| Subject | Re: [dq] Next session DQ |
|---|---|
| From | m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz |
| Date | Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:27:59 +1300 |
Dear All, > I hear that you may be playing a spy testing game next session! > > Is this true? I intend running a game that will definitely require some sneakiness & reliable timely information will almost certainly be essential (I wish I *could* rule out success resulting purely from brute force & ignorance, but that would be taken as a challenge by some players). I WILL play-test the new spy skill on the suggested conversion of extant-rank to new-rank. It will help to have one or two partymembers with spy skill. Unfortunately the mission *will* also involve some extremely unsubtle violence & magic fire-fights (do tell Flamis we mean metaphorical fire); so I don't know how MUCH of the game will involve spy-stuff. Also the party employer previously attempted to use non-guild mercenaries to rescue the missing valuable, so how exactly the current party stuffs up will determine the majority of the adventure. I expect the actual amount of espionage, etc, to be determined by the *other* skills, magic, & abilities that the actual partymembers possess. Employer: An Ellenic Demi-god, Aeetes (alias Sir Ernest Drake?) Mission: to recover a valuable missing item (okay ... his daughter, the one who made the resurrection sauce) Primary Location: Raniterre & environs Arch-villain: the Duchess formerly know as Margarita of Plaz'Toro, a mind mage with few scruples (yes, everybody was right, she wasn't dead) Pay: 1 magic item per person, plus half of what you legitimately salvage from valid targets/situations (not that your employer is the sort to worry about legal quibbles) Douceur: a selection potions & unguents. Anticipated opponents: good chance of no undead; little-to-no Demons (unless party kills non-innocent bystanders, offends local church, etc); maybe some renegadoes [_bad_ Destinians]; definitely monsters, magicians, fighters of renown; courtiers (if not covered by the preceding); "Men, monkeys, lap-dogs, parrots," (also if not covered by the preceding); ... regards, Michael -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] New spy version for voting on |
|---|---|
| From | errolc@tranzlink.co.nz |
| Date | Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:54:58 +1300 |
> -----Original Message----- > From: salient@kcbbs.gen.nz [mailto:salient@kcbbs.gen.nz] > > > Hi there > Please find attached the tidied up version of the revised Spy > Skill that > I've been working on. Although it may not cover everything > that people > wanted, I believe it is better than the current skill. I > propose that we > officially vote on it at the beginning of the next guild > meeting, for its > inclusion in the next copy of the rules (march 2003 has been > proposed). Thinking about this, I think we definitely need to playtest it before putting it in the rules. There are no other pressing issues that 'require' a new rulebook to be issued, so we may as well playtest (the more the better), and revise before making probationary. How are we looking for having a 'fleshed out'(?) Rune college playtested in the Summer session? <snip> > Cheers Errol -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] New spy version for voting on |
|---|---|
| From | phaeton@ihug.co.nz |
| Date | Wed, 27 Nov 2002 11:23:43 +1300 |
>Thinking about this, I think we definitely need to playtest it before >putting it in the rules. There are no other pressing issues that 'require' a >new rulebook to be issued, so we may as well playtest (the more the better), >and revise before making probationary. > >How are we looking for having a 'fleshed out'(?) Rune college playtested in >the Summer session? Speaking of which - is it worth checking the minutes and see if anything has been 'lapsed' that should be picked up since it was never finished? So far, it's just Rune and Spy on the table. Keith. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] Next session DQ |
|---|---|
| From | flamis@ihug.co.nz |
| Date | Wed, 27 Nov 2002 12:06:30 +1300 |
At 10:27 27/11/02 +1300, you wrote: >I WILL play-test the new spy skill on the suggested conversion of >extant-rank to new-rank. It will >help to have one or two partymembers with spy skill. Unfortunately the >mission *will* also involve >some extremely unsubtle violence & magic fire-fights (do tell Flamis we >mean metaphorical fire); so >I don't know how MUCH of the game will involve spy-stuff. Also the party >employer previously >attempted to use non-guild mercenaries to rescue the missing valuable, so >how exactly the current >party stuffs up will determine the majority of the adventure. Assures Michael that Flamis does know the meaning of metaphorical - and has ranks in Spy to prove it... (sounds like a lot of fun, Michael) Jacqui -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | [dq] DQ new rules |
|---|---|
| From | m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz |
| Date | Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:11:18 +1300 |
> Thinking about this, I think we definitely need to playtest it before > putting it in the rules. There are no other pressing issues Prices for armour are Way Way Wrong! Also, there was supposed to be an amendment along the lines of the Artisan-skill productivity bonus for Armourer & weaponsmith -- but it somehow evaporated. > that 'require' a new rulebook to be issued, so we may as well > playtest (the more the better), and revise before making probationary. Okay -- may be it doesn't *require* a whole new rulebook. But these points should be resolved. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | [dq] Rune College | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| From | flamis@ihug.co.nz | ||
| Date | Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:04:10 +1300 | ||
--=====================_24482118==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:23 27/11/02 +1300, you wrote: >So far, it's just Rune and Spy on the table. The attached document is for general interest. It is a version of Rune College which was developed by Jon McSpadden and I some years ago, and represents a somewhat different "take" on the College. Our objective at the time was to come up with a Rune College that: (a) Didn't have Runesticks - and we found we could drop Runewands as well. (b) Didn't look like a collection of bits from other Colleges. (c) Had a distinct "flavour" of its own, and not just a distinct methodology. We decided that Rune mages should be enhancement mages - that by inscribing runes and triggering them they made items better or more vulnerable in some way. (d) Got rune mages actively using runes. We worked from base principles in developing this version, so while it duplicates some of the types of magics in the existing College, they are often quite different. For example the version of rune portal here involves much inscribing of runes on existing portals. A runeshield is not created from nothing, but is created by inscribing runes on an existing shield. This is not a finalised document in any way - just something we worked on a while back, which I think has some worthwhile ideas. Jacqui
| |||
| Subject | Re: [dq] Next session DQ |
|---|---|
| From | dworkin@ihug.co.nz |
| Date | Wed, 27 Nov 2002 18:56:48 +1200 |
>Dear All, > >> I hear that you may be playing a spy testing game next session! >> >> Is this true? > I too it seems will be running a game heavy on those skills considered 'dodgy' in polite society. Of course this has been biased by an initial loadout consisting of the Faith 'n Tussock comedy duet. In Zaquon's not so secret service. A nice, easy and safe mission invovling dark binders, the greatest heroes of the realm, artifacts of natural philosophy and strange metal. Lots of strange metal. And lots of scenery and good looking sophonts to populate them. William -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] DQ new rules |
|---|---|
| From | dworkin@ihug.co.nz |
| Date | Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:37:25 +1200 |
>Prices for armour are Way Way Wrong! Also, there was supposed to be an amendment along the lines of >the Artisan-skill productivity bonus for Armourer & weaponsmith -- but it somehow evaporated. Aside from paying no attention to such conventions as mathematical formulae and common sense remind me of the issues involved. William -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- | |
| Subject | Re: [dq] DQ new rules |
|---|---|
| From | ross.alexander@uk.neceur.com |
| Date | Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:23:37 +0000 |
It has been quite a while since the last rulebook was released. Is there
a known schedule for the next release so proofing etc can be organised?
Cheers,
Ross
Editor in absentia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Alexander "We demand clearly defined
MIS - NEC Europe Limited boundaries of uncertainty and
Work ph: +44 20 8752 3394 doubt."
m.parkinson@auckl
and.ac.nz To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Sent by: cc:
owner-dq@dq.sf.or Subject: [dq] DQ new rules
g.nz
27/11/2002 01:11
Please respond to
dq
> Thinking about this, I think we definitely need to playtest it before
> putting it in the rules. There are no other pressing issues
Prices for armour are Way Way Wrong! Also, there was supposed to be an
amendment along the lines of
the Artisan-skill productivity bonus for Armourer & weaponsmith -- but it
somehow evaporated.
> that 'require' a new rulebook to be issued, so we may as well
> playtest (the more the better), and revise before making probationary.
Okay -- may be it doesn't *require* a whole new rulebook. But these points
should be resolved.
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
| |