| Subject | Re: [dq] Mind college and Mind Cloak |
|---|---|
| From | martin.dickson@peace.com |
| Date | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 09:12:10 +1300 |
AndrewW@datacom.co.nz wrote:
>In the Rules 2001 PDF, there is a Mind spell (G-7) with identical effects to
>that listed below but a ridiculous name.
>
I believe that it is called Mind Shield in order to differentiate it
from the Witch spell (Mind Cloak). The Cloak hides users thoughts. The
Shield provides that same cloaking ability and, in addition (for the
same EM, BC, etc as the Cloak) provides 10 +2/Rank Resist bonus to
Mental Attack and the ability to decline a Mind Speech. It is presumably
better than the similar Wiccan ability as Mind Mages should be better at
mind things.
> It even refers to Mind Cloak in the
>effects.
>
That is probably (IMO) a typo.
> Perhaps we could fix this nomenclature error...
>
Call Mind G-7 what you will, but don't call it the same as Witch G-8 as
they are not the same.
> and Ian's concerns by renaming that spell to Mind Cloak from Psychic Dampening or whatever its
>called.
>
Assuming that you believe that it is called "Psychic Dampening", and
that this is what makes the name "ridiculous", then would you be happy
if we named it "Mind Shield"? :-)
Cheers,
Martin
--
_/_/ Peace Software International Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/ Martin Dickson Phone: +64-9-373-0400
Senior Analyst Fax : +64-9-373-0401
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
| |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Spy - a obtuse angle | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| From | martin.dickson@peace.com | ||||
| Date | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 11:45:39 +1300 | ||||
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
| |||||
| Subject | [dq] extra subskills |
|---|---|
| From | AndrewW@datacom.co.nz |
| Date | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:03:17 +1300 |
The idea of extra subskills at less than Rank 10 is something I'm keen on
for all skills with subskills - Courtier, Troubadour, Military Scientist,
Merchant, BeastMaster, etc.
If you are a Rank 7 troubadour and someone offers to teach you a new
instrument, you must perform a master feat and then spend 8 weeks studying
before learning the new instrument. At Ranks 1 & 10 its a whole lot easier.
Beastmaster & Merchant are very restrictive about the new subskills you
learn, and gaining 5 Ranks just to learn a new field is even sillier. There
are specialists and generalists. Being a Rank 1 Beastmaster who can train
dogs, horses and birds poorly is different from being a rank 4 beastmaster
in horses alone.
If it costs extra ep & time without extra rank, then it will only be taken
by those who want breadth over depth. It seems a cheap (in complexity)
mechanism to add - change (after Rank 10...) to (at any time...).
Anyway, I don't want to push it as a seperate suggestion while Spy is being
resolved.
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: martin.dickson@peace.com [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com]
Sent: Monday, 14 October 2002 11:46 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Spy - a obtuse angle
AndrewW@datacom.co.nz wrote:
>I thought I'd try to come up with a doc... to promote thought by contrast.
>
After reading this I was left wondering if the plan is to revise Spy, or
revise the DQ skill system. Don't get me wrong -- I'm up for either --
but I'd like to know which it is.
I've said before that I don't think Spy needs a very complex structure
-- and that it can be well catered for by one of the existing
skills/sub-skill structures already present. Sally's suggestions have
been (IMHO) a little too complex so far. Andrew's counter-suggestion is
rather more complex again, introduces the idea of major reliance on
other skills (an additional "weirdness") and of gained extra sub-skills
at Rank 5+ (another weirdness).
Anyway, at the expense of offering a counter-counter-suggestion there is
a simplified version of Andrew's doc attached. It removes almost all
reliance on other skills making the skill stand-alone (standard in DQ),
rips out abilities that should remain unique to other skills (e.g. lock
picking, torture) and uses a simple "get some at 0, pick one per rank"
structure (also standard). I've combined some of the smaller sub-skills
together to make them more desirable -- if you pick one per rank there
should be good reasons to select any of the sub-skills or mid-Rank spies
are too likely to have the same ones.
I'm not suggesting that this is final form -- but rather that this
structure is fine for Spy and that we don't need something more complex
and exotic. A PC spy with this skill set, and with some ranks in Thief,
Assassin and/or Courtier could be moulded to fit just about any
interpretation or flavour of Spy that the player desired.
Cheers,
Martin
--
_/_/ Peace Software International Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/ Martin Dickson Phone: +64-9-373-0400
Senior Analyst Fax : +64-9-373-0401
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
| |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Mind college and Mind Cloak |
|---|---|
| From | m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz |
| Date | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:22:44 +1300 |
> Call Mind G-7 what you will, but don't call it the same as Witch G-8 as > they are not the same. Call the mind-mage spell "Mind Cloak" Call the black-mage spell "Mind Cloaca" (with apologies to the halfling Mortimer whose only half the scum that your typical black mage is). The practical distinction between Mind mages & Black mages is very slight. Mind mages *oughta* be burnt; Black mages *are gonna* be burnt [in Heck, if not before]. Semi-anonymous opinion of ... -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] extra subskills |
|---|---|
| From | martin.dickson@peace.com |
| Date | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:20:15 +1300 |
AndrewW@datacom.co.nz wrote:
>The idea of extra subskills at less than Rank 10 is something I'm keen on
>for all skills with subskills - Courtier, Troubadour, Military Scientist,
>Merchant, BeastMaster, etc.
>
It does seem like a useful way of gaining breadth in a skill without
having to become a master. I don't see a reason it should be limited (as
per your Spy proposal) to Rank 5 plus, but could operate equally well at
any Rank.
>If it costs extra ep & time without extra rank, then it will only be taken
>by those who want breadth over depth. It seems a cheap (in complexity)
>mechanism to add - change (after Rank 10...) to (at any time...).
>
On the other hand, if extra sub-skills can be learned below Rank 10 and
these have value we may have to reconsider the costs. i.e. if learning
new sub-skills is not a bonus for characters with Rank 10 then the value
of gaining a sub-skill vs. gaining an additional rank would have to be
calculated -- so that the value of gaining an additional rank is not
significantly altered.
>Anyway, I don't want to push it as a seperate suggestion while Spy is being
>resolved.
>
Fair 'nuff. But something to consider for later.
--
_/_/ Peace Software International Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/ Martin Dickson Phone: +64-9-373-0400
Senior Analyst Fax : +64-9-373-0401
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
| |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Simple Spy |
|---|---|
| From | salient@kcbbs.gen.nz |
| Date | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 12:37:51 +1300 |
Martin said: >I'm not suggesting that this is final form -- but rather that this >structure is fine for Spy and that we don't need something more complex >and exotic. A PC spy with this skill set, and with some ranks in Thief, >Assassin and/or Courtier could be moulded to fit just about any >interpretation or flavour of Spy that the player desired. This was actually like what I was going to propose next, not that I mind other people doing my work for me! (thanks Ian & Errol for their version, I liked the groupings, but the structure was getting too complicated. Andrew, I liked the other skill influences too.) Keeping it simple and flexible has long been a requirement for DQ rules, it seems. My other addition would be a section on discovery. Discovery: The abilities learnt by a spy convey the adept use for most situations. If the Gm wants to make a base chance roll for the succesful use of the skill, the base chance should be based on 3 x appropriate characteristic (+5 / Rank) modified by difficulty, and or use rank in another appropriate skill (whichever is greater). If the spy catastrophically fails this base chance by more than 30%, then they may have been discovered. The repercussions of this discovery is based on their situation and what it was they were attempting. ------ The 'rank in other appropriate skill' is the courtier in social spying situations, thief in dark alley/underworld stuff, etc. Basically to give bonuses for having the right back up skill for the spy to work in their chosen field, or as their cover (like merchant or troubador). Regards, Sally -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] extra subskills |
|---|---|
| From | michael.woodhams@peace.com |
| Date | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 11:43:52 +1300 |
AndrewW@datacom.co.nz wrote: >The idea of extra subskills at less than Rank 10 is something I'm keen on >for all skills with subskills - Courtier, Troubadour, Military Scientist, >Merchant, BeastMaster, etc. > [...] I'm sympathetic to this view, but as is so often the case, there is a tradeoff between realism and complexity. You point out a rules-reality mismatch with the current rules: >If you are a Rank 7 troubadour and someone offers to teach you a new >instrument, you must perform a master feat and then spend 8 weeks studying >before learning the new instrument > The proposed solution leads to another: If I'm a rank 7 troubadour, then either I don't know how to play the flute at all, or I am rank 7 (or higher, with multiple picks) in it. There is no such thing as having just a little bit of skill in flute. If we 'fix' this by having independent ranks in each troubadour subskill, we have a nightmare of complexity, far beyond what is warranted by the game effect of the troubadour skill. I'm not saying it is a bad suggestion, or that the rank-7-or-nothing realism mismatch (described above) is one we can't live with. It is a matter of getting consensus on the correct balance between realism and complexity, bearing in mind the game impact of the skills. In this case there are a number of skills that could use the new structure (spy, thief, courtier, troubadour, sage, perhaps others) so the complexity is amortized across all these skills, which can justify more complexity than troubadour alone would. One final note - Troubadour/courtier already have a depth-vs-bredth choice in the ability to pick a subskill several times for extra ranks. Such a proposal would presumably replace this, and some thought would need to go into conversion. Michael W. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Simple Spy |
|---|---|
| From | martin.dickson@peace.com |
| Date | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:05:56 +1300 |
salient@kcbbs.gen.nz wrote:
>If the spy catastrophically fails this base chance by more than 30%...
>
Spies can back-fire?
I like it! :-)
--
_/_/ Peace Software International Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/ Martin Dickson Phone: +64-9-373-0400
Senior Analyst Fax : +64-9-373-0401
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
| |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Simple Spy |
|---|---|
| From | errolc@tranzlink.co.nz |
| Date | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 13:16:24 +1300 |
> -----Original Message----- > From: martin.dickson@peace.com [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com] > > > salient@kcbbs.gen.nz wrote: > > >If the spy catastrophically fails this base chance by more > than 30%... > > > Spies can back-fire? > > I like it! :-) > So can horse-riders (fail by more than WP), Mil Sci Perceive Tactics (on twice BC% IIRC), and probably others. Errol -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Simple Spy |
|---|---|
| From | errolc@tranzlink.co.nz |
| Date | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:24:50 +1300 |
> -----Original Message----- > From: salient@kcbbs.gen.nz [mailto:salient@kcbbs.gen.nz] > > > Martin said: > >I'm not suggesting that this is final form -- but rather that this > >structure is fine for Spy and that we don't need something > more complex > >and exotic. A PC spy with this skill set, and with some > ranks in Thief, > >Assassin and/or Courtier could be moulded to fit just about any > >interpretation or flavour of Spy that the player desired. > An issue with the 'Base Skill plus chose from 17+ options' method was brought up by Stephen last week S If the blocks are balanced and and cover different areas of S interest then there S are no two "best" blocks for rank 5 spies to have. S I think this should be an argument for balanced blocks rather S than de-blocking. S S S One thing to keep in mind is GMs remembering the abilities of S their PC spies. How do GMs feel about keeping which options a mid-to-high rank spy has taken in their head? Is this a problem worth worrying about? Nearest thing that we have now is Courtier. In most cases the PC would be actively doing something to bring the skill into play. With Spy, I would think there are more instances of it being passive from the PCs point of view, requiring the GM to remember it. > This was actually like what I was going to propose next, not > that I mind > other people doing my work for me! (thanks Ian & Errol for > their version, > I liked the groupings, but the structure was getting too complicated. We tried (successfully I think) to keep the complications restricted to limitations on what skills could be taken at each rank. Base chances and effective rank can be (and should be) calculated by PCs after ranking. > Andrew, I liked the other skill influences too.) Keeping it > simple and > flexible has long been a requirement for DQ rules, it seems. > > My other addition would be a section on discovery. > Discovery: <snip nice work on generic skill roll> Cheers Errol -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | [dq] The Spy that time forgot. |
|---|---|
| From | mandos@iconz.net |
| Date | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:36:43 +1300 |
After looking at all the varients and other options protrayed so far, as the player of a high ranked Spy I would have to say I favour the original document. It was simple, (particularly if you remove the choose an option twice to specialise bit), it allowed for a greater range of Spies and it was better than what we have now. The discussions occouring now are interesting but they are not leading towards any better solutions, they are simply getting more and more complex while trying to please everyone. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Simple Spy |
|---|---|
| From | martin.dickson@peace.com |
| Date | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 15:38:59 +1300 |
errolc@tranzlink.co.nz wrote:
>An issue with the 'Base Skill plus chose from 17+ options' method was
>brought up by Stephen last week
>
>...
>
>How do GMs feel about keeping which options a mid-to-high rank spy has taken
>in their head? Is this a problem worth worrying about?
>
Stephen's comments seemed to be more around abilities at different
ranks. He stated that it's "not too hard to remember that Kate is a
socially oriented spy and Kryan is a military scout and make descisions
on what they are likely to notice". A social oriented spy would
presumably be one who had selected several social type sub-skills. He
went on to say that it would be "somewhat harder to remember that Kate
is Rk 9 in polite intimidation, Rk 6 in forgery and Rk 4 in social
observation when trying to decide how likely she is to notice the
curtain twitching as if someone is behind it".
To me this argues more against over complexity than elective sub-skills.
But, that said, there are good reasons not to have too many sub-skills
of a similar nature. In the quick re-hash I made this morning I
deliberately threw several of the manipulation subs together, and two of
the conversation ones. Too many fiddly subs = more complexity and too
much for moi to remember when GM-ing.
>With Spy, I would
>think there are more instances of it being passive from the PCs point of
>view, requiring the GM to remember it.
>
Passivley spying? Well, if you mean just sitting around and waiting to
hear something... but even then the spy PC may be actively
disguised/acting native and the like. Don't see this as a major issue.
--
_/_/ Peace Software International Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/ Martin Dickson Phone: +64-9-373-0400
Senior Analyst Fax : +64-9-373-0401
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
| |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Spy - a obtuse angle |
|---|---|
| From | dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz |
| Date | Sun, 13 Oct 2002 20:32:51 +1300 |
without having read and digested every detail, I agree with the idea of base skills plus chosen development. however, my initial impression of your idea is that you have effectively accomplished what Jacqui suggested - amalgamate everything into one enormous skill. why take anything else ? I would much prefer a system whereby a spy that wants to break and enter to burgle secrets should learn Thief, or hire one. hence my, and Errol's, suggestion. We tried to keep the skill to only spy/information stuff. And we prefer a clustered approach to one or two subskills per rank. cheers Ian ----- Original Message ----- From: <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz> Sent: Saturday, 12 October 2002 18:17 Subject: Re: [dq] Spy - a obtuse angle > Having had the salient angle on spy, I thought I'd try to come up with a doc > that covered a different range of subskills, and a different relationship > with other skills, to promote thought by contrast. > > The major difference is the exploration of the idea that the spy skill > should explicitly depend on knowledge of other skills. > > Andrew > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | [dq] Spy - an oblique approach | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| From | dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz | ||||||
| Date | Mon, 14 Oct 2002 20:31:18 +1300 | ||||||
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
| |||||||