Jim Arona wrote:

> Ian wrote:
>
>  > Mind Cloak is also in Wiccan, which now differs from Mind college.
> >
> > Apparently our rule conventions require spells of the same name to operate
> > in the same manner (have the same effects) - so we should either:
> > 1    change the name of these spells...
> > 2    rejig the ...Wiccan Mind Cloak...

> If you want to change the name of the Mind College Mind Cloak spell, I
> suggest Dream Shield.

I like Jim's "Dream" idea but it goes better (IMHO) with Witch rather than Mind
College -- which I see as harder edged.  The Mind version of the spell gives an
additional resistance vs. Mental Attack and is also the "harder" (like armour)
version of the spell.

Mind intro: "The College of Sorceries of the Mind deals primarily with controlling
or influencing the minds of others..."
Witchcraft intro: "The College of Witchcraft is concerned with natural magics, the
rhythms of the world..."

So... Shields being harder than cloaks, and Minds being focus of the Mind College:

Mind Shield  -- Mind Mages  (also nominally consistent with S2. Force Shield)
Dream Cloak -- Witches

Cheers,
Martin

--

 _/_/  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 --

Just to be reactionary, isn't everyone going to still keep calling them Mind
Cloaks, and isn't that going to be confusing? Why not add the mental attack
resistance to witchcraft and call them both mind cloak.

Reminds me of Mark Harrison still calling quickness "Speed" after ?18? years

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
> suggest Dream Shield.


Mind Shield  -- Mind Mages  (also nominally consistent with S2. Force
Shield)
Dream Cloak -- Witches


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

If you are looking at changing the wording of E&E and Witchcraft spells to
align them with (or differentiate them from) Mind, can you make their Evil
Eye spells the same or called different names? I'd prefer for them to be the
same - and probably the witch version, as it doesn't do much for a EM300
spell.

Andrew


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

Noel Livingston wrote:

> I suggest a straight +10% bounus if the ITN is known...

Not to dissuade you from making suggestions; just an historical note.
Names were retained in the revised Namer in more or less their present
form in response to strong feeling from the polled Namers and GMs that
they remain so.

> True speak
> Please make this non-actively resistable...

Errr... you mean "Passively" resistable?  It is.  Or do you mean remove
the "Active" resistance?

> True form
> Does this fix up shapechangers who have been out in the dark to long ?

I believe it would.  Whilst the animal form of PC type Shapechangers is
certainly "true" for them, they are primarily humanoid, and being stuck
in animal form is not "true".  The ritual wouldn't logically force them
back into human form if they were voluntarily in animal form, but it
should force them back into their "true" mutable form from a single
stuck form.  (Clear as mud?)

--

 _/_/  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 --

At 18:40 16/06/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Greater Enchantment
>Duration:Till next Beltane,Lugnsad,Samhain or
>Candemasa
>Experience:125
>Base Chance 80 + 1 per rank
>Target:Group must include caster (max 1 + 1 per rank)
>Cast Time:1 hour
>Materials: 1 ounce of black myrrh(+1 per rank)
>Effects: The targets of this ritual must form a circle
>and smoke the black myrrh, they all gain +1, +1 per
>rank to all base chances,strike checks etc. The
>effects will only affect the group when together and
>will temporarily dissipate if they separate. At rank20
>the E&E may separate from the group without the
>effects dissipating.
>
>OK Why
>------
>1) Low level games, ive been on several with people
>with greaters recently (one had a R20) this is
>generally the richest / toughest member and they then
>get to dominate the group as they are the best at
>everything, great fun for one player, boring for all
>the others.
>2) E&E's rarely need to rank this ritual apart from
>giving cheapies to the players in return for the money
>for a R11 one from the guild, this would make it very
>worthwile ranking
>3) R20 still gives a good bonus and allows money
>grabbing to occur, it also allows the gm to power up a
>party using the friendly wizard thingie.
>4) The level of the greater will generally match the
>level of the party, unless a very high level E&E goes
>slumming
>5) The gm has control over the greaters in the group
>and can power up the party using a friendly R20 or an
>NPC E&E of lower rank can join the party, no flow on
>from previous adventures as ends when powers of light
>holiday occur.
>6) Holds party together, if one person goes off on his
>own little private mission, fine but they loose the
>greater bonus, good to do things as a team
>
>Comments / Flames / Abuse
>GM's ?
>E&E's ?
>Low / Mid / High players ?

This change makes having an E&E even more essential to party survival, 
something I find annoying as it is.

I suggest that the problem is not ordinary greaters - the cost on those is 
so prohibitive that only wealthy medium and medium-high characters can 
afford them. It's the permanent Rank 20 greaters that are the problem - 
since they can be given out as reward to relatively low level adventurers, 
and stick around to annoy GM after GM.

So, I have a suggestion. To make the ritual permanent, an E&E must expand 
one permanent point of MA - which can be bought back in the normal way, but 
would make most mages think very carefully before contemplating performing 
permanent greaters.

I'd also suggest that if this change be made, all existing greaters run out 
suddenly - at perhaps some major celestial event, occuring no more that a 
year after the change is made in the rules.

Jacqui


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

"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote:

> Just to be reactionary, isn't everyone going to still keep calling them Mind
> Cloaks, and isn't that going to be confusing? Why not add the mental attack
> resistance to witchcraft and call them both mind cloak.

Practical -- humbug.  :)

OK... simplest name change; Mind college version to "Mind Shield".

> Reminds me of Mark Harrison still calling quickness "Speed" after ?18? years

Yes, and even stranger... Quickness has never been called Speed in any version
of the rules.  :)

--

 _/_/  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 --

Jacqui Smith wrote:

> So, I have a suggestion. To make the ritual permanent, an E&E must expand
> one permanent point of MA - which can be bought back in the normal way, but
> would make most mages think very carefully before contemplating performing
> permanent greaters.

This wouldn't prevent GMs giving them out, as their NPCs have as much MA as
they (the GM) wish (although it does make a permanent greater a 'bigger deal',
and so might reduce the number.)

Perhaps make it cost a point of MA from the recipient? But then GMs can just
give the greater and an extra 5000 EP if they wish. Also, it now effectively
would cost 7500 EP (plus racial penalties) to die and be resurrected if you
had a permanent greater - encouraging more PC cowardice.


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

Just re-read my email and thought I should clarify it a bit...

I like the idea, but there are a few details that need to be worked out...
1) Andrews (and Scotts) issue with the E&E needing to be there.  I think
that there should be a bonus for E&E's being part of the group but it should
not be a requirement. 
a - My idea of halving the materials costs if the E&E is part of the group
is obviously the best solution for this :}
b - Increased effect if E&E is in group.
c - Increased area.
d - The ability to change the size/composition of the group.

2) How close together does the group have to be to gain the benefits?
a - Touching? - ICK!  Parties wandering around holding hands, I think NOT!
b - 10's of feet accross area (e.g. 10' +5/r) - too small, would require too
much time working out whether everyone is in range, optimising movement on
the tactical grid to keep everyone within range.  Too much hassle.
c - A couple of hundred foot area (e.g. 50' +50/r) - covers most situations
during an adventure.
d - A couple of miles - means you would have to actively go out of your way
to leave the area.

3) How many people need to be in the group?  And how many can be in the
group?  If there is no upper cap then you could enchant entire armies.
a - How about 10 +/- 1 per 2 ranks.  At low levels you have to include your
horses and pets and then keep them with you the entire adventure.  At Rank
10 you can do normal size parties with or without their mounts.  And at Rank
18 your could do one person or a small unit in an army.
b - Or 10 and 1%, and then for each rank in the ritual you can increase or
decrease the size of the group by 1 or add 1% to the effect.  e.g. Rank 11
on a group of 6 will give them all +8%, or if they want +12% then they have
to include mounts/pets.  And a Rank 20 ritual could give +12% to one person.
And the only way to get +21% is to get a Rk 20 ritual on a group of 10.

4) What happens if one of the group dies?
a - Ritual ceases. - Simple.
b - Size of group required decreases.
c - Size of group required decreases and benefit decreases.
d - Effect is in hiatus until the dead member is resurrected and rejoins the
group.  - This implies an effect beyond death which I don't like.

My preference:
1a and/or d, 2c, 3b, 4a.

Cheers, Stephen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Stephen Martin [SMTP:stephenm@qed.co.nz]
> Sent:	Sunday, 17 June 2001 15:41
> To:	dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject:	Re: [dq] Greater Enchantment
> 
> How about halving the monetary cost of the ritual if the E&E is part of
> the
> group affected.
> How close together do they have to be to get the bonus?  All within a 50
> foot diameter (+50 per rank) or none of them get the bonus?
> 
> Cheers, Stephen.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [SMTP:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]
> > Sent:	Sunday, 17 June 2001 15:33
> > To:	dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > Subject:	Re: [dq] Greater Enchantment
> > 
> > Neding to have an E&E with you becomes even more essential with this
> > ritual
> > change - as if quickness, sleep, locate and the rest of the utility
> spells
> > weren't enough. Otherwise, I liek this depowerment.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Noel Livingston [mailto:arnauddemontfort@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, 17 June 2001 1:41 p.m.
> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > Subject: [dq] Greater Enchantment
> > 
> > 
> > Greater Enchantment
> > Duration:Till next Beltane,Lugnsad,Samhain or
> > Candemasa
> > Experience:125
> > Base Chance 80 + 1 per rank
> > Target:Group must include caster (max 1 + 1 per rank)
> > Cast Time:1 hour
> > Materials: 1 ounce of black myrrh(+1 per rank)
> > Effects: The targets of this ritual must form a circle
> > and smoke the black myrrh, they all gain +1, +1 per
> > rank to all base chances,strike checks etc. The
> > effects will only affect the group when together and
> > will temporarily dissipate if they separate. At rank20
> > the E&E may separate from the group without the
> > effects dissipating.
> > 
> > OK Why
> > ------
> > 1) Low level games, ive been on several with people
> > with greaters recently (one had a R20) this is
> > generally the richest / toughest member and they then
> > get to dominate the group as they are the best at
> > everything, great fun for one player, boring for all
> > the others.
> > 2) E&E's rarely need to rank this ritual apart from
> > giving cheapies to the players in return for the money
> > for a R11 one from the guild, this would make it very
> > worthwile ranking
> > 3) R20 still gives a good bonus and allows money
> > grabbing to occur, it also allows the gm to power up a
> > party using the friendly wizard thingie.
> > 4) The level of the greater will generally match the
> > level of the party, unless a very high level E&E goes
> > slumming
> > 5) The gm has control over the greaters in the group
> > and can power up the party using a friendly R20 or an
> > NPC E&E of lower rank can join the party, no flow on
> > from previous adventures as ends when powers of light
> > holiday occur.
> > 6) Holds party together, if one person goes off on his
> > own little private mission, fine but they loose the
> > greater bonus, good to do things as a team
> > 
> > Comments / Flames / Abuse 
> > GM's ?
> > E&E's ?
> > Low / Mid / High players ?
> > 
> > This ritual is my pet hate.
> > 
> > =====
> > cheers noel
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
> > http://buzz.yahoo.com/
> > 
> > 
> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I hear most bitching on GE from GM's on characters with permanent rank 20, esp. low to low-med characters.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Some thoughts occurred to me</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- how many GM's giving them out remember to tax the character/s for the 21000 sp of treasure they just gave out </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- I don't have time right now to work the numbers but is there any way we could do a rank vs time matrix? &nbsp;EG </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">at rank 6 the adept could make +1 permanent, </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">at rank 10 +3 permanent, </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">at rank 16 +5 permanent and </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">at rank 20 +10 permanent. &nbsp;</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">This permanent bonus could then stack with other normal duration limited GE's but up to a maximum on +21.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">It cuts down in the 'easy' +21 permanent bonus but still gives E&amp;E's reason to rank the ritual.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">??? </font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">&lt;aside&gt; I still have 41 emails from out last discussion on GE - and that never came close to a consensus of a sensible way forward.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Rosemary</font>

--- Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@peace.com> wrote:
> Noel Livingston wrote:
> > True speak
> > Please make this non-actively resistable...
> 
> Errr... you mean "Passively" resistable?  It is.  Or
> do you mean remove
> the "Active" resistance?

I mean remove active resistance, as consious
sacrificial victims are more fun.

=====
cheers noel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/


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

Stephen's idea is too complex - I think. Maybe I just didn't understand it.
Obviously its a concentration ritual - the E&E's player needs to keep track
of it full time, adjusting the bonuses up and down as people return from the
shops. Then, if they start doing other things (e.g. quickness) and lose
track of the bonus, no one gets any bonus until the E&E resumes
concentration.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephenm@qed.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 18 June 2001 10:14 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Greater Enchantment


Just re-read my email and thought I should clarify it a bit...

1)d - The ability to change the size/composition of the group.

2) How close together does the group have to be to gain the benefits?
c - A couple of hundred foot area (e.g. 50' +50/r) - covers most situations
during an adventure.

3) How many people need to be in the group?  And how many can be in the
group?  If there is no upper cap then you could enchant entire armies.
b - Or 10 and 1%, and then for each rank in the ritual you can increase or
decrease the size of the group by 1 or add 1% to the effect.  e.g. Rank 11
on a group of 6 will give them all +8%, or if they want +12% then they have
to include mounts/pets.  And a Rank 20 ritual could give +12% to one person.
And the only way to get +21% is to get a Rk 20 ritual on a group of 10.

4) What happens if one of the group dies?
a - Ritual ceases. - Simple.
b - Size of group required decreases.
c - Size of group required decreases and benefit decreases.
d - Effect is in hiatus until the dead member is resurrected and rejoins the
group.  - This implies an effect beyond death which I don't like.

My preference:
1a and/or d, 2c, 3b, 4a.

Cheers, Stephen.


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

Noel Livingston wrote:

> I mean remove active resistance, as consious sacrificial victims are
> more fun.

Absolutely.  From 7.8 Active Resistance:  "Anything that can disrupt
Spell preparation can also disrupt Active Resistance". Just get Igor
your faithful servant to keep poking them with a stick.

This tip brought to you by the NWO: "Namers for World Oppression".

--

 _/_/  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 --

So why make it actively resistable - active resistance for a ritual seems
pointless - unless its a union ploy by the Igors.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com]
Sent: Monday, 18 June 2001 10:50 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] True Speak(reply to martin)


Noel Livingston wrote:

> I mean remove active resistance, as consious sacrificial victims are
> more fun.

Absolutely.  From 7.8 Active Resistance:  "Anything that can disrupt
Spell preparation can also disrupt Active Resistance". Just get Igor
your faithful servant to keep poking them with a stick.

This tip brought to you by the NWO: "Namers for World Oppression".

--


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

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
RMansfield@aj.co.nz wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><font face="sans-serif"><font size=-1>- I don't have
time right now to work the numbers but is there any way we could do a rank
vs time matrix?&nbsp; EG</font></font>
<br><font face="sans-serif"><font size=-1>at rank 6 the adept could make
+1 permanent,</font></font>
<br><font face="sans-serif"><font size=-1>at rank 10 +3 permanent,</font></font>
<br><font face="sans-serif"><font size=-1>at rank 16 +5 permanent and</font></font>
<br><font face="sans-serif"><font size=-1>at rank 20 +10 permanent.</font></font>
<br><font face="sans-serif"><font size=-1>This permanent bonus could then
stack with other normal duration limited GE's but up to a maximum on +21.</font></font>
<p><font face="sans-serif"><font size=-1>It cuts down in the 'easy' +21
permanent bonus but still gives E&amp;E's reason to rank the ritual.</font></font></blockquote>
I like this idea - permanent greaters are less effective, and GMs have
the option of giving them at various levels, instead of +21 only.
<p>Standard rules would say that if you have a permanent, then any temporary
greater cast has no effect until the permanent goes away somehow. I'd like
to see this apply if a change like this came in - then the permanents are
a medium level thing, as high level characters can afford to pay for a
better temporary greater each adventure, and don't want a permanent 'getting
in the way'. Another method would be to have just the 'greater greater'
take effect. Adding both effects seems too tough and contrary to how other
magics work.
<p>Michael.</html>


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

Oh alright,

The somewhat more sensible reply that I sent off-list to Noel:

Many GMs (and players) are opposed to truth telling abilities and several
down-sides were introduced with this one to cause screaming and whining to
abate.  There are ways around it if the Namer is nasty... conversely, for
highly ethical Namers (and there are a few of those), pressuring a captive
should create a nice moral dilemma.

From a PC point of view it gives slightly more interactive opportunity, in
that they can choose to spend their time in active defiance -- and attempt to
make WP saves against Igor's stick.

Although Active Resistance is not explicit on the subject I have usually seen
it played (and have always GMed it myself) that you have to be able to
"target" the Mage in order to Actively Resist them.  So rather than knocking
captives out, another option is tie them up facing the wrong way, or
blindfold them.

"So, you expect me to talk?"
"No Mr. Bond, I expect you to.... err... talk.  Damn!  Igor!  Poke him with a
stick!"

---

"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" wrote:

> So why make it actively resistable - active resistance for a ritual seems
> pointless - unless its a union ploy by the Igors.
>
> Andrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com]
> Sent: Monday, 18 June 2001 10:50 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] True Speak(reply to martin)
>
> Noel Livingston wrote:
>
> > I mean remove active resistance, as consious sacrificial victims are
> > more fun.
>
> Absolutely.  From 7.8 Active Resistance:  "Anything that can disrupt
> Spell preparation can also disrupt Active Resistance". Just get Igor
> your faithful servant to keep poking them with a stick.
>
> This tip brought to you by the NWO: "Namers for World Oppression".
>
> --
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

--

 _/_/  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 --

Ok, taking out the options I don't like and removing the need to determine
the square root of indefinite numbers, here is the write-up...

Greater Enchantment
Duration: Current Season, Rank 20 = 1 Year.
Experience: 125
Base Chance: 80 + 1 per rank
Target: Entity
Cast Time: 1 hour
Materials: 1 ounce of black myrrh (+1 per rank)
Effects: The adept may enchant 10 entities to have +1% on all BC%, SC%, MR,
etc (as now).
When performing the ritual, the adept may increase or decrease the number of
targets by 1 OR increase the benefit by 1% per rank in the ritual.
To receive the benefit the targets must be within 50 feet (+50 per rank) of
each other.  If any of the targets move further away then none of the
targets get the benefit.
If the effect of the ritual is removed from one of the targets (e.g. by
death) then the ritual effect ceases for all targets.
If the adept includes themselves as part of the group then the material
requirement is halved.  Also the adept may add and remove members of the
group by performing the ritual again (without requiring materials) provided
that the group size remains the same.


btw Credit for the idea lies with Noel, I'm just fleshing out the details...

Cheers, Stephen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [SMTP:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]
> Sent:	Monday, 18 June 2001 10:34
> To:	dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject:	Re: [dq] Greater Enchantment
> 
> Stephen's idea is too complex - I think. Maybe I just didn't understand
> it.
> Obviously its a concentration ritual - the E&E's player needs to keep
> track
> of it full time, adjusting the bonuses up and down as people return from
> the
> shops. Then, if they start doing other things (e.g. quickness) and lose
> track of the bonus, no one gets any bonus until the E&E resumes
> concentration.
> 
> Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephenm@qed.co.nz]
> Sent: Monday, 18 June 2001 10:14 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Greater Enchantment
> 
> 
> Just re-read my email and thought I should clarify it a bit...
> 
> 1)d - The ability to change the size/composition of the group.
> 
> 2) How close together does the group have to be to gain the benefits?
> c - A couple of hundred foot area (e.g. 50' +50/r) - covers most
> situations
> during an adventure.
> 
> 3) How many people need to be in the group?  And how many can be in the
> group?  If there is no upper cap then you could enchant entire armies.
> b - Or 10 and 1%, and then for each rank in the ritual you can increase or
> decrease the size of the group by 1 or add 1% to the effect.  e.g. Rank 11
> on a group of 6 will give them all +8%, or if they want +12% then they
> have
> to include mounts/pets.  And a Rank 20 ritual could give +12% to one
> person.
> And the only way to get +21% is to get a Rk 20 ritual on a group of 10.
> 
> 4) What happens if one of the group dies?
> a - Ritual ceases. - Simple.
> b - Size of group required decreases.
> c - Size of group required decreases and benefit decreases.
> d - Effect is in hiatus until the dead member is resurrected and rejoins
> the
> group.  - This implies an effect beyond death which I don't like.
> 
> My preference:
> 1a and/or d, 2c, 3b, 4a.
> 
> Cheers, Stephen.
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

On Monday, June 18, 2001, at 11:14  AM, Stephen Martin wrote:

> Greater Enchantment
> Duration: Current Season, Rank 20 = 1 Year.
> Experience: 125
> Base Chance: 80 + 1 per rank
> Target: Entity
> Cast Time: 1 hour
> Materials: 1 ounce of black myrrh (+1 per rank)
> Effects: The adept may enchant 10 entities to have +1% on all BC%, SC%, 
> MR,
> etc (as now).
> When performing the ritual, the adept may increase or decrease the 
> number of
> targets by 1 OR increase the benefit by 1% per rank in the ritual.
> To receive the benefit the targets must be within 50 feet (+50 per 
> rank) of
> each other.  If any of the targets move further away then none of the
> targets get the benefit.
> If the effect of the ritual is removed from one of the targets (e.g. by
> death) then the ritual effect ceases for all targets.
> If the adept includes themselves as part of the group then the material
> requirement is halved.  Also the adept may add and remove members of the
> group by performing the ritual again (without requiring materials) 
> provided
> that the group size remains the same.

Am I right in understanding that enchanting *less* than 10 targets 
requires reducing the bonus? So at rank 10:

enchant 10 entities with +11%
enchant 1 entity with +2%
enchant 19 entities with +2%

clare


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

Yes.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Clare West [SMTP:clare@cs.auckland.ac.nz]
> Sent:	Monday, 18 June 2001 11:21
> To:	dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject:	Re: [dq] Greater Enchantment
> 
> Am I right in understanding that enchanting *less* than 10 targets 
> requires reducing the bonus? So at rank 10:
> 
> enchant 10 entities with +11%
> enchant 1 entity with +2%
> enchant 19 entities with +2%
> 
> clare
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

Whilst I think there are some good ideas in the suggestion, ultimately
making the E&E have to be part of the group makes E&E's vital in every
medium to high party. Surely we don't want to make one class so desirable
at the expense of the others?
Furthermore, do gm's (and players for that matter) really want to try to
work out exactly how far apart the players are in a melee situation in
order to work out if the qualify for the bonus?  Basically I dont like the
new suggested ritual.

I think its time to look at the problem differently. We could keep
tinkering with the ritual, but the basic probelms remain (and we seem to
want to add new ones). We could keep making Greaters more and more
expensive, but I have never liked the idea of trying to ration game
resources by $$. Do we want to encourage guild members to pursue financial
gain to an even  greater extent than some already do? Why should only rich
characters (and there are some out there who have accumulated vast piles)
be able to gain the benefit of greaters? (especially as different gm's have
very different ideas on appropriate $$$ rewards ...).

As I see it there it coms down to only one basic choice - you either have
greaters or you don't. While they add considerably to base chances, do they
actaully add anything to the game? Why not just take them out completely?
Basically when you get to medium to high level parties eveyone has them
anyway, inculding the NPC's, so they all cancel each other out (and are a
real pain in those in between adventures when some characters do and some
dont).  Also the "until death" duration just encourages overly cautious
play which cannot be a good thing.

So why have them at all??? What im suggesting here is a big change but
perhaps one worth considering (along with changing death aspect - which is
another huge advantage which you don't even need to pay for but can just
roll for ...). Anyway I digress.

To do so I would suggest a graduated take out - rank 20's to expire in one
year from date of annoucement, less than rank 20 to cease to be available
from the session the ranks 20's run out. E&E's to get full ep refund. We
should proably alos consider adding 10% to the base chance of all spell and
rituals, or make ranks worth 4% each, as it seems a lot of the high EM
special spells and rituals have been designed with low base chances,
factoring in Greaters. Without Greater a such a spell with say a 1% base
chance, will have a 61% base chance if ranked to twenty. That still gives
an approx 10% chance of backfiring when pulse cast , and thats at rank
twenty. Same spell could be ranked to 16 with a greater to give a 49% base
plus 21 for Greater = 70% base chance = only 1% backfire.

By adopting the 4% per rank for base chance  determination (say), the
higher level characters get a semi-substitute for thier lost greaters as
they are the ones how should have the high ranked spells. Persoanlly I'd
leave strike chances and combat stuff alone (i've always found the claims
of "i have 160% chance to hit" hard to take from a suspension of disbelief
standpoint - but thats another issue).

Ok I have thrown the grenade out there - who wants to dive on it?

(ducking  for cover with hands over ears)

/\/\
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 --

Greaters were essential on those god-bothering adventures that were as
common as muck until recently. Now we struggle to fill the Medium-Highs.
Maybe we've lost the chunk of adventurers who needed superheroic numbers to
survive.

I'd be keen on (a) removing permanent greaters, or (b) having them affect
one area only (spells/weapons/MR/skills/stats). Destroying them altogether
would be fine too. I agree they add nothing to flavour except bigger
numbers, and DQ is a system based on being able to fail.

It also separates the fighter/mages from the specialist mages or fighters
further too, as a 10% difference in BC matters more when you can fail/BF
your spells.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Simpson [mailto:Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz]


As I see it there it comes down to only one basic choice - you either have
greaters or you don't. 

So why have them at all???


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

As an option, why not make life rougher for characters with permanent
greaters if they're not preventing apocalypses, sealing rifts, hunting
squids, resurrecting gods or giving the folk in Masada a hard time. Actually
you could make it harder for them as well but they won't notice.

While characters are only slightly easier to kill than a MkV Ogre it can
still be done. If a character isn't acting heroically  with such a bonus
consider the 'Fatal Beating' as a remedy. Alternativly dock some ep because
they are not contributing as much as they could be.

IMEO
William

"Your boy would of been a lot different if he had a few fatal beatings early
on in life" - R. Atkinson (paraphrased)

"Kill them, kill them all." - J.Hook


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

On Monday, June 18, 2001, at 12:03  PM, Andrew Withy (DSL AK) wrote:

> Greaters were essential on those god-bothering adventures that were as
> common as muck until recently. Now we struggle to fill the Medium-Highs.
> Maybe we've lost the chunk of adventurers who needed superheroic 
> numbers to
> survive.

Well maybe they are a struggle to fill, but the medium adventure 
Ithilmor is on is full of high characters looking for a high adventure 
and only finding medium ones to go on. There is only one character that 
the GM (Jon) classifies as medium among us. But some of those characters 
would I am sure reduce back down to medium if their greaters we removed 
(Ithilmor would I think).

But we have also lost a chunk of high level adventurers (several of the 
Engalgoons for example).

clare

PS I hate the proposed Greater Enchantment Ritual - maybe I'll come up 
with some good justifications^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^reasons for that 
later.

clare


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

Don't completely remove greater enchantment - just change a few details of how
it is cast, and move it to the Greater Summoning college. :-)

(Personally, I'm fine with greaters being removed. Remember to refund training
time as well, as this is more significant than the EP.)


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

If greaters were scraped then Gm's running God bothering adventures could
always make appropriate adjustments to those games as required to allow for
their removal. In any event the greaters were only essential cos everbody
else (pc and npc alike) had to be expected to have one.




"Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> on 18/06/2001 12:03:34

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

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




Greaters were essential on those god-bothering adventures that were as
common as muck until recently. Now we struggle to fill the Medium-Highs.
Maybe we've lost the chunk of adventurers who needed superheroic numbers to
survive.

I'd be keen on (a) removing permanent greaters, or (b) having them affect
one area only (spells/weapons/MR/skills/stats). Destroying them altogether
would be fine too. I agree they add nothing to flavour except bigger
numbers, and DQ is a system based on being able to fail.

It also separates the fighter/mages from the specialist mages or fighters
further too, as a 10% difference in BC matters more when you can fail/BF
your spells.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Simpson [mailto:Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz]


As I see it there it comes down to only one basic choice - you either have
greaters or you don't.

So why have them at all???


-- 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 --

On Monday, June 18, 2001, at 12:03  PM, Andrew Withy (DSL AK) wrote:

> I'd be keen on (a) removing permanent greaters, or (b) having them 
> affect
> one area only (spells/weapons/MR/skills/stats). Destroying them 
> altogether
> would be fine too. I agree they add nothing to flavour except bigger
> numbers, and DQ is a system based on being able to fail.

I would support either a simple "having them affect one area only 
(spells/weapons/MR/skills/stats)" or a more complex version thereof  
"you have 1%+1%/rank bonus - spread among these areas 
(spells/weapons/MR/skills/stats) as you wish".

clare


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

Several people have indicated a desire to have Greaters only affect one
area ie spells/weapons/MR/skills etc. This does weaken them but IMHO not in
an equitable manner. If we just look at spells and combat skills,  the pure
mages will take spells and will be in much the same position they were
before, the straight fighters (some who have colleges) will take weapons
and will be in a similar position also. The true fighter/mages will have to
choose one or the other and therefore suffer much more for their lack of a
single specialisation (more than they already have in terms of spliting
their ep/ranking time between the two disciplines). Just something else to
consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 agree with Mark's point below totally - this is one of the strengths of
the "Greater on a single area" proposal, IMO. Fighter/mages are the
do-everything character "class", and do not promote group cohesion,
dependancy or teamwork. Having others better than them at stuff will help
this.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Simpson [mailto:Mark_Simpson@westpactrust.co.nz]

Several people have indicated a desire to have Greaters only affect one
area ie spells/weapons/MR/skills etc. This does weaken them but IMHO not in
an equitable manner. If we just look at spells and combat skills,  the pure
mages will take spells and will be in much the same position they were
before, the straight fighters (some who have colleges) will take weapons
and will be in a similar position also. The true fighter/mages will have to
choose one or the other and therefore suffer much more for their lack of a
single specialisation (more than they already have in terms of spliting
their ep/ranking time between the two disciplines). Just something else to
consider.


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

> While characters are only slightly easier to kill than a MkV Ogre it can
> still be done. If a character isn't acting heroically  with such a bonus
> consider the 'Fatal Beating' as a remedy. Alternativly dock some
> ep because
> they are not contributing as much as they could be.

This is something of note.

If the player is on an adventure that due to their Greater they are too
tough for they should be getting the EP reward for the level of the
adventure as it relates the them. And if you have players who through
cowardice are not interacting with the adventure you dock the contribution.

I don't believe Greaters are that much of a pain within the game and have
also found with most players having a greater tends to make them keener and
more involved in the game.

My personal preference is to remove the ritual from the game as I like to
see faliure and backfire a part of the game and greaters tend to push most
things into the minute chance of screwing up catagory.

Mandos
(Of note I have one character with a Rk 20 and one character who never
bothers with them at all. This should clarify any personal bias I may have)


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

Surely this is a matter of characters being unbalanced for an adventure, and
something for the GM to prevent (for the reasons given)?

Cheers
Errol
-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Livingston <arnauddemontfort@yahoo.com>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date: Sunday, 17 June 2001 13:41
Subject: [dq] Greater Enchantment


>
>OK Why
>------
>1) Low level games, ive been on several with people
>with greaters recently (one had a R20) this is
>generally the richest / toughest member and they then
>get to dominate the group as they are the best at
>everything, great fun for one player, boring for all
>the others.


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

hi there all, sorry for the essay...

A few suggestions, although I am yet to conclude that this is the best
option for change...It has been looked at several times and I am unsure that
this is the major cause for unballanced parties going out and don't fully
understanding how this will resolve the prevalent problems.

Poor roleplaying would account for much of the 'lack of enjoyment' initially
noted. I have found that a quiet comment from senior players or the GM can
usually 'norm' the playing. There is, IMHO, more to roleplaying than
characterisation, there is 'group enjoyment' as well.

Also, I have had a lot of fun being the '12th man' being able to call out
'good shot' or 'oh well done' whilst heating some water for a spot of
post-combat tea (but that was a specific character). It can be a total piss
off to find that your PC cannot contribute as effectively as another (when
you expect it to) and that is something an experienced GM may have to
actively resolve in the first session.

After all, we are all here for the fun (you can sequentially capitalise
various words) and some change in roleplaying is required if
characterisation (etc) gets in the way of others' enjoyment.

WE are all here for the fun
We ARE all here for the fun
We are ALL here for the fun
We are all HERE for the fun
We are all here FOR the fun
We are all here for THE fun
We are all here for the FUN

and that includes the GM.

Noel - if your enjoyment is being reduced through domineering roleplaying,
then I feel you need to look at how to address that in game, rather than
through out-of-game mechanics. I would guess that most dominants would move
on to other (pre)occupations, once they have 'done' dq, so direct challenges
probably wouldn't work. Empowered and enlightened GMs tend to know how to
modify the environment, and how to get players to work together (I have
experienced it a few times...Paul, MTB etc). I think this approach gives
more scope for improvement.

specific comments below

-----Original Message-----
From: scott whitaker <kharsis@ihug.co.nz>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date: Sunday, 17 June 2001 18:42
Subject: Re: [dq] Greater Enchantment


>This change will make it impossible to get guild rank11
>greaters as the caster maust stay with the group.


remove need for caster to be part of group
>
>Leave the ritual as it is.  It has been butchered around
>several times.  The urrent effects are a known quantity.


Make this proposal a non-college ritual
Make the material cost either trivial (EG 100 sp, two drops of rat blood) or
personal (EG major magical item, point of endurance)

>
>If a change has to be made (which I don't agree with) then
>have it only affect strike chance or cast chanece ie 1 thing.
>This will depower it quite nicely


yeah - this is nice. combined with the above, it would complement E&E
Greater but not stack with it.

I've left the rest in for reference but:

1) The guild is not set up to effectively allocate PCs to games based on
merit. We do not live in East Germany. Market forces, blind luck and
personal contacts (a mix of western and eastern cultures?) apply. GMs can
always award less EP to high level PCs who go on low level games (because
they are on a cake walk) unless the PC is along to 'chaperone/mentor' in
which case they should be covertly obvious <g> rather than domineering.

2) the gods agreed that the main idea is for PCs to earn moneys on
adventure, and therefore sub-guild cartels or rackets should be stomped on.
It is up to GMs, with help from players.

3) think up another variant - at Rank 11+, can spread over 2 die rolls (eg
+8 on Strike Change and +3 on Cast Chance), at Rank 16+ can...at Rank 20 can
...

4), 5) and 6) - I agree that Noel's proposal would provide these benefits.
Other problems will then manifest - does someone have the next fix in
preparation?

I am still wondering if we want a mechanical solution to what I perceive to
be a people issue.

Ian

>
>Scott Whitaker
>
>> Noel Livingston
>
>> Greater Enchantment
>> Duration:Till next Beltane,Lugnsad,Samhain or
>> Candemasa
>> Experience:125
>> Base Chance 80 + 1 per rank
>> Target:Group must include caster (max 1 + 1 per rank)
>> Cast Time:1 hour
>> Materials: 1 ounce of black myrrh(+1 per rank)
>> Effects: The targets of this ritual must form a circle
>> and smoke the black myrrh, they all gain +1, +1 per
>> rank to all base chances,strike checks etc. The
>> effects will only affect the group when together and
>> will temporarily dissipate if they separate. At rank20
>> the E&E may separate from the group without the
>> effects dissipating.
>>
>> OK Why
>> ------
>> 1) Low level games, ive been on several with people
>> with greaters recently (one had a R20) this is
>> generally the richest / toughest member and they then
>> get to dominate the group as they are the best at
>> everything, great fun for one player, boring for all
>> the others.
>> 2) E&E's rarely need to rank this ritual apart from
>> giving cheapies to the players in return for the money
>> for a R11 one from the guild, this would make it very
>> worthwile ranking
>> 3) R20 still gives a good bonus and allows money
>> grabbing to occur, it also allows the gm to power up a
>> party using the friendly wizard thingie.
>> 4) The level of the greater will generally match the
>> level of the party, unless a very high level E&E goes
>> slumming
>> 5) The gm has control over the greaters in the group
>> and can power up the party using a friendly R20 or an
>> NPC E&E of lower rank can join the party, no flow on
>> from previous adventures as ends when powers of light
>> holiday occur.
>> 6) Holds party together, if one person goes off on his
>> own little private mission, fine but they loose the
>> greater bonus, good to do things as a team
>>
>> Comments / Flames / Abuse
>> GM's ?
>> E&E's ?
>> Low / Mid / High players ?
>>
>> This ritual is my pet hate.
>>
>> =====
>> cheers noel
>>


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

I agree, a GE effectivly makes you a higher level character than you were
and this should be taken into account when considering the level of party
members.
It can sometimes be useful to balance up a party a bit.  Take the GE off the
top level members and give one to the lower levels and the relative levels
are evened out.

Sure in preference everyone in the party is the appropriate level for the
adventure.  In practice there are always one or two who are too high or too
low but can't play on any other night or some similar reason.

Bugger the in-game rationalisation, just tell those with Greaters that don't
need them for the adventure that their GE is on holiday and will return in 3
months.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ian  Wood & Ellen  Hume & Adara Wood [SMTP:adara@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent:	Monday, 18 June 2001 09:35
> To:	dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject:	Re: [dq] Greater Enchantment
> 
> Surely this is a matter of characters being unbalanced for an adventure,
> and
> something for the GM to prevent (for the reasons given)?
> 
> Cheers
> Errol
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel Livingston <arnauddemontfort@yahoo.com>
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
> Date: Sunday, 17 June 2001 13:41
> Subject: [dq] Greater Enchantment
> 
> >
> >OK Why
> >------
> >1) Low level games, ive been on several with people
> >with greaters recently (one had a R20) this is
> >generally the richest / toughest member and they then
> >get to dominate the group as they are the best at
> >everything, great fun for one player, boring for all
> >the others.
>


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

Someone else mentioned xp penalties for characters playing below their
level, and it's an awful idea.

If a higher level comes on the adventure and spoils other players fun then
penalise their contribution to party fun.
Conversly, If the higher level comes along and makes the adventure more fun
for the others then increase their contribution award.
And the same for any level, it is probably more common for someone lower
level than the party to spoil the fun of others by whining and complaining
that they can't do anything.  Again on the other side of that I have seen
some players with characters who are lower than the party throw themselves
into everything (failing frequently) but have a good/entertaining time doing
it.
This is nothing to do with level of the character it is to do with good/fun
role-playing.

All that said, it requires less work on the players and GMs part to make the
adventure fun if everyone is of similar level and can contribute equally.

There is also a level of adventure component to the experience award for a
reason.  It's because at higher levels it requires a lot more xp to advance
a little bit.  If a medium level character goes on a low level adventure
then they will get less xp than if they went on an appropriate level
adventure because of the level of adventure award.
The problem comes about when the low level character goes on the medium
level adventure, gets coddled by the GM and other players because they are
lower and then gets a medium level xp award.  When what should happen is
that the low level gets the crap kicked out of them in most combats and the
higher xp award is balanced by EN loss.

Cheers, Stephen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ian  Wood & Ellen  Hume & Adara Wood [SMTP:adara@ihug.co.nz]
> Sent:	Monday, 18 June 2001 10:29
> 
> 
> 1) The guild is not set up to effectively allocate PCs to games based on
> merit. We do not live in East Germany. Market forces, blind luck and
> personal contacts (a mix of western and eastern cultures?) apply. GMs can
> always award less EP to high level PCs who go on low level games (because
> they are on a cake walk) unless the PC is along to 'chaperone/mentor' in
> which case they should be covertly obvious <g> rather than domineering.
> 
>


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

> I like Jim's "Dream" idea but it goes better (IMHO) with Witch rather than 
Mind
> College -- which I see as harder edged.  The Mind version of the spell gives 
an
> additional resistance vs. Mental Attack and is also the "harder" (like armour)
> version of the spell.
> 
> Mind intro: "The College of Sorceries of the Mind deals primarily with 
controlling
> or influencing the minds of others..."
> Witchcraft intro: "The College of Witchcraft is concerned with natural 
magics, the
> rhythms of the world..."
> 
> So... Shields being harder than cloaks, and Minds being focus of the Mind 
College:
> 
> Mind Shield  -- Mind Mages  (also nominally consistent with S2. Force Shield)
> Dream Cloak -- Witches


Look, I don't disagree with this. But, don't you think this is kind of trivial? 
I mean, I think I'd rather have a Dream Cloak than a Mind Shield any day of the 
week, 'cause it sounds cooler, for all that it's not as good...But,this is 
attending to minutiae....

Not that it's a big problem, but I've seen discussion recently on a couple of 
things recently about stuff that almost doesn't even bear mentioning. Just 
wondering if it's a sign of things to come, I
suppose.


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

What advice would gms give players to make the game
more enjoyable, Is there somethings which mess up the
game enjoyment for others, things which make it really
hard on the gm which should be avoided, etc.

Also: I would rather be asked nicely not to do
something like "hey that sword of +10 goblin slayer is
a bit over the top, ditch it for this adventure" or
"your greater no longer works" rather than get killed.

=====
cheers noel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/


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

Martin Dickson wrote:
> 
> Not to dissuade you from making suggestions; just an historical note.
> Names were retained in the revised Namer in more or less their present
> form in response to strong feeling from the polled Namers and GMs that
> they remain so.

Yes. One hears this from time to time. There's never been any real test, 
though. It's all just anecdotal. I'm not saying that it's not true. I'm saying 
that it's untested. We don't know what the playership or what the DMs really 
want, because, for a start, we have never really taken the time to ask them in 
any kind of formalised way.

Mostly, what happens is a few people with loud voices get together and swear 
and declare that a particular situation needs to be attended to because it's 
what players and DMs want. 

Sometimes, they may even be right.

However, for the purposes of discussing what is and what isn't in the forefront 
of the minds of players and DMs, I suggest that we not bother with this 
particular line of argument. It's empty and sterile.
> 
> > True speak
> > Please make this non-actively resistable...
> 
> Errr... you mean "Passively" resistable?  It is.  Or do you mean remove
> the "Active" resistance?
> 
> > True form
> > Does this fix up shapechangers who have been out in the dark to long ?
> 
> I believe it would.  Whilst the animal form of PC type Shapechangers is
> certainly "true" for them, they are primarily humanoid, and being stuck
> in animal form is not "true".  The ritual wouldn't logically force them
> back into human form if they were voluntarily in animal form, but it
> should force them back into their "true" mutable form from a single
> stuck form.  (Clear as mud?)

Actually, I disagree. The animal form of a shapechanger is a legitamate 
secondary form. It is not a false, or assumed form. It is just as true, for all 
that it is less present than their humanoid form.

On the other hand, maybe it would be a good thing to have such an effect inside 
the game. I don't know. But, it's totally bootless to argue from the basis of a 
suggested spell that it MIGHT have a game effect that wasn't part of the 
provision of developing the College.

If you want there to be an explicit 'in game' method for removing the penalties 
for shapechangers,then do that, and rationalise back from that.

Don't create a spell, and then rationalise forward to the point where it can 
create another effect inside the game. That's just a waste of
time.


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

On Monday, June 18, 2001, at 02:59  PM, jimarona@ihug.co.nz wrote:

> Not that it's a big problem, but I've seen discussion recently on a 
> couple of
> things recently about stuff that almost doesn't even bear mentioning. 
> Just
> wondering if it's a sign of things to come, I
> suppose.

In some ways I think it is a sign that people have either given up 
changing things worth mentioning, or that there aren't many things worth 
mentioning that are worth changing any more.

clare


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

William Dymock wrote:
> > While characters are only slightly easier to kill than a MkV Ogre it can
> > still be done. If a character isn't acting heroically  with such a bonus
> > consider the 'Fatal Beating' as a remedy. Alternativly dock some
> > ep because
> > they are not contributing as much as they could be.

George Mitchinson wrote: 
> This is something of note.
> 
> If the player is on an adventure that due to their Greater they are too
> tough for they should be getting the EP reward for the level of the
> adventure as it relates the them. And if you have players who through
> cowardice are not interacting with the adventure you dock the contribution.

Etc.

Both George and William have offered a useful point. But, it is a point on it's 
own. Reducing xp because a player isn't contributing doesn't do anything, 
unless the player knows that they have had the xp reduced,and why it was 
reduced.

Therefore, you have to show the players what they have all earnt, and each 
player needs to know why they earnt as much or as little as they did. Without 
explaining your awards, you have not shown a player that he needs to do 
something.

And, DMs just don't do it. I've never had an award from any DM in the Guild 
that offered anything more than a one sentence comment on how I played, and a 
number that wasn't compared to any other player. What's the Goddamned use of 
that for improving your play?

It's all very well to say 'Reduce xp for players that don't xxxxx', whatever 
xxxx is that they should be doing...but, if you're not going to tell the poor 
blighters what it is that they're doing wrong,then where do you get off 
advising people to reduce xp?

I'm aware that you get flak from players over what they perceive as unfair 
criticism. If you don't like it,then don't reduce xp. Or, better yet, don't DM.


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

> What advice would gms give players to make the game
> more enjoyable, Is there somethings which mess up the
> game enjoyment for others, things which make it really
> hard on the gm which should be avoided, etc.

The main thing I find is a pain in the preverbial, is when players avoid the
adventure.

A player who is playing a character who is a coward is a pain in the arse
when taken to extremes. Most people get in there and trust the GM as far as
the difficulty of an adventure goes, the GM has probably balanced things
reasonably and in most cases has an adventure planned that is going to be
succeedable by a party of the requested level. Thus when a character avoids
all of that it wastes the GM's time and pisses off the other players.

A comment I heard quite a lot after an adventure a while ago (not GM'ed by
myself) was "I really enjoyed the game but it would have been nice to be
able to poke the world a bit and not avoid all the interesting stuff". The
reason for these comments was directly attributable to a player who had a
cowardly character and thus avoided the climactic end fight and some of the
other area's of perceived danger.

When all is said and done they are numbers on a piece of paper and
irresurectable death dosn't happen very often.

Mandos
/s


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

Mandos' comments are true and a truly cowardly character/player can be a
real pain and slow down the game even if the plan goes ahead.

However sometimes its difficult to know when the GM is giving you rope to
hang yourself, when they are offering alternative approaches, and when they
really want you to do this apparently suicidal thing because its likely to
succeed for reasons they know about. Make sure you flag this to your
characters where possible - they will often do apparently stupid things in
the belief that this is want the GM wants them to do, so GMs have to be fair
to them and signal in advance if required.

Or at least don't beg them to do something then kill them because it was
stupid.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----

The main thing I find is a pain in the preverbial, is when players avoid the
adventure.

A player who is playing a character who is a coward is a pain in the arse
when taken to extremes. 

Mandos


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

As a GM, I like players who give others room to act and encourage the
quieter roleplayers - doesn't happen enough, but makes for a richer game.
This applies both to character interaction and use of abilities. Also group
management skills (subtlely done), which end or prevent interminable
arguments on plans or hypotheticals.

Another thing that I appreciate is when a player modifies their character
enough to fit in with a group or character they would otherwise be hostile
to. It can be fun to hate other PCs, but it can be simply destructive to the
group dynamic.

Andrew
(And I know I'm not good at the above as a player)
-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Livingston [mailto:arnauddemontfort@yahoo.com]
Subject: [dq] Players advice from GM's


What advice would gms give players to make the game
more enjoyable, Is there somethings which mess up the
game enjoyment for others, things which make it really
hard on the gm which should be avoided, etc.

Also: I would rather be asked nicely not to do
something like "hey that sword of +10 goblin slayer is
a bit over the top, ditch it for this adventure" or
"your greater no longer works" rather than get killed.

=====
cheers noel


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

jimarona@ihug.co.nz wrote:

> True form
> Noel asked: Does this fix up shapechangers who have been out in the dark to long
> ?
>
> Martin replied: I believe it would.  ... The ritual wouldn't logically force them
> back into human form if they were voluntarily in animal form, but it should force
> them back into their "true" mutable form from a single stuck form.
>
> Jim added: Actually, I disagree. The animal form of a shapechanger is a
> legitamate secondary form. It is not a false, or assumed form. It is just as
> true, for all that it is less present than their humanoid form.

Agreed, it is an entirely true alternate form... and I thought that's what I said.
Perhaps I was being obscure.  What I meant was that IMO True Form would be able to
change a  ShapeChanger from being _stuck_ in animal form, back to being unstuck and
able to change forms -- because their true nature is bi-morphic, not one form or
the other.  By the same token, if they somehow became stuck in human form it could
also unstick them back to dual form.  It could not force them from one of their
true forms into the other -- both are natural to them.

> On the other hand, maybe it would be a good thing to have such an effect inside
> the game. I don't know.

I tend to believe so.  There are in game ways of removing or dealing with most
everything -- including characters being dead for the most part -- and being stuck
in animal form (and probably unplayable because of it) would seem a desirable thing
to have removable without resorting to Deus Ex.  True Form way not be the desirable
solution of course.

> But, it's totally bootless to argue from the basis of a suggested spell that it
> MIGHT have a game effect that wasn't part of the provision of developing the
> College..

Are you suggesting that True Form shouldn't be able to achieve this effect because
it is in some way outside of the Namer's arena?  Or something else? (Sorry, I just
didn't follow that sentence).

> If you want there to be an explicit 'in game' method for removing the penalties
> for shapechangers,then do that, and rationalise back from that.
>
> Don't create a spell, and then rationalise forward to the point where it can
> create another effect inside the game. That's just a waste of time.

I didn't write True Form with ShapeChangers in mind -- and truth be told I had
forgotten all about their little problem until Noel asked the question.  However,
the intent was that it be able to force things back into their proper shape, for
example toad-ed princes, or stoned heroes.  The questions are: 1) is fixing a stuck
ShapeChanger desirable in the game, and 2) is it within the intent of the demesne
of the magic.  If the answer to both is yes then it is not rationalising, it's just
making a standard GM call on whether an ability can have a specific effect.

Regards,
Martin

--

 _/_/  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 --

Having the party actively avoid the core adventure is annoying.  It makes
all your preparation irrelevant and tests your ability to improvise on the
fly as they take off on a tangent.  Or worse, some GMs hit the players with
large and blatant hammers until they get back on track which tends to
destroy the believability of a situation.
The opposite extreme is equally annoying: characters that go charging
straight down the throat of the adventure and expect the GM to let them beat
the bad guys and survive.  What is the point in putting subtle clues and
plot lines in when the party just charges in and kills anyone who stands in
their way, and then if you appropriately butcher them they get upset at
never having a chance.

There are characters and players that belong to both extremes and they are
both equally annoying.
The best adventures involve a mix of both, you sneak around and avoid the
fights you can't win or shouldn't fight and then you charge in with all
mages blazing when you need to.

It is fine to have a character that is an extreme coward or extremely
over-confident, as long as you as a player keep in mind that your character
should not always get their way.  There are times when you should stumble
into the enemy camp so that the fighters get a chance to strut their stuff.
There are also times when your gung-ho never-say-die fighter should get
talked out of charging in.

IMO the best players are those who play their character in such a way as to
increase the involvement of the rest of the party, and to entertain.

Cheers, Stephen.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mandos Mitchinson [SMTP:mandos@nz.asiaonline.net]
> Sent:	Monday, 18 June 2001 15:53
> To:	dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject:	Re: [dq] Players advice from GM's
> 
> > What advice would gms give players to make the game
> > more enjoyable, Is there somethings which mess up the
> > game enjoyment for others, things which make it really
> > hard on the gm which should be avoided, etc.
> 
> The main thing I find is a pain in the preverbial, is when players avoid
> the
> adventure.
> 
> A player who is playing a character who is a coward is a pain in the arse
> when taken to extremes. Most people get in there and trust the GM as far
> as
> the difficulty of an adventure goes, the GM has probably balanced things
> reasonably and in most cases has an adventure planned that is going to be
> succeedable by a party of the requested level. Thus when a character
> avoids
> all of that it wastes the GM's time and pisses off the other players.
> 
> A comment I heard quite a lot after an adventure a while ago (not GM'ed by
> myself) was "I really enjoyed the game but it would have been nice to be
> able to poke the world a bit and not avoid all the interesting stuff". The
> reason for these comments was directly attributable to a player who had a
> cowardly character and thus avoided the climactic end fight and some of
> the
> other area's of perceived danger.
> 
> When all is said and done they are numbers on a piece of paper and
> irresurectable death dosn't happen very often.
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

At 11:01 18/06/01 +1200, you wrote:
>Many GMs (and players) are opposed to truth telling abilities and several
>down-sides were introduced with this one to cause screaming and whining to
>abate.  There are ways around it if the Namer is nasty... conversely, for
>highly ethical Namers (and there are a few of those), pressuring a captive
>should create a nice moral dilemma.

I'll just point out, for the record, then when I proposed a truth-telling 
ability for Bards it was thrown out, so I don't really fancy your chances 
getting one in for Namers, however many downsides it has.

Jacqui


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

I remember a phrase (possibly now removed) about shapechangers getting stuck
- "roll up a new character or know a very powerful wizard"

Now, whether remove curse or true form make one a "very powerful wizard", or
whether this is a quest event, is another issue, but the original designer
of shapechanger deliberately left an explicit out for GMs to transform stuck
shapechangers.

I've let the guild use a Namer ritual that did exactly what True Form does
(before True Form was proposed), based primarily on their GTN, because I
couldn't find a standard fix to being turned into flying mana squirrels.
This was fine as an occasional problem, but do we want it as common as
muck^H^H^H^H Namers?

If anyone should have this, should it be Namers? I think so, but ...

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
> If you want there to be an explicit 'in game' method for removing the
penalties
> for shapechangers,then do that, and rationalise back from that.

 The questions are: 1) is fixing a stuck ShapeChanger desirable in the game,
and 2) is it within the intent of the demesne of the magic.  If the answer
to both is yes then it is not rationalising, it's just making a standard GM
call on whether an ability can have a specific effect.

Martin


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

> > Jim added: Actually, I disagree. The animal form of a shapechanger is a
> > legitamate secondary form. It is not a false, or assumed form. It is just as
> > true, for all that it is less present than their humanoid form.
> 
> Agreed, it is an entirely true alternate form... and I thought that's what I 
said.
> Perhaps I was being obscure.  What I meant was that IMO True Form would be 
able to
> change a  ShapeChanger from being _stuck_ in animal form, back to being 
unstuck and
> able to change forms -- because their true nature is bi-morphic, not one form 
or
> the other.  By the same token, if they somehow became stuck in human form it 
could
> also unstick them back to dual form.  It could not force them from one of 
their
> true forms into the other -- both are natural to them.

However you argue this point, it's actually irrelevant.
> 
> > On the other hand, maybe it would be a good thing to have such an effect 
inside
> > the game. I don't know.
> 
> I tend to believe so.  There are in game ways of removing or dealing with most
> everything -- including characters being dead for the most part -- and being 
stuck
> in animal form (and probably unplayable because of it) would seem a desirable 
thing
> to have removable without resorting to Deus Ex.  True Form way not be the 
desirable
> solution of course.

If it IS desirable, then raise the rules change AS a rules change, not a spell 
that Namers get in the new rewrite. 
> 
> > But, it's totally bootless to argue from the basis of a suggested spell 
that it
> > MIGHT have a game effect that wasn't part of the provision of developing the
> > College..
> 
> Are you suggesting that True Form shouldn't be able to achieve this effect 
because
> it is in some way outside of the Namer's arena?  Or something else? (Sorry, I 
just
> didn't follow that sentence).

It's REALLY simple, Martin. If you revise a college,then it seems to me you 
revise the college, not a pc race. That, it would seem to me, is outside of the 
nature of the brief.
> 
> > If you want there to be an explicit 'in game' method for removing the 
penalties
> > for shapechangers,then do that, and rationalise back from that.
> >
> > Don't create a spell, and then rationalise forward to the point where it can
> > create another effect inside the game. That's just a waste of time.
> 
> I didn't write True Form with ShapeChangers in mind -- and truth be told I had
> forgotten all about their little problem until Noel asked the question.  
However,
> the intent was that it be able to force things back into their proper shape, 
for
> example toad-ed princes, or stoned heroes.  The questions are: 1) is fixing a 
stuck
> ShapeChanger desirable in the game, and 2) is it within the intent of the 
demesne
> of the magic.  If the answer to both is yes then it is not rationalising, 
it's just
> making a standard GM call on whether an ability can have a specific effect.

You're not making a standard GM call, because you're not running a game. You're 
designing a rule. If you're designing a rule, then it seems to me that the 
discussion shouldn't extend into other areas. 

If you are simply saying that the nature of the spell means that it's a likely 
candidate to remove the effects of spending too much time in sunlight on 
shapechangers, then fine. If, on the other hand, you are saying that this 
particular piece of magic will get rid of that effect,then that's another 
discussion.
> 
> Regards,
> Martin
> 
> --
> 
>  _/_/  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 --
>


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

At 20:01 17/06/01 -0700, you wrote:
>What advice would gms give players to make the game
>more enjoyable, Is there somethings which mess up the
>game enjoyment for others, things which make it really
>hard on the gm which should be avoided, etc.

I tend to find GMing at lower levels more enjoyable, because players seem 
more able to relax and entertain not just each other, but me as well. So my 
first word of advice is: Relax, it's not a competition, the GM is not out 
to kill your character.

Secondly, sitting there while one person hogs the action is dead boring for 
the other players - so if your character wanders off by itsrelf on one of 
my adventures, it becomes fair game for all sorts of trouble.

Thirdly, this is a cooperative exercise. If one character is antagonistic 
to the rest of the party, or works against the party whether through 
deliberate choice or plain stupidity, it spoils the fun.

Fourthly, be flexible - advice to GMs and players both.


>Also: I would rather be asked nicely not to do
>something like "hey that sword of +10 goblin slayer is
>a bit over the top, ditch it for this adventure" or
>"your greater no longer works" rather than get killed.

I've left behind items on the basis that my character did not wish to lose 
the to certain enemies - which makes a good rationale for that. Another one 
is that certain types of magic don't work the same way in a GM's area - 
flying, especially.

Jacqui


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

At 17:40 18/06/01 +1200, Jacqui wrote:
>I tend to find GMing at lower levels more enjoyable, because players seem 
>more able to relax and entertain not just each other, but me as well. So my 
>first word of advice is: Relax, it's not a competition, the GM is not out 
>to kill your character.

Aye there's the rub.  At high adventures, the gm/NPC often is out to kill.

>Secondly, sitting there while one person hogs the action is dead boring for 
>the other players - so if your character wanders off by itsrelf on one of 
>my adventures, it becomes fair game for all sorts of trouble.

It just struck me as being relevant here, that from the parenting guide
books, they say give positive feedback to good behaivour, and ignore the
bad behaivour.  The theory is that for the child/player, any attention is
better than none.  So if the character wanders off, my interpretation is
that the main group gets lots of gm attention, and the individual gets
"well basically, nothing really interesting happens and you get back to the
rest of the group an hour later".

I recall there used to be a list for good behaivour for players in the
player handbook?, with things like being polite, and making an effort to
turn up to every session, or calling if running late.  To respect the word
of the gm and bring disagreements up at the end of the session if it's not
settled immediately, which was immediately followed by rules like Don't
Shout.  

Personally, I dislike sidetracks into rules discussions during the game.
The gm announces how rules are going to work at the beginning of adventure,
or if the player is unsure, they ask at the start of the session how their
particular spell is going to be interpreted.

Regards,
Sally

PS :I vote for dump Greaters or change to choose one of
weapon/skill/spells/MR (not stats, since they're the base for most skill
roll)


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

-----Original Message-----
From: jimarona@ihug.co.nz <jimarona@ihug.co.nz>


<snip>
>
>Both George and William have offered a useful point. But, it is a point on
it's
>own. Reducing xp because a player isn't contributing doesn't do anything,
>unless the player knows that they have had the xp reduced,and why it was
>reduced.
>
>Therefore, you have to show the players what they have all earnt, and each
>player needs to know why they earnt as much or as little as they did.
Without
>explaining your awards, you have not shown a player that he needs to do
>something.
>
<snip>
I agree with this totally. I have greatly appreciated those couple of GMs
who have taken the time to given me constructive criticism on my
roleplaying.

Also, if a player is preventing the others having fun, then please don't
wait until the EP award to let them know there is a problem. The sooner this
is pointed out to them, the better for everyone (GM included) - prevention
is better than cure. <this is NOT an oblique reference to my recent parties,
who certainly have been fun. Thanks>

Cheers
Errol.


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

Interesting quandary....

>It just struck me as being relevant here, that from the parenting guide
>books, they say give positive feedback to good behaivour, and ignore the
>bad behaivour.  The theory is that for the child/player, any attention is
>better than none.  So if the character wanders off, my interpretation is
>that the main group gets lots of gm attention, and the individual gets
>"well basically, nothing really interesting happens and you get back to the
>rest of the group an hour later".
>


conflict resolution and group facilitation requires the moderator to
instantly interupt negative behaviour and return it to the agreed culture -
through a neutral challenge.
The first thing is to define the culture or accepted behaviour right at the
beginning - which Sally went on to list - and return people to it.

so are they children or adults ?

Ian


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