> > Then, if we really wanted, we could have no limit to stat
> > increases (and we all know what kill joy arguments will be
> > used against this - and can refute it by simply stating that
> > not all characters will choose to power game).

Or we could simply move the whole game into White Wolfs system. That way we
can all colour in our little dots and if we want to we can all be identical.
Won't that be neat.

As long as the character generation spits out playable characters at the
other end why do we care if two characters are equal?

The system we have at the moment allows the powergamers, the confused and
the 'oh my god we all have to be the same' crowds to select thier stats. So
effectivly there is balance and all those who want to can generate the same
character over and over again and then collect race and trade them to their
hearts content.

Character gen is broken badly enough as it is. Please don't make it any
worse.

Mandos
/s


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

If anyone has created a character that cannot be normally created using character
gen then they should be ratified by a tribunal member.
This shouldn't be a major hassle as there shouldn't be many characters that
fit into this category.  If there are then maybe we have a loose/rogue GM problem.


A GM that is qualified to create characters is an experienced DQ GM in our campaign.
 Preferably with at least 2 or 3 adventures (as a GM) under their belt.  The
idea is that they should have sufficient understanding of the game and campaign
to help the player create a character that will work in our campaign.

>
>I assume there isn't going to be any mad attempt to backdate this to all chars
made since the last tribunal lapsed through inaction?
>& What exactly will qualify a person as a GM to sign standard characters?
> Stephen Martin <stephen_martin@clear.net.nz> wrote:To avoid the risk of William
going totally loco and power mad trying to be a
>tribunal on his own (much as it would be fun to watch)...
>We need 2 volunteers to join him in the tribunal.
>
>The mandate of the tribunal is to oversee the creation of non-standard characters.

>This includes rolling for unusual aspects and non-standard backgrounds and

>abilities, and anything more bizarre.
>All standard characters require a GM to oversee creation and another GM to
co-sign
>within 6 months of starting.
>Non-standard characters require either the creating or co-signing GM to be
a
>tribunal member.
>
>And tribunal members have to wear silly hats at guild meetings! ... ok maybe

>I can be talked out of this one.
>
>Nominate yourselves or your enemies, the job requirements are to have a good

>understanding of the campaign and world and no prior convictions as an evil

>despot (allegations and cases with no living witnesses don't count).
>
>Also if anyone objects to the mandate I've proposed then say so now. We can

>formally ratify this at the next guild meeting.
>
>Cheers, Stephen.
>
>
>From Bernard Hoggins
>nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
>


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

Just as another quick question on this topic.

Are there actually players out there who have low stat point characters that
they don't enjoy playing because the stats are so low?

Is this actually a problem or is it a perceived problem that doesn't really
exist?

Mandos
/s


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

So you're voting against the first proposed solution on principal and then proposing
a more complicated one.

WAAAARRRGGGHHHH!

It is no wonder nothing ever gets achieved in less than 5 years.  And then we
end up with not the best solutions but whatever was current when everyone was
sick enough of the whole thing to vote for anything.


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz [mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz]
>> Sent: Monday, 31 March 2003 5:18 p.m.
>> 
>> These three steps would remove the need to record our 
>> begining character point total - we have an ep pool, we pay 
>> based on current stat total, and there is no 5 point maximum increase.
>> 
>> Not as simple, and I guess possibly less elegant. Does the job though.
>> 
>> So I would vote against Andrew's proposal, but only because I 
>> do not beleive we have discussed other possible remedies.
>> 
>> cheers Ian
>>


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

> So you're voting against the first proposed solution on principal
> and then proposing
> a more complicated one.
>
> WAAAARRRGGGHHHH!
>
> It is no wonder nothing ever gets achieved in less than 5 years.
> And then we
> end up with not the best solutions but whatever was current when
> everyone was
> sick enough of the whole thing to vote for anything.

It is obviously too contentious we should leave it alone until all current
parties are deceased.

Mandos
(PS I will be leaving in my will an instruction for my children to keep
voting No :-)
/s

</tongue in cheek>


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

That's rather harsh, Stephen. He's just saying that it's too early to vote
because other alternatives haven't been  discussed. There's nothing in what
Ian said that would indicate that he refuses to vote for it in principle
forever, or even in two weeks time.

We should at least explore more complicated approaches to see if they are
worth the hassle IMO.

Cheers
Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephen_martin@clear.net.nz]
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2003 3:30 p.m.
> 
> So you're voting against the first proposed solution on 
> principal and then proposing
> a more complicated one.
> 
> WAAAARRRGGGHHHH!
> 
> It is no wonder nothing ever gets achieved in less than 5 
> years.  And then we
> end up with not the best solutions but whatever was current 
> when everyone was
> sick enough of the whole thing to vote for anything.
> 
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz [mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz]
> >> Sent: Monday, 31 March 2003 5:18 p.m.
> >> 
> >> These three steps would remove the need to record our 
> >> begining character point total - we have an ep pool, we pay 
> >> based on current stat total, and there is no 5 point 
> maximum increase.
> >> 
> >> Not as simple, and I guess possibly less elegant. Does the 
> job though.
> >> 
> >> So I would vote against Andrew's proposal, but only because I 
> >> do not beleive we have discussed other possible remedies.
> >> 
> >> cheers Ian
> >>
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Allow me to paraphase this in a leading fashion...

Are there any low point characters being played by anyone except some of our
best and most dedicated role-players?

How many low point characters never made it past their 1st adventure or more
likely never made it to their 1st adventure because their players refused to
play them?

Is it right for the rules to punish our honest players and best role-players?


Your point that a good role-player can play a character well and probably enjoy
it regardless of its stats is true.  A great role-player can have fun and entertain
the entire party as they play the tree they have been turned into.  Does this
mean they should play trees?  Or that we should turn everyone into trees to
see how well they do?

Some of the most beautiful flowers in the world grow in deserts or on barren
cliff faces.  A harsh environment is a great way of winnowing chaff and leaving
the hardiest crops.
The problem is that most of us aren't that hardy.  The environment that produces
the desert flower also kills off hundreds of english roses.
Is it not better to provide an even and fertile ground where everyone has a
chance to be good, rather than a harsh environment where the good stand out
by being the only ones left standing?

Enough rambling and obscure analogies.  I think I made a point somewhere back
there...


>Just as another quick question on this topic.
>
>Are there actually players out there who have low stat point characters that

>they don't enjoy playing because the stats are so low?
>
>Is this actually a problem or is it a perceived problem that doesn't really

>exist?
>
>Mandos
>/s
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

To Quote:
"Not as simple, and I guess possibly less elegant. Does the job though.

So I would vote against Andrew's proposal, but only because I do not beleive
we have discussed other possible remedies."

I thought this was fairly clear.  
He explicity states that what he proposes is less elegant and more complex.
 He also explicity states that he is voting against because there aren't any
other proposals.  Not because of anything to do with the merits of the proposed
solution nor the validity of the proposed problem.

I am happy to hear alternative proposals or to have the merits of proposal questioned.

If you think that it's too early to vote becuase there should be more time to
consider alternatives than that's also fine.  But immediately contradicting
your own statement by voting just drives me insane - should have seen my rant
this morning that I managed to delete in time.

btw How did Andrew get credit (or blame depending on point of view) for my proposal?
 My IP lawyers will be calling.

>That's rather harsh, Stephen. He's just saying that it's too early to vote

>because other alternatives haven't been  discussed. There's nothing in what

>Ian said that would indicate that he refuses to vote for it in principle
>forever, or even in two weeks time.
>
>We should at least explore more complicated approaches to see if they are
>worth the hassle IMO.
>
>Cheers
>Errol
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephen_martin@clear.net.nz]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2003 3:30 p.m.
>> 
>> So you're voting against the first proposed solution on 
>> principal and then proposing
>> a more complicated one.
>> 
>> WAAAARRRGGGHHHH!
>> 
>> It is no wonder nothing ever gets achieved in less than 5 
>> years.  And then we
>> end up with not the best solutions but whatever was current 
>> when everyone was
>> sick enough of the whole thing to vote for anything.
>> 
>> 
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz [mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz]
>> >> Sent: Monday, 31 March 2003 5:18 p.m.
>> >> 
>> >> These three steps would remove the need to record our 
>> >> begining character point total - we have an ep pool, we pay 
>> >> based on current stat total, and there is no 5 point 
>> maximum increase.
>> >> 
>> >> Not as simple, and I guess possibly less elegant. Does the 
>> job though.
>> >> 
>> >> So I would vote against Andrew's proposal, but only because I 
>> >> do not beleive we have discussed other possible remedies.
>> >> 
>> >> cheers Ian
>> >>
>> 
>> 
>> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>>
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephen_martin@clear.net.nz]
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2003 4:26 p.m.
> 
> I thought this was fairly clear.  
> He explicity states that what he proposes is less elegant and 
> more complex.

And presumably, in his opinion, does a better job of addressing the issue.
Everyone getting the same total (or even the same individual) starting stats
would be even simpler.


>  He also explicity states that he is voting against because 
> there aren't any
> other proposals.  Not because of anything to do with the 
> merits of the proposed
> solution nor the validity of the proposed problem.
> 
> I am happy to hear alternative proposals or to have the 
> merits of proposal questioned.
> 
> If you think that it's too early to vote becuase there should 
> be more time to
> consider alternatives than that's also fine.  But immediately 
> contradicting
> your own statement by voting just drives me insane - should 
> have seen my rant
> this morning that I managed to delete in time.
> 

"I WOULD vote"

Makes a LOT of difference. The implication is that IF a vote was called NOW,
he would vote against it.

It also seems to be a reaction to Andrew's proposed immediate retrospective
introduction.

(I'd let Ian respond himself, put his comms are presumably a bit flaky
currently)

Chill, man
Errol

> btw How did Andrew get credit (or blame depending on point of 
> view) for my proposal?
>  My IP lawyers will be calling.
> 
> >That's rather harsh, Stephen. He's just saying that it's too 
> early to vote
> 
> >because other alternatives haven't been  discussed. There's 
> nothing in what
> 
> >Ian said that would indicate that he refuses to vote for it 
> in principle
> >forever, or even in two weeks time.
> >
> >We should at least explore more complicated approaches to 
> see if they are
> >worth the hassle IMO.
> >
> >Cheers
> >Errol
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephen_martin@clear.net.nz]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2003 3:30 p.m.
> >> 
> >> So you're voting against the first proposed solution on 
> >> principal and then proposing
> >> a more complicated one.
> >> 
> >> WAAAARRRGGGHHHH!
> >> 
> >> It is no wonder nothing ever gets achieved in less than 5 
> >> years.  And then we
> >> end up with not the best solutions but whatever was current 
> >> when everyone was
> >> sick enough of the whole thing to vote for anything.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> >> From: dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz [mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz]
> >> >> Sent: Monday, 31 March 2003 5:18 p.m.
> >> >> 
> >> >> These three steps would remove the need to record our 
> >> >> begining character point total - we have an ep pool, we pay 
> >> >> based on current stat total, and there is no 5 point 
> >> maximum increase.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Not as simple, and I guess possibly less elegant. Does the 
> >> job though.
> >> >> 
> >> >> So I would vote against Andrew's proposal, but only because I 
> >> >> do not beleive we have discussed other possible remedies.
> >> >> 
> >> >> cheers Ian
> >> >>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >>
> >
> >
> >-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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