So where are we up to with this? Do we need a show of hands on a couple of
points before the next version can be done?

Cheers
Errol


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

> So where are we up to with this? Do we need a show of hands on a couple of
> points before the next version can be done?

Thief is sitting waiting to be redone based on the comments made and I am
waiting for work to calm down a little.

Mandos
/s


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

If you're looking for a new task, Astrologer is severely broken -- at least in the respect that I've
never seen a GM/player (myself included) do it this century as written in the guide.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> errolc@tranzlink.co.nz
> Sent: Friday, 25 October 2002 10:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Spy, Thief, Courtier etc - Status
>
>
>
> So where are we up to with this? Do we need a show of hands on a couple of
> points before the next version can be done?
>
> Cheers
> Errol


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

A couple of weeks into the season, Barth Wader (guild member, squire of 
the Samaelite Order of the Giddi Knights, and known religious nut-case, 
and who is not on adventure this season) suddenly starts telling people 
that Isil Eth really does serve the Powers of Light, and that her Elven 
god (Varda?) is good and worthy of worship.

A couple of days later, he goes back to normal (i.e. that the only good 
Powers are Samael, Michael, Raphael, Uriel and Gabriel) apparently 
unaware of his prior statements.


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

What!? H*ll no, I think we have enough going on with Spy+fallout.

Best work/result payoffs after that are Rune and Flying IMHO.
Pencil in next rulebook in March 2003?

Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz [mailto:m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz]
 
> 
> If you're looking for a new task, Astrologer 

> > -----Original Message-----
> > errolc@tranzlink.co.nz
> > Sent: Friday, 25 October 2002 10:00
> >
> >
> > So where are we up to with this? Do we need a show of hands 
> on a couple of
> > points before the next version can be done?


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

> What!? H*ll no, I think we have enough going on with Spy+fallout.
>
> Best work/result payoffs after that are Rune and Flying IMHO.
> Pencil in next rulebook in March 2003?

Since all of the other people who were working on Rune appear to have
buggered off would anyone like to volenteer to assist me with it. I have
Jon's notes and aims and I also have my own varient possibility but I need
someone to discuss stuff with to produce a finished document.

Mandos
/s


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

errolc@tranzlink.co.nz wrote:

>Best work/result payoffs after that are Rune and Flying IMHO.
>
Flying?  Care to expand on that?

I ask 'cos it's essentially the same as Horsemanship and I don't recall 
anyone ever putting that in their "top things to fix in DQ" basket.

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 --

martin.dickson@peace.com wrote:

> errolc@tranzlink.co.nz wrote:
>
>> Best work/result payoffs after that are Rune and Flying IMHO.
>>
> Flying?  Care to expand on that? 

Flying is fine. You just need to ask yourself two questions and adjust 
your character actions accordingly:
1) Is this the sort of GM who will use flying to impale my character at 
the top of a tall tree at the slightest opportunity?
2) Do I think getting my character impaled at the top of a tall tree 
will be entertaining?


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

Also, 
3) Am I the sort of character that wants to land in small windows?
4) How much aerial & 3-D combat will my GM put up with?
5) Do I want to risk taking the damage from a lance or scythe hitting at a
combined 90mph?
6) Can I cast while (a) flying in a straight line; (b) manoeuvring; (c)
free-falling; (d) riding someone else; (e) tumbling helplessly
out-of-control with a hobbit chattering in my ear?

etc.
Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: michael.woodhams@peace.com [mailto:michael.woodhams@peace.com]
Sent: Friday, 25 October 2002 1:19 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Spy, Thief, Courtier etc - Status


martin.dickson@peace.com wrote:

> errolc@tranzlink.co.nz wrote:
>
>> Best work/result payoffs after that are Rune and Flying IMHO.
>>
> Flying?  Care to expand on that? 

Flying is fine. You just need to ask yourself two questions and adjust 
your character actions accordingly:
1) Is this the sort of GM who will use flying to impale my character at 
the top of a tall tree at the slightest opportunity?
2) Do I think getting my character impaled at the top of a tall tree 
will be entertaining?


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: martin.dickson@peace.com [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com]
> Sent: Friday, 25 October 2002 1:03 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Spy, Thief, Courtier etc - Status
> 
> 
> errolc@tranzlink.co.nz wrote:
> 
> >Best work/result payoffs after that are Rune and Flying IMHO.
> >
> Flying?  Care to expand on that?
> 
> I ask 'cos it's essentially the same as Horsemanship and I 
> don't recall 
> anyone ever putting that in their "top things to fix in DQ" basket.
> 

We had a bit of discussion about it in August or so last year. Flying in
combat gets lots of different treatments. ISTR we were fairly close to a
simple system of converting magical flying speeds into practical TMRs (as
opposed to 'appears briefly above the battlefield'). 

There are some oddities about like:

"3.17 If an Adept is flying and the Adept is in all other ways
eligible to cast a spell (has their hands free, is not out
of Fatigue, etc.) they may move up to 1/2 (rounded
down) of their TMR and attempt to cast the spell prior
to, during or after their movement. This also applies
to all flying magic-using monsters and Adepts with
flying mounts."

This doesn't jell with most people's treatment of magical flying, where you
can't slow down without landing ('natural' flight is different). 
Should also probably look at Aerial Affinity writeup.

So, I think reasonably small amounts of work will give improvements to a
common activity. 

Cheers
Errol


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

michael.woodhams@peace.com wrote:

> Flying is fine. You just need to ask yourself two questions and adjust 
> your character actions accordingly:
> 1) Is this the sort of GM who will use flying to impale my character 
> at the top of a tall tree at the slightest opportunity?
> 2) Do I think getting my character impaled at the top of a tall tree 
> will be entertaining? 

Not sure I understand.

The Flying skill states that:
"A character may always take off, fly, or land in an appropriate manner 
and reasonable conditions, and under such circumstances no roll is 
necessary. Note
that landing appropriately is not precise. The success chance to perform 
a complex aerial manoeuvre with precision is (3 × AG + 10 × Rank)".

So... no Flying roll is needed for normal flight, and you only have to 
make rolls to do complex and hard things.  The most common way to get 
impaled on a tall tree is to try and land on one.  :-)  If you want to 
land on top of the tall tree, and your flying is of the "catapult me 
through the air" variety then your chances may not be wonderful (E.g. Ag 
15 x 3 + Rk 8 x 10 = 125 - up to 50 for landing on a tree-top, - 
something for catapult flying... etc).

The GM nastiness or not comes in with deciding which modifiers to apply 
and how much.  For example, one should not (IMO) generally apply both 
the negative for speed and for type of flying  -- for example, if using 
Wings and trying to land (at a stop) on the tree-top then speed a the 
point the manoeuvre ends should be zero so no negative for mph, but 
judging a catapult and stop effect with such precision does deserve a 
negative for the choice of flying involved.

-- 

 _/_/  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 --

> This doesn't jell with most people's treatment of magical flying,
> where you
> can't slow down without landing ('natural' flight is different).
> Should also probably look at Aerial Affinity writeup.
>
> So, I think reasonably small amounts of work will give improvements to a
> common activity.

I have a simpler solution.

GM's of players who wish to try harebrained stunts, or complex things while
being held in the air by a magical effect should immediatly bring the "too
stupid and annoying the live" clause into play and have a seagull hit the
offending character in the head at high speed.

After a few such incidents, no one will ask to do annoying things and the
rules can continue unchanged.

Mandos
(Founder of the league against the blasé use of magic) "FLABOUM"
/s


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

AndrewW@datacom.co.nz wrote:

>6) Can I cast while (a) flying in a straight line;
>
Flying: "Rank 5 May fire a missle weapon while moving or cast a spell"

> (b) manoeuvring;
>
Make a flying roll or muff it.

> (c)free-falling;
>
Make a WP roll if vaguely near the ground and the freefall is voluntary. :-)

> (d) riding someone else;
>
Horsemanship: "Rank 5 May fire a missle weapon while moving or cast a spell"

> (e) tumbling helplessly
>out-of-control with a hobbit chattering in my ear?
>
Probably not -- I'd ditch the hobbit first.

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 --

Whats flying got to do with the Spy/Thief/Courtier review stew anyway?

Surely its a different topic.

Lets sort this one out and decide what to look at/do
and then carry on!   - Yes?

-----Original Message-----
From: martin.dickson@peace.com [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com]
Sent: Friday, 25 October 2002 13:55
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Spy, Thief, Courtier etc - Status



AndrewW@datacom.co.nz wrote:

>6) Can I cast while (a) flying in a straight line;
>
Flying: "Rank 5 May fire a missle weapon while moving or cast a spell"

> (b) manoeuvring;
>
Make a flying roll or muff it.

> (c)free-falling;
>
Make a WP roll if vaguely near the ground and the freefall is voluntary. :-)

> (d) riding someone else;
>
Horsemanship: "Rank 5 May fire a missle weapon while moving or cast a spell"

> (e) tumbling helplessly
>out-of-control with a hobbit chattering in my ear?
>
Probably not -- I'd ditch the hobbit first.

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 --

If you have flying as something you can't "play" with, it becomes a mechanic
for making geography smaller for the cost of some FT. If you play with it,
it is an opportunity for out-manoeuvring, practical jokes, combat, creative
solutions to problems, and role-playing. Like all such options, it can be
abused, but as long as science isn't used too much, and everyone enjoys
themselves, who cares?

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: mandos@iconz.net [mailto:mandos@iconz.net]
Sent: Friday, 25 October 2002 1:48 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Spy, Thief, Courtier etc - Status



I have a simpler solution.

GM's of players who wish to try harebrained stunts, or complex things while
being held in the air by a magical effect should immediatly bring the "too
stupid and annoying to live" clause into play and have a seagull hit the
offending character in the head at high speed.

After a few such incidents, no one will ask to do annoying things and the
rules can continue unchanged.

Mandos


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

What Chris said.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris.Caulfield@WaitemataDHB.govt.nz
> [mailto:Chris.Caulfield@WaitemataDHB.govt.nz]
> Sent: Friday, 25 October 2002 1:58 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Spy, Thief, Courtier etc - Status
> 
> 
> Whats flying got to do with the Spy/Thief/Courtier review stew anyway?
> 
> Surely its a different topic.
> 
> Lets sort this one out and decide what to look at/do
> and then carry on!   - Yes?
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: martin.dickson@peace.com [mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com]
> Sent: Friday, 25 October 2002 13:55
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Spy, Thief, Courtier etc - Status
> 
> 
> 
> AndrewW@datacom.co.nz wrote:
> 
> >6) Can I cast while (a) flying in a straight line;
> >
> Flying: "Rank 5 May fire a missle weapon while moving or cast a spell"
> 
> > (b) manoeuvring;
> >
> Make a flying roll or muff it.
> 
> > (c)free-falling;
> >
> Make a WP roll if vaguely near the ground and the freefall is 
> voluntary. :-)
> 
> > (d) riding someone else;
> >
> Horsemanship: "Rank 5 May fire a missle weapon while moving 
> or cast a spell"
> 
> > (e) tumbling helplessly
> >out-of-control with a hobbit chattering in my ear?
> >
> Probably not -- I'd ditch the hobbit first.
> 
> 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 --
>


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

errolc@tranzlink.co.nz wrote:

>Flying in combat gets lots of different treatments. ISTR we were fairly close to a
>simple system of converting magical flying speeds into practical TMRs (as
>opposed to 'appears briefly above the battlefield').
>
This is fairly simple to do, and there are rules that already cover this 
(not the 1.5 hex per pulse thing) providing that the flight speed is 
variable...

>There are some oddities about like:
>
>If an Adept is flying... they may move up to 1/2 (rounded
>down) of their TMR... 
>
>This doesn't jell with most people's treatment of magical flying, where you
>can't slow down without landing ('natural' flight is different).
>
Excuse me a moment....
AAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!
[ahem] better now.

So... there appears to have been original intent in what passed for the 
minds of the DQ2 authors to make flying move in a catapult fashion. 
 Instead they put in useful 1/2 and cast rule, and useful calculating 
TMR from movement rate rules (below).

Paleolithic campaign GMs decide to make Flying _less_ useful in combat 
by making speed constant. We then end up with 1.5 hex per Pulse 
conversion and PCs who can only strafe the battlefield... and because of 
the nature of the combat system and TMR basically teleport.

We then complain that rules like the 1/2 TMR and cast don't fit with Flying.

[simmer, simmer]

How about a nice, simple, removal of that stupid catapult rule? 
 Specifically replace instances of "will carry the target at a speed of 
x mph" to "will carry the target at a speed of up to x mph".

Then replace 1.5 hex per pulse with the rules from DQ2's section 29.3 
which give TMR conversion of:
MPH * 30 = Yards per minute in chase sequence.
Yards per minute / 50 = TMR in combat.

Shadow Wings Rank 10 under current Rules = TMR of 60.
Same Wings without catapult effect = TMR of 24.

But... even this reduction could an be improved upon... if we wish.  The 
chase sequence speeds are not generally top speed -- e.g. human @ 250 
yards per minute equates to a 7 minute mile (8.5 mph) -- not max sprint 
speed.  If we assume top flight speed equates to straight line max speed 
(similar to sprint... you just don't get tired 'cos you're not actually 
flapping the wings), and an equivalent sprint to chase ratio (about 
21:8.5... 0.4, close enough to half for our purposes)... then...

This would give a final figure for Rk 10 wings of 600 yards per minute 
in chase and a TMR of 12.

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 --

So when you are chased, your speed slows by five times.

No, flying's not broken if this is the fix.

Please, back to spy...

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
<spurious logic snipped>

This would give a final figure for Rk 10 wings of 600 yards per minute 
in chase and a TMR of 12.


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

> GM's of players who wish to try harebrained stunts, or complex things while
> being held in the air by a magical effect should immediatly bring the "too
> stupid and annoying the live" clause into play and have a seagull hit the
> offending character in the head at high speed.

Actually there is at least one player out there who DOES have magical protection from bird-strike.
And speaking of being struck by thunderbolts, my original point still remains... The skill is
clunky, inconsistent and almost unplayable (as GM, I normally only allow the players to make
readings if they give me sufficient advance notice).

EXAMPLE 1
"An astrologer will be able to make clear, general assertions..."
YET
"When an astrologer wishes to make a general prediction about a particular venture or being, the
player (or the GM) actually uses a divinatory technique at their disposal. Such a technique could be
reading the tarot, casting the I Ching, or any mutually agreed
upon method."

Tarot clear ... ???   Not to mention that this *requires* the player to have a detail of knowledge
that is unecessary -- indeed unwelcome -- for any other skill.  Skipping over I--'s seduction of
other players (because the character is so good at it),  I don't want to play with a bunch of master
thieves, I want to play with players that can roleplay being master thieves.  And let's not even
think about troubadours or assassins.

But that's O.K. because the general reading ALWAYS works; if the player says that the entrails of
the neighbours cat indicate proserity and good luck (for non-felines), how do I know otherwis.   Oh,
and I have to change my campaign to match the reading.  Mind you,as GM I always have the out that
the only method that I'm going to mutually agree upon is listening to the sound/words made by buring
the shoulderblades of oxen sacrificed to Apollo ... and please provide your own ox, altar, fire &
Classical Greek dictionary.

EXAMPLE 2:
   "An astrologer can directly affect up to (5 + 10 × Rank) beings with a single prophecy."
Which is excessively indefined, & useless for DQ parties -- who only exist  to inflict, I mean
"affect," others.  So an Astrologer can help the neighbours find their lost cat, because nobody
really cares (assuming that mice don't count as beings),  but the Astrologer can't interpret the
omenous signs of an impending apocaplyse because it directly affects more that (5 + 10 × Rank)
beings.


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

AndrewW@datacom.co.nz wrote:

>So when you are chased, your speed slows by five times.
>
No, not when you are "chased".

Under the DQ rules, when you enter the "chase sequence" your speed is 
determined by certain rules (most GMs in my experience ignore this), and 
is approximately 1/2 top speed.  For humans approx 8.5 mph -- a good lope.

When you are in Pulse time using TMR your speed is determined by certain 
rules (most GMs enforce this) and that speed is considerably less than a 
converted running speed.  It is, at most, a walk (std human TMR of 5 -- 
being 250 yards / 50 -- equals 5 feet per second, or 3.4 mph).

>No, flying's not broken if this is the fix.
>
Flying is broken in combat (IMO).  What I was querying earlier was my 
misunderstanding that it was the Flying skill that was being suggested 
as needing work.

>-----Original Message-----
><spurious logic snipped>
>
>This would give a final figure for Rk 10 wings of 600 yards per minute 
>in chase and a TMR of 12.
>
Would you care to comment on exactly whose logic is spurious?    I ask 
because, unless I am truly mistaken as to the meaning of that word, this 
would suggest that you felt my interpretation of the DQ 2 rules was, at 
best, erroneous, and at worst decietful.

I will happily admit to a lesser competence with mathematics, and could 
be mistaken in my calculations -- but I do feel that the logical 
deductions that I have made from the base rules are sensible and 
supportable.

Please explain.

Calmly,
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 --

At 09:59 25/10/02 +1300, you wrote:
>
>So where are we up to with this? Do we need a show of hands on a couple of
>points before the next version can be done?

As instigator, I beleive it behooves me to reply.  My intent is to rework
Martin's fish document into a formal rules, adding back in lock stuff,
discovery and some other tidy ups I can't remember off the top of my head.
  The amendment to courtier is to go simultaneously with this.  Then I'll
post it to DQ announce to people to vote on accepting.

It may not be the best way of doing it, but it is better than the current
rules.  

May get time this weekend, may not.  I'm aiming for soemthing before mid
november so that it _could_ take affect next session, for playtest or
everyone, if people want it that keenly.

Regards,
Sally


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

Yeap - I will give you a hand.

Jason

On Fri, 25 Oct 2002, mandos@iconz.net wrote:

> 
> > What!? H*ll no, I think we have enough going on with Spy+fallout.
> >
> > Best work/result payoffs after that are Rune and Flying IMHO.
> > Pencil in next rulebook in March 2003?
> 
> Since all of the other people who were working on Rune appear to have
> buggered off would anyone like to volenteer to assist me with it. I have
> Jon's notes and aims and I also have my own varient possibility but I need
> someone to discuss stuff with to produce a finished document.
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Mandos,

I still have all the work I did on rune.  If you are willing to push it for
inclusion in the next rule book, which I'm willing to help publish
around March next year maybe.

Cheers,

Ross

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ross Alexander                           "We demand clearly defined
MIS - NEC Europe Limited            boundaries of uncertainty and
Work ph: +44 20 8752 3394         doubt."


                                                                                                                                         
                      mandos@iconz.net                                                                                                   
                      Sent by:                 To:       dq@dq.sf.org.nz                                                                 
                      owner-dq@dq.sf.or        cc:                                                                                       
                      g.nz                     Subject:  [dq] Arrrgh Rune....again....                                                   
                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                         
                      25/10/2002 00:54                                                                                                   
                      Please respond to                                                                                                  
                      dq                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                         





> What!? H*ll no, I think we have enough going on with Spy+fallout.
>
> Best work/result payoffs after that are Rune and Flying IMHO.
> Pencil in next rulebook in March 2003?

Since all of the other people who were working on Rune appear to have
buggered off would anyone like to volenteer to assist me with it. I have
Jon's notes and aims and I also have my own varient possibility but I need
someone to discuss stuff with to produce a finished document.

Mandos
/s


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