As far as I know, the only change since the last issued book at this stage
is Undetectibility  current version being deemed unplayable. 

There are various rule changes under discussion, but nothing approved.
Fairly unlikely anything major-ish will be approved for inclusion at
December meeting IMEO, as they need a bit of testing.

I move the rulebook scheduling be an agenda item (um an agendum?) at
December Gods - not that we really need to be so formal.

Cheers
Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ross.alexander@uk.neceur.com 
> [mailto:ross.alexander@uk.neceur.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2002 10:24 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] DQ new rules
> 
> 
> 
> 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 --
>


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

Now that Spy has mostly settled down I am again looking at thief to bring it
into line with Spy and generally try to improve the skill a little.

The spy debate brought out the fact that a Spy is many things to many people
and to head this off at the pass I thought I would invite people to give me
an idea of what they think being a spy is all about and what types of
thieves exist.

The Groups that I can come up with are

Muggers - Those who take by force and speed.

Pickpockets - Those who take by guile and dexterity.

Burglars - Those who steal from buildings using stealth and cunning.

Seducers - Those who use conversation and wit to gain access to places from
which to steal.

Intimidators - Those who threaten and bully to gain income.

Comments?

Mandos
/s


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

> 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).

I have just had a nice quiet day at work and noticed a small point about Spy
that I thought I would bring up before playtesting.

Base Chances - Very few of the skills have specific base chances, most
simply replying on 3x apropriate characteristic +5%/rank.

I personally would prefer to see more specific rank based base chances for
the different skills.

This is only a minor thing and I am happy with the skill as is, but thought
I would see what others thought.

Mandos
/s


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

mandos@iconz.net wrote:

>I personally would prefer to see more specific rank based base chances for
>the different skills.
>
Quick comment from a purely GM point of view -- if the BCs are 
calculated and used by the PC then I don't really care how many or how 
convoluted they are.  If they have to be calculated and used by me I 
want them as simple as possible.

Most DQ skills fall into the first type, but it is possible that some 
for sneaky skills, where the player may not, or should not, know their 
degree of sucess or failure until the guards appear, should be rolled by 
the GM -- and hence easy to calculate... 'cos if it's too hard I'll just 
make a number up.  :-)

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 --

> >I personally would prefer to see more specific rank based base
> chances for
> >the different skills.
> >
> Quick comment from a purely GM point of view -- if the BCs are
> calculated and used by the PC then I don't really care how many or how
> convoluted they are.  If they have to be calculated and used by me I
> want them as simple as possible.
>
> Most DQ skills fall into the first type, but it is possible that some
> for sneaky skills, where the player may not, or should not, know their
> degree of sucess or failure until the guards appear, should be rolled by
> the GM -- and hence easy to calculate... 'cos if it's too hard I'll just
> make a number up.  :-)

I completly agree with that.

My point however was not regarding the complexity of the calculation more
the amount that rank has to do with the eventual total.

For example assuming a completly average Rk 4 Spy. Their chance of
performing any task will be about 65% however the bulk of that comes from
the three times stat. Spy to me seems to be a very practice based skill so
improvements should have a greater impact on success. Most of the skills and
subsets of it are things that no matter how low your stats you could learn
and practise until you are competant at them.
This is as oposed to theif which would seem to be a very stat based skill in
that it shouldn't matter how much you practice, if you are clumsy you cannot
pick a pocket.

I would see Spy skills having base chances more around Stat + 8*Rk while
thief skills are more likely to be 3*Stat+4*Rk.

Mandos
/s


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

mandos@iconz.net wrote:

>My point however was not regarding the complexity of the calculation more
>the amount that rank has to do with the eventual total.
>
*whoosh*

Oh. :-)  I assumed you meant was different BCs for more of the 
sub-skills with each using different formulae.

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 --

> >My point however was not regarding the complexity of the calculation more
> >the amount that rank has to do with the eventual total.
> >
> *whoosh*
>
> Oh. :-)  I assumed you meant was different BCs for more of the
> sub-skills with each using different formulae.

I reread my previous post and I thought thats what I had said too :-) :-)
But It was not what I meant.

Mandos
/s


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mandos@iconz.net [mailto:mandos@iconz.net]
> 
> 
> I have just had a nice quiet day at work and noticed a small 
> point about Spy
> that I thought I would bring up before playtesting.
> 
> Base Chances - Very few of the skills have specific base chances, most
> simply replying on 3x apropriate characteristic +5%/rank.
> 
> I personally would prefer to see more specific rank based 
> base chances for
> the different skills.
> 
"a generic Base Chance of  3 × appropriate characteristic (+ 5 / Rank),
modified by difficulty."

Shouldn't this also mention possible mods for relevant other skills? Some of
the sub-skills mention other skills, but this can't cover every situation. A
quick glance suggested to me Simulate Emotions to help befriend, knowledge
of the subject being discussed for Read lips. I think there are too many
examples to limit only to those that are explicitly stated, so something
generic should be tagged on the base chance.

I agree with Mandos on the more rank-dependent formula.  I'm not sure about
1*stat - the consequences of missing a roll in this area can be pretty bad,
you can't afford to do it too often. If enforcing 'have you practiced this
recently?' was practical, I'd suggest it.

Speaking of consequences, having a catastrophic failure on 90+rank when your
'other' base chance is higher than this seems over-the-top.

Cheers
Errol


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

At 13:55 28/11/02 +1300, mandos@iconz.net wrote:
>I have just had a nice quiet day at work and noticed a small point about Spy
>that I thought I would bring up before playtesting.

Well I'm getting more and more behind in my work, so I am not going to do
any more on the Spy Skill revision.  If you or anybody wants to make
changes before/during/after playtesting, then go for it.  

Regards,
Sally


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

I would say June publishing date at the earliest.
December session for testing the current proposals.
March session for final tweaks, inclusion in the rules, proofing, drinking and
publishing.

If the proposals are not ready for playtest in the December session then we
either postpone publishing till September or they don't get included.  I'm referring
to Rune and any potential change to Thief or fix for Undetectability here.

We can probably get away without play-testing Armour costs. :)

Cheers, Stephen.

>
>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 --
>


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

At 13:09 28/11/02 +1300, you wrote:
>The spy debate brought out the fact that a Spy is many things to many people
>and to head this off at the pass I thought I would invite people to give me
>an idea of what they think being a spy is all about and what types of
>thieves exist.
>
>The Groups that I can come up with are
>
>Muggers - Those who take by force and speed.
>
>Pickpockets - Those who take by guile and dexterity.
>
>Burglars - Those who steal from buildings using stealth and cunning.
>
>Seducers - Those who use conversation and wit to gain access to places from
>which to steal.
>
>Intimidators - Those who threaten and bully to gain income.

Also consider:

Shoplifters - those who by cunning and concealment steal goods intended for 
sell.

Rustlers - those use their affinity for animals to assist in the theft of same.

Fraudsters - those who use pretense to steal, often through forging 
documentation.

Con-men - those who steal through trickery.

Jacqui


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