The problem with randomly determining things like aspect and social status
is that if you started with a specific idea for a character then you can
have your concept crippled by two bad rolls of the dice.
But if you are free to choose anything then the guild will end up being
populated by clones with optimal choices (Death Aspected Greater Nobles with
97 stat points for example).
The way we play is that you can choose 90 stat points or roll and take what
you get as mentioned by Clare, you can also choose any standard Aspect or
Social Status but if you want Solar, Lunar, Life, Death, Noble, Merch Prince
etc then you have to roll and take what you get.
Even this is sometimes abused by those who will make up character after
character until they "randomly" get the character they want.

The key thing is that whatever you decide to use should be seen as fair to
all involved.  Your 95 point system and paying stat points to get Unusual
Aspects or Social Status could work very well, hopefully you won't get too
many clones.
You may also decide that your adventurers guild is 90% non-inheriting nobles
and your players have to give you a damn good reason for not being noble.
It makes much more sense that the 3rd son of a Duke would acquire training
in magic and weapons and join an adventurers club/society than it does for
the the son of a kitchen hand.
There are many inconsistencies in our guild/world that we just ignore for
the sake of playability and enjoyment.  For example Orcs probably wouldn't
be permitted to join a human dominated guild, and if they did would most
likely not return from their first adventure with a moral party.

Another issue related to the guild is its location in the world.  We have
found ourselves constrained in terms of world events and repercussions of
adventurer activities due to the location of the guild and the desire to
have a fair amount of consistency between adventures.  There is also the
problem of the amount of portal magics we have had to introduce into the
world purely as a mechanism to get adventurers to a remote locale or
different plane.
I suggest situating your guild off-plane or in some sort of pocket-dimension
or demi-plane.  Then have known and predictable portals to standard
locations around Allusia with guild houses erected over the portals to
conceal and protect them.  Something like the pub in the Hall of Worlds in
the Magician series.  A safe and isolated location, low level adventures can
walk a short distance to known safe doors to Seagate but braver and/or
tougher adventurers will travel further up the hall to doors to more remote
locations.  It is also easy to justify travellers from other planes coming
down the hall to find the guild.
World events and repercussions can happen to guild houses and make certain
portals unusable or dangerous while leaving the non-adventuring characters
and the guild as a whole safe in their pocket dimension.

Cheers, Stephen.

-----Original Message-----
From: Clare Baldock [mailto:erythrina@mac.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2002 9:50 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Pole



On Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 09:28 , tdouglas@zoomtown.com wrote:

> If you could start a multi-gm game from the begnning would players be 
> allowed to roll for points or should everyone start with a standard 
> ammount? or Would you get rid of rolling all to geather by assigning 
> say 95 character points and charging extra points fore special 
> aspect/high social/unusual race/ambidexterity?

In the Seagate Adventurers guild we allow both. A character may roll, 
and take what they get, or chose to have 90 points.

cheers

clare


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

>>Concerning Stun:
>>
>>I am unclear on how often a character may attempt to recover from 
>>stun.  I think that they may attempt to recover twice a pulse, once on 
>>their (modified inishitive), and once at the end of every pulse.  Is that 
>>right?
>
>No that is incorrect. Normally a character gets to attempt to recover from 
>stun on their action. In the pulse they are stunned they can also attempt 
>to recover from stun at the end of the pulse. This means that during the 
>pulse they are stunned (and no other) they may attempt to recover from 
>stun twice, f they have not yet acted when they are stunned (once on their 
>action and once at the end of the pulse).
>
>The above statements are correct for non-quickened characters.

 From his messages, it looks like he's using an old version of the 
rulebook. Would anyone have any objections if I e-mailed the current version?

Keith.


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

I notice in passing that Fire 2.0 is supposedly at the end of its
probationary period. Does anyone have any comments?

Cheers
Errol


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

At 13:48 2/05/02 +1200, you wrote:
>I notice in passing that Fire 2.0 is supposedly at the end of its
>probationary period. Does anyone have any comments?

The only thing that comes immediately to mind is to re-name "Wildfires" as 
"Fire-Running" because that's what everyone calls it...

Jacqui


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

I have the current version of the rules.  I'm just slow.  :O)  Thanks for everyones time.

Todd
> 
> From: Keith Smith <phaeton@ihug.co.nz>
> Date: 2002/05/01 Wed PM 08:36:38 EDT
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Questions from the Gene Pool
> 
> 
> >>Concerning Stun:
> >>
> >>I am unclear on how often a character may attempt to recover from 
> >>stun.  I think that they may attempt to recover twice a pulse, once on 
> >>their (modified inishitive), and once at the end of every pulse.  Is that 
> >>right?
> >
> >No that is incorrect. Normally a character gets to attempt to recover from 
> >stun on their action. In the pulse they are stunned they can also attempt 
> >to recover from stun at the end of the pulse. This means that during the 
> >pulse they are stunned (and no other) they may attempt to recover from 
> >stun twice, f they have not yet acted when they are stunned (once on their 
> >action and once at the end of the pulse).
> >
> >The above statements are correct for non-quickened characters.
> 
>  From his messages, it looks like he's using an old version of the 
> rulebook. Would anyone have any objections if I e-mailed the current version?
> 
> Keith.
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

>I have the current version of the rules.  I'm just slow.  :O)  Thanks for 
>everyones time.

Version 1.4?

Keith.


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

And rolling back fire to the last version which was a lot more balanced and
allowed me to GM fire mages.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Jacqui Smith [mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 2 May 2002 2:23 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Fire 2.0


At 13:48 2/05/02 +1200, you wrote:
>I notice in passing that Fire 2.0 is supposedly at the end of its
>probationary period. Does anyone have any comments?

The only thing that comes immediately to mind is to re-name "Wildfires" as 
"Fire-Running" because that's what everyone calls it...

Jacqui


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

version 1.4 september 28, 2001 print.  

Todd


> 
> From: Keith Smith <phaeton@ihug.co.nz>
> Date: 2002/05/01 Wed PM 11:14:50 EDT
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Questions from the Gene Pool
> 
> 
> >I have the current version of the rules.  I'm just slow.  :O)  Thanks for 
> >everyones time.
> 
> Version 1.4?
> 
> Keith.
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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