As I was working on Bardic College with a view to presenting a revised 
version in the near future, I discovered that we have spells and skills 
which refer to reaction rolls in the rules, but the reaction rules 
themselves are missing, presumably because they were found at the beginning 
of the Monsters section. My questions to you all are:

1. Do GMs use reaction rolls?

2. If not, is this because the rules are not in the book? Or are there 
other reasons?

3. Where should the reaction rolls section appear? In the rule book? If so, 
where?

In similar vein:

1. Does anyone use random encounters?

2. Has anyone used the DQ encounter table? How did it work out?

3. Where should encounter tables appear?

Jacqui


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]


> I discovered that we have spells 
> and skills 
> which refer to reaction rolls in the rules, 

Specifically, searching on "reaction" brings up the following that have
actual quantified modifiers (outside the Bardic College)

Human Racial ability
Celestial Shadow G-9 Charismatic Aura
Herbalist 'prepare perfumes'


> 
> 1. Do GMs use reaction rolls?
> 

I have, on occasion, seen GMs make a roll when PCs interact with NPC's whose
reaction has not been predetermined by the GM. My perception has been that
GMs have used the roll has an indication of where in the NPCs range of
possible responses their actual response is. D10 would seem to be as useful
as D100 in this case - what PCs actually say/do/look like will have a larger
impact generally.
My Shadow Mage doesn't have Charismatic Aura, so I have never said to a GM
"don't forget to factor in my reaction mod"


> 2. If not, is this because the rules are not in the book? Or 
> are there 
> other reasons?
> 
> 3. Where should the reaction rolls section appear? In the 
> rule book? If so, 
> where?
> 
Assuming people think it worthwhile, logic would seem to suggest either in
"Adventure" (just before Ranking?), or after "Fright and Awe Tables" (I'm
not sure of the form of the rules for 'reaction rolls', the Tables section
might not be appropriate)

Cheers
Errol


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

> 1. Do GMs use reaction rolls?

Only when I don't know what an NPC's reaction would be to a given situation.
>
> 2. If not, is this because the rules are not in the book? Or are there
> other reasons?

I don't, because if you use dice to determine the reactions of NPCs, then
they don't behave in a sensible way.

Dice are fine for minor situations, or where you simply have NO idea what an
NPC might think of something that a player does or says. Otherwise, they're
just too random to form much of a story line.
>
> 3. Where should the reaction rolls section appear? In the rule book? If
so, > where?

Under the section marked 'Reaction Rolls', I suppose
>
> In similar vein:
>
> 1. Does anyone use random encounters?
>
Yes. But the encounter isn't completely random. I prepare up to ten
different types of encounter. I suppose something like 4 are ever used in an
evening.

Not all encounters are combat related. They may be information gathering, or
just light entertainment or they may be focused around developing the story
of a PC...

These encounters aren't usually determined by a die roll, instead, they're
determined by a set of conditions that the player's create, mostly.

The most common condition is:
The pcs do nothing.

If that happens, other parts of the story unfold, usually catching them flat
footed.

> 2. Has anyone used the DQ encounter table? How did it work out?

Yes, I have. They were crap.
>
> 3. Where should encounter tables appear?

Far, far away.

I don't use encounter tables, except as a way of putting things together in
a way that I hadn't thought of before.

I don't use them much, if at all, except when I can't work out what must
happen next in the story...Like, the players have gone off and done
something that I had not predicted, or something like that.

Otherwise, I suppose I use a kind of decision tree to determine 'random'
encounters.
> Jacqui
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

hi there everyone,

mostly I support Jim's comments,

I have found GURPS Reaction Rules to be quite good. I find these rules give
players a guide as to what they need to do to influence others without
thumping them.

I would like to see a 'non-combat' interaction section in the rules, to
guide GMs and Players on how to influence others. I would have thought
Courtier would have some modifiers. I can look up GURPS and prepare an idea
or two for DQ.

The encounter rules are less than useful, like Jim I also prepare a few
encounters to choose from to punish/challenge/amuse/reward PCs

cheers, Ian

PS - Australia was warm and dry, with settled weather and a gentle breeze.
Cairns was relatively cool and Brisbane was cold. I have just rustled out my
arctic gear and am looking forward to the gym's sauna. <g> Ian

PPS - I do not really understand the need for a revision of Bardic college -
I suggest you encourage more players to run PC bards so that things get
playtested some more. I feel there are issues with a higher priority for our
group's limited time and enthusiasm. In other words - be happy with what you
have. If the darn this is broken this soon, we could just vote it out, with
little loss to the game (say less that voting out Rune, which has two
regular PCs).

PPPS - I am still wading through the undetectability emails...

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date: Sunday, 11 November 2001 13:29
Subject: [dq] Reaction Rolls


>As I was working on Bardic College with a view to presenting a revised
>version in the near future, I discovered that we have spells and skills
>which refer to reaction rolls in the rules, but the reaction rules
>themselves are missing, presumably because they were found at the beginning
>of the Monsters section. My questions to you all are:
>
>1. Do GMs use reaction rolls?
>
>2. If not, is this because the rules are not in the book? Or are there
>other reasons?
>
>3. Where should the reaction rolls section appear? In the rule book? If so,
>where?
>
>In similar vein:
>
>1. Does anyone use random encounters?
>
>2. Has anyone used the DQ encounter table? How did it work out?
>
>3. Where should encounter tables appear?
>
>Jacqui
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>


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

dear all,

I feel we have done fairly well with the stun recovery rules. Combat (still)
flows. Your proposal would interupt combat flowing along the order of
initiative (the stunned character suddenly gets to do an action - what if
they are stunned several times in a pulse, do they get to try to shrug them
all off, one at a time? (should stop the stunned player from getting bored I
suppose))

IIRC, the Attempt to Recover from Stun is an action.

stunned characters get to Attempt to Recover from Stun on their action. (A
stunned character's initiative is later than their normal initiative.) They
(now) also get an additional attempt to recover at the end of the pulse in
which they were stunned. If a character is stunned before their action they
get two attempts in the first pulse - if they are stunned after their action
they still get an attempt at the end of the pulse.

IMHO, it flows, it is easy, and PCs have a chance of surviving...lets try it
for one whole quarter rather than write about it.

Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: ross.alexander@uk.neceur.com <ross.alexander@uk.neceur.com>
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Date: Tuesday, 30 October 2001 23:15
Subject: [dq] Status of the rules and stirrings about stun


>
>Two things ...
>
>1) I haven't heard from the powers that be about what they
>want me to do with the rule book.  Do they think it is ready
>to be rolled out for December or are there more changes?
>
>2) The current (or new) recovery from stun stuff is pretty
>ugly.  Rather than give everybody a "free" recovery at
>the end of the pulse that they are stunned in, would it
>not be better to give a figure a chance to recover
>immediately after they are stunned (ie within the action
>of the attacker).
>
>eg.
>
>So Alice is hit for 10 points by Bob and would normally
>be stunned, but she makes a recovery roll immediately
>and shugs of the damage.
>
>The reason for this is to reduce the amount bookkeeping
>at the end of the pulse and make the action more immediate,
>hopefully adding to the flow of actions.
>
>My two euro cents
>
>Ross
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
>Ross Alexander                           "He knows no more about his
>MIS - NEC Europe Limited            destiny than a tea leaf knows
>Work ph: +44 20 8752 3394         the history of East India Company"
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>


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

I have no problem with undetectability changing.

It was changed recently because it was unstable. By unstable I mean that it
worked erratically and players couldn't plan on it working as expected - and
who relies on an erratic spell effect in combat? A person who needs
resurrection frequently - in my own personal experience.

It is important to me that we know what we are trying to achieve with a
spell before we try to change it. It is better to start afresh than try to
modify something that is broken. (small changes work only for things that
already function properly)

It is my contention that magic should do more that replicate a mundane
ability - such as stealth. Oh I suppose a 75 em spell should allow a mage to
'saunter across a space as if stealthing' but it is really only a character
thingy.

I therefore wish undetectabilty to do something absolute. so lets find out
what it should do and next month wory about how to acheive that.

love Ian


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