


Re Mind Speech

I'd like to see a greater range on this spell, something like 1 mile plus 1
per Level, or possibly even greater, rather than 30 feet plus 30 per.
Whilst it was a little OTT having in work anywhere on the same plane, as
i've seen the old version played, I don't think its unreasonable for it to
work, say, within a city throughout which  party members are dispersed.
This would add to the utility without making it too powerful, and given the
em of 400 I dont think that is unreasonable.

/\/\ark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Mark Simpson wrote:

> I'd like to see a greater range on this spell, something like 1 mile plus 1
> per Level... I don't think its unreasonable for it to work, say, within a
> city...

Just a note on sizes of cities: a range (radius) of 1 mile would be more than
enough to cover all but the largest renaissance/fantasy cities.

--

 _/_/  Peace Software New Zealand Ltd   Email: Martin.Dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401
       Product Specialist               Phone: +64-9-373-0400


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

Parties do split up, with or without this spell, and let me tell you this
spell (amended as I suggested) makes it a lot more likely the party will
get back together quickly! (and surely thats a good thing).

I think your concern about remote control roleplaying is not a serious
problem. Even assuming the range is something like what I suggested, you
still need to keep the party together, especially when travelling, in case
there is a fight.   Why on earth would you want to travel apart? If you do
you deserve what you get. Still nothing in what youve written justifies
having such a short range on the spell. Why not allow communication over
some distance? In terms of convenience to Gms and players this would
provide a lot.

If you really think it necessary to prevent this communication at a
distance, then reduce the EM, as you have severely reduced the
effectiveness of the spell. But my much preferred option is to allow it as
a form of communication over distance as I can think of few means of doing
this effectively in the DQ world. Often this is used for mundane
organisation of an admittedly split up party in the early info gathering
and equiping parts of an adventure. Is this such a bad thing? Also often a
party is forced to split for reasons beyond its control, as as i have said,
when this happens, having this spell up will mean the party is much more
likely to get together AND that those players not physically at a location
where one or more parties members are (and where the GM is currently
focusing his/her attention) CAN then legitimately be involved in terms of
suggetions etc. rather than sitting there frustrated in terms of not  being
able to contribute.

/\/\





"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> on 29/05/2001 12:24:47

Please respond to dq@dq.sf.org.nz

To:   dq@dq.sf.org.nz
cc:    (bcc: Mark Simpson/WestpacTrust/NZ)
Subject:  Re: [dq] Mind college




This spell encourages parties to split up. As a GM, that is generally a bad
thing, but this allows more player interaction while split up, which
ameliorates it. A slightly higher range would also help while flying -
otherwise people have to fly really close together to talk.

I'd be happy with the current range, or reduced to 10'/Rank to only use in
a
building, or up to 100'/Rank (which contains most small towns at Rank 6).
More than that encourages remote control roleplaying with everyone in on
the
action and excitement but only one or two taking the risks.

It should never encourage people to travel apart, which mile/Rank does.

Andrew


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Simpson [mailto:Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2001 11:22 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind college


Re Mind Speech

I'd like to see a greater range on this spell, something like 1 mile plus 1
per Level, or possibly even greater, rather than 30 feet plus 30 per.
Whilst it was a little OTT having in work anywhere on the same plane, as
i've seen the old version played, I don't think its unreasonable for it to
work, say, within a city throughout which  party members are dispersed.
This would add to the utility without making it too powerful, and given the
em of 400 I dont think that is unreasonable.

/\/\ark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

  The contents of this e-mail are confidential. If you have received this
 communication by mistake, please advise the sender immediately and delete
                     the message and any attachments.
 Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia




---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Mark,
I disagree with your assertion that an extended range of mind speech will
encourage people to get back together.

Convenience to GMs usually involves having the PCs together, rather than
several miles apart.

The EM need not be reduced - it does not need to be ranked beyond Rank 6-8
(8-14kep), and has a very useful game effect, one of the few team spells a
MM can cast, as well as one that helps spying, subtlety and other things
that parties normally can't attempt.

An increased range also means that Adepts will want to cast it on others who
are miles away (minor point).

What does increasing the range to ~ 5-10 miles do to benefit the
game/campaign (not the PC)? How does this differ in practise from the
unlimited range but 1-2 hours duration that the spell has, and is being
changed from by (near) unanimous agreement?

I think that neither of us is seeing/agreeing to each other's points. I hope
that others are making their minds up based on this exchange, otherwise all
those electrons are being slaughtered needlessly :).

Andrew
(Declaration of Interest: I have a PC with Mind speech and a PC who is
unaffected by Mind Speech)

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Simpson [mailto:Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2001 11:56 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind college



Parties do split up, with or without this spell, and let me tell you this
spell (amended as I suggested) makes it a lot more likely the party will
get back together quickly! (and surely thats a good thing).

I think your concern about remote control roleplaying is not a serious
problem. Even assuming the range is something like what I suggested, you
still need to keep the party together, especially when travelling, in case
there is a fight.   Why on earth would you want to travel apart? If you do
you deserve what you get. Still nothing in what youve written justifies
having such a short range on the spell. Why not allow communication over
some distance? In terms of convenience to Gms and players this would
provide a lot.

If you really think it necessary to prevent this communication at a
distance, then reduce the EM, as you have severely reduced the
effectiveness of the spell. But my much preferred option is to allow it as
a form of communication over distance as I can think of few means of doing
this effectively in the DQ world. Often this is used for mundane
organisation of an admittedly split up party in the early info gathering
and equiping parts of an adventure. Is this such a bad thing? Also often a
party is forced to split for reasons beyond its control, as as i have said,
when this happens, having this spell up will mean the party is much more
likely to get together AND that those players not physically at a location
where one or more parties members are (and where the GM is currently
focusing his/her attention) CAN then legitimately be involved in terms of
suggetions etc. rather than sitting there frustrated in terms of not  being
able to contribute.

/\/\





"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> on 29/05/2001 12:24:47

Please respond to dq@dq.sf.org.nz

To:   dq@dq.sf.org.nz
cc:    (bcc: Mark Simpson/WestpacTrust/NZ)
Subject:  Re: [dq] Mind college




This spell encourages parties to split up. As a GM, that is generally a bad
thing, but this allows more player interaction while split up, which
ameliorates it. A slightly higher range would also help while flying -
otherwise people have to fly really close together to talk.

I'd be happy with the current range, or reduced to 10'/Rank to only use in
a
building, or up to 100'/Rank (which contains most small towns at Rank 6).
More than that encourages remote control roleplaying with everyone in on
the
action and excitement but only one or two taking the risks.

It should never encourage people to travel apart, which mile/Rank does.

Andrew


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Simpson [mailto:Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2001 11:22 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind college


Re Mind Speech

I'd like to see a greater range on this spell, something like 1 mile plus 1
per Level, or possibly even greater, rather than 30 feet plus 30 per.
Whilst it was a little OTT having in work anywhere on the same plane, as
i've seen the old version played, I don't think its unreasonable for it to
work, say, within a city throughout which  party members are dispersed.
This would add to the utility without making it too powerful, and given the
em of 400 I dont think that is unreasonable.

/\/\ark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

  The contents of this e-mail are confidential. If you have received this
 communication by mistake, please advise the sender immediately and delete
                     the message and any attachments.
 Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia




---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Andrew, this spell used to do two things:

1. Allow Silent communication which was more likely (but NOT guaranteed) to
be private/secret; and

2. Allow communication over distance.

I'd rate these things about equal in terms of utility and therefore if you
effectively remove one you should, roughly speaking, halve the EM. But as I
have previuosly said that is not what im pushing for.

Has the spell, as previously written, been badly abused? Given its fairly
limited duration (a couple of hours maximum) I doubt it. Sure the unlimited
range of the old version may have been a little OTT, but why cut the range
back to shouting distance? Is this a case (another case?) of tinkering for
the sake of tinkering?

Why not simply wipe the spell and get all guild members to learn one of
these strange off plane languauges that one of us has picked up. We will
re-name the language "guild speak" and make it a membership requirement to
all learn it to say rank 4. That way all guild members will have de facto
mind speech which will allow them to communicate to other guild members
with low to zero chance of being eavesdropped upon. Hey presto we all have
the new improved (as re-written) mind speech! (OK I know thats a bit of an
over-simplification but it serves to illustrate the point).

/\/\




---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

This is much clearer now - thanks.

You want feature #2.
I don't want feature #2 as a GM and don't care as a player.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Simpson [mailto:Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2001 1:31 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind Speech



Andrew, this spell used to do two things:

1. Allow Silent communication which was more likely (but NOT guaranteed) to
be private/secret; and

2. Allow communication over distance.

I'd rate these things about equal in terms of utility and therefore if you
effectively remove one you should, roughly speaking, halve the EM. But as I
have previuosly said that is not what im pushing for.

Has the spell, as previously written, been badly abused? Given its fairly
limited duration (a couple of hours maximum) I doubt it. Sure the unlimited
range of the old version may have been a little OTT, but why cut the range
back to shouting distance? Is this a case (another case?) of tinkering for
the sake of tinkering?

Why not simply wipe the spell and get all guild members to learn one of
these strange off plane languauges that one of us has picked up. We will
re-name the language "guild speak" and make it a membership requirement to
all learn it to say rank 4. That way all guild members will have de facto
mind speech which will allow them to communicate to other guild members
with low to zero chance of being eavesdropped upon. Hey presto we all have
the new improved (as re-written) mind speech! (OK I know thats a bit of an
over-simplification but it serves to illustrate the point).

/\/\




---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

I don't see why you differentiate the two, player and gm. Surely both are
participants in the game and can  look beyond their own persoanl
perspective to see what works best in the game? Or is this another veiled
"only GM's are allowed to have opinions" statement? I am, after all, a
"mere" player (in terms of DQ at least).

Yes I want feature #2 to stay and I want to get some sort of coherent
explanation as to why you (collectively?) want to change the spell to
remove it entirely.

Please do not insult me by implying that either I am only doing this out of
self interest (yes I have a mind mage) or by suggesting that as a "mere"
player my opinion has no worth.

/\/\





"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> on 29/05/2001 14:33:33

Please respond to dq@dq.sf.org.nz

To:   dq@dq.sf.org.nz
cc:    (bcc: Mark Simpson/WestpacTrust/NZ)
Subject:  Re: [dq] Mind Speech




This is much clearer now - thanks.

You want feature #2.
I don't want feature #2 as a GM and don't care as a player.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Simpson [mailto:Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2001 1:31 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind Speech



Andrew, this spell used to do two things:

1. Allow Silent communication which was more likely (but NOT guaranteed) to
be private/secret; and

2. Allow communication over distance.

I'd rate these things about equal in terms of utility and therefore if you
effectively remove one you should, roughly speaking, halve the EM. But as I
have previuosly said that is not what im pushing for.

Has the spell, as previously written, been badly abused? Given its fairly
limited duration (a couple of hours maximum) I doubt it. Sure the unlimited
range of the old version may have been a little OTT, but why cut the range
back to shouting distance? Is this a case (another case?) of tinkering for
the sake of tinkering?

Why not simply wipe the spell and get all guild members to learn one of
these strange off plane languauges that one of us has picked up. We will
re-name the language "guild speak" and make it a membership requirement to
all learn it to say rank 4. That way all guild members will have de facto
mind speech which will allow them to communicate to other guild members
with low to zero chance of being eavesdropped upon. Hey presto we all have
the new improved (as re-written) mind speech! (OK I know thats a bit of an
over-simplification but it serves to illustrate the point).

/\/\




---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

  The contents of this e-mail are confidential. If you have received this
 communication by mistake, please advise the sender immediately and delete
                     the message and any attachments.
 Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia




---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

> Yes I want feature #2 to stay and I want to get some sort of coherent
> explanation as to why you (collectively?) want to change the spell to
> remove it entirely.

I would like the feature removed as it makes communication too easy accross
distance and makes the addition of a number of possible plot elements
impossible. There are more than enough spells that exist only to ruin plots
and storylines and mindspeech is just another spell with no real reason for
existing other than telepathy is a mind "thing". I feel the best result is
it's complete removal however a removal of the ludicrous range is a good
start.

Mandos
/s


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

Player vs GM:
I think differently as a player and as a GM. When I am playing, I don't care
how Mind Speech works. When I an GMing, it is a spell that can cause
problems or inelegancies or whatever. I only notice it when I am thinking
that way. If, when playing, I notice a problem, I know that I am biased
towards that which helps the player rather than the game. Anything can be
rationalised, and I do so, often without realising - witness the variety of
illusionist posts I have made.

I was trying to point out that my concerns occured when GMing. I did not
intend to belittle you. And, yes I think that you are partially doing this
out of self-interest - people only put effort in if it makes their life
better. I know that I am doing this out of self-interest to make my life as
a GM better. If you don't expect to get anything out of your proposed change
(even if it is just satisfaction at a more sensible rule), you wouldn't put
effort in. This is what we get in a voluntary game.

If this is insulting you, I apologise for the offence and withdraw from this
conversation for fear of further damage.

Mandos summarised my main concerns - thanks. However, I like it for allowing
chat between players and for assistance in spying.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Simpson [mailto:Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2001 1:56 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind Speech



I don't see why you differentiate the two, player and gm. Surely both are
participants in the game and can  look beyond their own persoanl
perspective to see what works best in the game? Or is this another veiled
"only GM's are allowed to have opinions" statement? I am, after all, a
"mere" player (in terms of DQ at least).

Yes I want feature #2 to stay and I want to get some sort of coherent
explanation as to why you (collectively?) want to change the spell to
remove it entirely.

Please do not insult me by implying that either I am only doing this out of
self interest (yes I have a mind mage) or by suggesting that as a "mere"
player my opinion has no worth.

/\/\





"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> on 29/05/2001 14:33:33

Please respond to dq@dq.sf.org.nz

To:   dq@dq.sf.org.nz
cc:    (bcc: Mark Simpson/WestpacTrust/NZ)
Subject:  Re: [dq] Mind Speech




This is much clearer now - thanks.

You want feature #2.
I don't want feature #2 as a GM and don't care as a player.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Simpson [mailto:Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2001 1:31 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind Speech



Andrew, this spell used to do two things:

1. Allow Silent communication which was more likely (but NOT guaranteed) to
be private/secret; and

2. Allow communication over distance.

I'd rate these things about equal in terms of utility and therefore if you
effectively remove one you should, roughly speaking, halve the EM. But as I
have previuosly said that is not what im pushing for.

Has the spell, as previously written, been badly abused? Given its fairly
limited duration (a couple of hours maximum) I doubt it. Sure the unlimited
range of the old version may have been a little OTT, but why cut the range
back to shouting distance? Is this a case (another case?) of tinkering for
the sake of tinkering?

Why not simply wipe the spell and get all guild members to learn one of
these strange off plane languauges that one of us has picked up. We will
re-name the language "guild speak" and make it a membership requirement to
all learn it to say rank 4. That way all guild members will have de facto
mind speech which will allow them to communicate to other guild members
with low to zero chance of being eavesdropped upon. Hey presto we all have
the new improved (as re-written) mind speech! (OK I know thats a bit of an
over-simplification but it serves to illustrate the point).

/\/\




---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

  The contents of this e-mail are confidential. If you have received this
 communication by mistake, please advise the sender immediately and delete
                     the message and any attachments.
 Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia




---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

My $0.02 (GST exclusive)

I personally want the spell to stay pretty much as it is.

At Rk 0-5 it is a very secure "whisper" between two(or three) people in the
same room / building.

At Rk 10ish it has an ambush/counteratteck co-ordination utility as well
helping to ensure that the spokeperson/negotiator does speak for the party
without having to stop for consultation/translation.

At Rk 20 it can be used to co-ordinate a raid on a small-medium village or a
small formation of boats, not to mention a full party in flight.

Between these applications and the rationale that (two-way) mind to mind
communication is obviously desirable once one way has been demonstrated (and
I consider it being an obvious mind ability almost (0.85) enough reason for
it to be in the college)


Almost every spell in the game has the capability to destroy a plotline if
the plotline relies on a point the spell can circumvent. Anticipate, Adapt
or Allow!

TTFN,
Struan.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mandos Mitchinson <mandos@nz.asiaonline.net>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind Speech


>
> > Yes I want feature #2 to stay and I want to get some sort of coherent
> > explanation as to why you (collectively?) want to change the spell to
> > remove it entirely.
>
> I would like the feature removed as it makes communication too easy
accross
> distance and makes the addition of a number of possible plot elements
> impossible. There are more than enough spells that exist only to ruin
plots
> and storylines and mindspeech is just another spell with no real reason
for
> existing other than telepathy is a mind "thing". I feel the best result is
> it's complete removal however a removal of the ludicrous range is a good
> start.
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Just for the record, im not advocating  change - you are. I want the status
quo (or something closer to it than the re-write that is proposed that you
favour). Therefore, IMHO, the burden should be on those pushing for the
change to show why it is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

>
> > Yes I want feature #2 to stay and I want to get some sort of coherent
> > explanation as to why you (collectively?) want to change the spell to
> > remove it entirely.
>
> I would like the feature removed as it makes communication too easy
accross
> distance and makes the addition of a number of possible plot elements
> impossible. There are more than enough spells that exist only to ruin
plots
> and storylines and mindspeech is just another spell with no real reason
for
> existing other than telepathy is a mind "thing". I feel the best result is
> it's complete removal however a removal of the ludicrous range is a good
> start.
>

A good idea. To replace it why not a spell that allows you to send a message
as a dream? Range can be long(ish) and longer if the ITN is known. At the
big ranks one could send a hypnotic suggestion or something equally
unpleasant like a phantasm with an ITN.

But an actually fantasy spell would be too much to hope for :.-)

IMIO

William


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

One more opinion.

Mind speech has always been a welcome spell to find in the party, even though
I've never seen it used for miles-distant communication. (Indeed, whenever
range has been a factor, it has been short - have some GMs made use of these
new rules prior to them being official, or do I misunderstand the current
situation?)

My gut feeling is that range at rank 0 should be about 30 feet, and range at
max rank should be somewhere between 100 yards and a mile.

I'd probably have rated it as a 300EM spell.

Michael W.


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

We could argue/reminisce about the original version introduced in the game,
and how a supposedly modified version got into the rules.

We could say that many GMs have been playing the 30+30 "for ever" and this
is in fact a correction to reflect what is played - the status quo not being
the rules but the campaign.

We could say that it is part of the rewrite and many people have had input
to change the college in line with how it is played through a fairly strict
process with reviews & accountability.

We could discuss game & campaign effects and desirability, but I think we
have agreed to disagree.

We could just say that we want it that way.

We could argue on any of the above points.

Or we could vote.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Simpson [mailto:Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2001 2:40 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Mind Speech


Just for the record, im not advocating  change - you are. I want the status
quo (or something closer to it than the re-write that is proposed that you
favour). Therefore, IMHO, the burden should be on those pushing for the
change to show why it is required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Ok Andrew lets vote - I vote for ...

Hang on.

I don't get a vote ...

Guess that only leaves this forum, for all its weaknesses (and strengths)
for me to put forward my point of view.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are confidential.
If you have received this communication by mistake,
please advise the sender immediately and delete the message and
any attachments.
The views expressed in this e-mail are not necessarily the views of
Westpac Banking Corporation.
Westpac Banking Corporation is incorporated in New South Wales, Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Turn up to a "Gods" meeting and vote - you don't have to be a GM - I think
you have to be a player, to stop random weighting of votes.

Your vote counts as much as anyone else's.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
Ok Andrew lets vote - I vote for ...

Hang on.

I don't get a vote ...

Guess that only leaves this forum, for all its weaknesses (and strengths)
for me to put forward my point of view.


------


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

Dear All, and I do mean all,

the debate on Mind Speech has been useful as it hits close to the mark on
the purpose of the new document:
    to clarify how the college works so that everyone can use it equally and
fairly - and can even plan on a spell working as written!!!

a small clarification however <a voice in the back of your mind says "shut
up and listen you lot">:

Background
Mind Speech occured. It just happened. It won't go away. It was first
formalised as an A4 writeup for the Gods Manual <i think, please do not
correct me on this as it is but a small point>. It was learnt and played.

Several working attempts were made to include long range communication
spells. Mind Speech possibly grew into one. It gained a 'working range' of
planar for some GMs and then some players <with hilarious results>.

The variety of interpretations, of this and other spells, led to the need to
clarify the college - which began with a survey of players...
The survey of the mind college had a split result for the 'working' range of
Mind Speech - about 3 for long range to 2 for short range, but without any
clarity of what each would accept...

The gods meeting, at which I was given the job of compiling a clarification
after Jacqui's efforts, placed two requirements:
1    that Sense Danger talent not include a 'concentrate effect"
2    that Mind Speech only be effective if target remains within range, and
resumes if a target comes back into range. I took the range to imply that of
casting, namely 30 feet +30 per rank.
The range of Mind Speech was fully discussed then. It can be discussed
again. It should be resolved.


Commentary
The current range for Mind Speech is a direct result of a decision of the
gods
The spell exists, will remain and is useful. GMs either accept it or create
plot devices to stop it...
The gods can choose to reverse its decision, and/or to rebalance the EM.

Recommendation
Come to the Gods meeting.
    I do not wish a slanging match on this. We have opinions - respect them
    bring your idea on 'working range' and EM, propose it and justify it
(once without arguements)
    listen to the proposals of others
    vote on it (note the lack of iteration in the above)
    playtest the bloody thing (either as play test or probationary college)
    get on with life

>snip

cheers Ian

PS - I prefer Probationary as that will mean the NPCs will also use the
college and we can check how it balances out across many situations...

Ian


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

>
> Ok Andrew lets vote - I vote for ...
>
> Hang on.
>
> I don't get a vote ...
>
> Guess that only leaves this forum, for all its weaknesses (and strengths)
> for me to put forward my point of view.

Wot!

Of course you get a vote. The Guild does not restrict the old, female, poor,
slightly insane, completly insane or turnips from voting (or other non-root
vegetable).

If you go to a God's meeting you get to vote on whatever you like so long as
at least nine others are there voting with you.
If you don't go (like the rest of us slackers) you don't get to vote.
Or you can go and choose to abstain constantly and without provacation. In
which case you are informed but not really voting.

Democracy inaction !! :.-)

William

PS From observation the Turnips don't vote at all. But it is by choice.


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

At 10:56 28/05/2001 +1200, you wrote:
>Um - when did using Earth elementals become the old-fashioned way? And where
>do you get them if you feel pastoral and wish to honour traditional methods?
>- I've got a few problems that need clearing the old-fashioned way.

Ah... By the old-fashioned way I meant by chopping them down inside of 
burning them away - earth elementals are quite good at pushing trees over, 
and very good at carting the logs off to the nearest road for wagons to 
take them to the mill. They don't seem to get tired or bored, and don't 
damage easily.

Burning off perfectly good wood when you've got peasants who need housing 
is wasteful. And don't try to tell me that housing peasants is wasteful. 
I've learned that peasants work far better when you arrange for things like 
decent housing.

Flamis


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

> Burning off perfectly good wood when you've got peasants who need housing
> is wasteful. And don't try to tell me that housing peasants is wasteful.
> I've learned that peasants work far better when you arrange for things
like
> decent housing.

Not to mention that it is easier to get more (or more correctly not get
less) peasants if they have housing, especially in winter:
- no housing = decrease in peasants
- housing = increase in peasants {eventually.... I mean what else is there
to do when the candles have run out and the nights are so long. Cuts down on
the amount of wood you need to burn for heating as well, plus the lord
sometimes gives you a gift (Often candles ;-?)}.

Gerald.


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

> > Burning off perfectly good wood when you've got peasants who need
housing
> > is wasteful. And don't try to tell me that housing peasants is wasteful.
> > I've learned that peasants work far better when you arrange for things
> like
> > decent housing.
>
> Not to mention that it is easier to get more (or more correctly not get
> less) peasants if they have housing, especially in winter:
> - no housing = decrease in peasants
> - housing = increase in peasants {eventually.... I mean what else is there
> to do when the candles have run out and the nights are so long. Cuts down
on
> the amount of wood you need to burn for heating as well, plus the lord
> sometimes gives you a gift (Often candles ;-?)}.
>
> Gerald.
>

But what is it that peasants do?
I've been trying to understand it all but it makes no sense.
Someone told me they were the basis for a feudal economy but what has that
got to do with hitting the ground with sticks?
I've noticed that occasionally they are placed in peril and then must be
rescued by adventurers. Is this how they act on an economy? By placing
themselves in peril they attract adventurers who spend money (unless they're
dwarves).
Please help as it's all beyond me.

Algarloth


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

At 13:22 29/05/2001 +1200, you wrote:
>What does increasing the range to ~ 5-10 miles do to benefit the
>game/campaign (not the PC)? How does this differ in practise from the
>unlimited range but 1-2 hours duration that the spell has, and is being
>changed from by (near) unanimous agreement?

I'd personally support a compromise of the working range of the spell being 
of the order of 200ft + 200/rank which has the effect of:
a) allowing communication while flying at low ranks - the duration is a 
little low for this to be practical however, so maybe increasing duration 
might be helpful - perhaps to 30 minutes + 10/rank, or even 30 minutes + 
30/rank to match the duration on wings.
b) allowing coordination of parties spread out while fighting at low ranks 
(this is why my character bought the spell, after a particularly 
unfortunate incident)
c) information gathering across small towns at medium ranks without player 
boredom setting in - the party is never truly separated so all can contribute.
d) communication in larger towns as ranks increase.

Mind Speech is one of the few spells in the game which has communication as 
its primary focus, allowing party members and therefore players to 
participate more in the action, so it's a spell we all benefit from having 
work well - but not too well!

Jacqui


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

At 16:44 29/05/2001 +1200, you wrote:
>Mind Speech occured. It just happened. It won't go away. It was first
>formalised as an A4 writeup for the Gods Manual <i think, please do not
>correct me on this as it is but a small point>. It was learnt and played.

Somehow it got onto the list of spells available at the Guild, without 
there being any official write-up. I found an unofficial version somewhere, 
when I decided my character should buy it (after the aforementioned 
incident) and I believe that what we have derives from that.

Jacqui


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

Grain prices have risen, this means the very poor will
starve and die unless either
1) They become farmers
2) Grain prices lower ( Cannot be done easily or
nicely )

Now first off sending the very poor, destitutes from
seagate can be done using a poll tax, this can be done
each year to maintain the level of cheap labour for
"sweat shops" but not too high so disease and
starvation become and issue. The poor are probably not
good farmers, which is why they came to the city, so
setting them up on poorpers farms giving them five
acres of land a couple of 100 sp tool kits and 20
bushells of grain per family will hopefully keep them
alive (just) they will be serfs to pay for this
generosity. ( About 350 SP + hovel per family )

Second Seagate has a population of 8000, I say this as
it has lowered due to resettlement and starvation etc
should bring it back to pre-baronies war levels. 1600
families need 8lb of grain a day food or about 60
bushells per year, us rich types eat more expensive
fare I know. So Seagate consumes about 96 thousand
bushells of grain per year, we are HUGE.

A very good farm using a three crop rotation ( wheat,
oats ( for horses ) and fallow of fifty acres, about
the max a good farmer can run produces about 20
bushells per acre max off the third in wheat, about a
fifth of this can be sold, about 1/6 is seed grain and

the rest is eaten. Given this every 50 acre farm of 5
peasants will produce 330 bushells of which only 66
can go to market.
Seagate therefore needs about 1450 such farms on over
72 thousand acres (111 sq miles ) of land to support
it in grain alone run by nearly the population of
seagte. ( Barastor only supplied some of our grain
given these figures ? ( how many refugees were there)

Land Clearing 
One man can clear one chord ( 1.25Tons aprox) of wood
a day inc stumpage. Average forest has 35 chords per
acre. We have 90 days in winter.

To clear by axe enough land for just a fifth of
Seagates grain needs would require that 290 farms be
cleared, this is 14,500 acres or 1390 man years work (
we have 90 days of winter before plowing) It cannot be
done nicely ( BURNING is the only option my fellows )

Only about a fifth of the land in the forest will be
flat and ariable ( my guess I could be wrong here ) so
the fire mages will be required to burn to ASH over 22
square miles of land out of 100 square miles the farms
are located on. This is buring 65 thousand tons of
wood !!!!!!!!! Think HUGE fire.

600 plow horses and 300 plows /tools and farming
families will also be needed ( are these available ? )

Arnaud De Montfort, Merchant Adventurer


=====
cheers noel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/


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

Mark Simpson wrote:
> 
> I don't see why you differentiate the two, player and gm. Surely both are
> participants in the game and can  look beyond their own persoanl
> perspective to see what works best in the game? Or is this another veiled
> "only GM's are allowed to have opinions" statement? I am, after all, a
> "mere" player (in terms of DQ at least).

This comment is typical of a person who has never DMed with any kind of
regularity.

If you had DMed, and in a continuous campaign, then you would be looking
at how things can benefit the GAME, rather than a player.

Any rule that makes it hard for a DM to administer is doomed to failure,
and it doesn't matter if their is an unanimous decision on the part of
the playership that this rule be adopted. Ultimately, DMs are here to
have fun. Now, you can play without a PC mind mage, but you cannot play
without a DM.

I don't see any particular advantage in allowing this spell a mile plus
a mile per Rank range. It's already one of the longest range spells in
the game, and it's not like a Mind Mage is forced to learn it.

If they don't like it, then they won't learn it. They can spend their
loot on other things, then. More power to them, I say.
> 
> Yes I want feature #2 to stay and I want to get some sort of coherent
> explanation as to why you (collectively?) want to change the spell to
> remove it entirely.

Do you Mark? This is my caring face about what you want. 
You might try asking.
No, better yet, grovel.

> Please do not insult me by implying that either I am only doing this out of
> self interest (yes I have a mind mage) or by suggesting that as a "mere"
> player my opinion has no worth.

How would you prefer to be insulted? I'm quite prepared to offer you any
variety of insults, if it will make you shut up.
 
Jim.


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

For those who are interested, my recollection of the history of Mind Speech
goes something like this :

It was introduced to our campaign by Pete Simunovich around 1984 or 1985.
I believe that Bab El Ehr was the first character to learn it.  Pete
deliberately introduced it as a teachable spell to increase the number of
Special Knowlege spells in the Mind College.  The write up was something
like :
	All stats the same as Telepathy.
	Allows communication with 1 (+ 1/Rank) targets provided they stay
		within range.

Some GMs allowed characters to resume communication if they came back
within range, and other GMs did not.

I was very surprised when I saw the first write up of Mind Speech to appear
in our rules.  At the time I strongly pushed for the write up to be
restricted by range as above, and for the stats to be the same as Telepathy.

I can only surmise, that some other GM introduced a different version of
the spell, or that it mutated via some form of Chinese whispers as
characters taught each other.

It probably doesn't add much to the discussion, but people were asking ...

Cheers,
	Brent. 


At 17:30 29/05/01 +1200, Jacqui Smith wrote:
>At 16:44 29/05/2001 +1200, you wrote:
>>Mind Speech occured. It just happened. It won't go away. It was first
>>formalised as an A4 writeup for the Gods Manual <i think, please do not
>>correct me on this as it is but a small point>. It was learnt and played.
>
>Somehow it got onto the list of spells available at the Guild, without 
>there being any official write-up. I found an unofficial version somewhere, 
>when I decided my character should buy it (after the aforementioned 
>incident) and I believe that what we have derives from that.
>
>Jacqui
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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