Errol Cavit wrote:

>>PCs may have the option of keeping their spell as a non-teachable unique spell or 
>>respending the EP. Passed (7/5/3)
>>
>As Conversion is part of the normal Player/GM interaction  does it need
>specific mention? - I do not think so. We acknowledged that conversion may
>mean that some characters retain it (or their own particular versions of it)
>in a non-teachable form.
>
Hi Errol,

I think that if the GMs present included the nature of the permitted 
conversions (i.e. keep as unteachable _or_ respend EP) as part of the 
resolution then it should be so noted to avoid any confusion.

Without such a notation it would not be unreasonable for a GM overseeing 
conversion to only offer EP (and time) refund as an option -- in most 
cases where spells have been lost (e.g. due to College re-write) then an 
option to retain has not been extended.

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 opinion was that Ian offered this to Jacqui to pacify her so he could
push the vote through. This pork-belly politicing was explicitly not
discussed, nor voted on. Or perhaps I have gone past the point of good
manners.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martind@peace.com] 
Sent: Monday, 22 September 2003 9:52 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Guild meeting minutes - Spring 03


Errol Cavit wrote:

>>PCs may have the option of keeping their spell as a non-teachable unique
spell or 
>>respending the EP. Passed (7/5/3)
>>
>As Conversion is part of the normal Player/GM interaction  does it need
>specific mention? - I do not think so. We acknowledged that conversion may
>mean that some characters retain it (or their own particular versions of
it)
>in a non-teachable form.
>
Hi Errol,

I think that if the GMs present included the nature of the permitted 
conversions (i.e. keep as unteachable _or_ respend EP) as part of the 
resolution then it should be so noted to avoid any confusion.

Without such a notation it would not be unreasonable for a GM overseeing 
conversion to only offer EP (and time) refund as an option -- in most 
cases where spells have been lost (e.g. due to College re-write) then an 
option to retain has not been extended.

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 --

Pork-belly politicing? What do you mean?
[[I'm not being sarcastic - I don't understand the term]]
Cheers G.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Withy <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> 
Sent: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:14:28 +1200 
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Guild meeting minutes - Spring 03 


My opinion was that Ian offered this to Jacqui to pacify her so he could
push the vote through. This pork-belly politicing was explicitly not
discussed, nor voted on. Or perhaps I have gone past the point of good
manners.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martind@peace.com] 
Sent: Monday, 22 September 2003 9:52 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Guild meeting minutes - Spring 03


Errol Cavit wrote:

>>PCs may have the option of keeping their spell as a non-teachable unique
spell or 
>>respending the EP. Passed (7/5/3)
>>
>As Conversion is part of the normal Player/GM interaction  does it need
>specific mention? - I do not think so. We acknowledged that conversion may
>mean that some characters retain it (or their own particular versions of
it)
>in a non-teachable form.
>
Hi Errol,

I think that if the GMs present included the nature of the permitted 
conversions (i.e. keep as unteachable _or_ respend EP) as part of the 
resolution then it should be so noted to avoid any confusion.

Without such a notation it would not be unreasonable for a GM overseeing 
conversion to only offer EP (and time) refund as an option -- in most 
cases where spells have been lost (e.g. due to College re-write) then an 
option to retain has not been extended.

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 opinion was that Ian offered this to Jacqui to pacify her so he could
> push the vote through. This pork-belly politicing was explicitly not
> discussed, nor voted on. Or perhaps I have gone past the point of good
> manners.

Personally I thought it was a neat way of sidestepping an obviously
character based complaint. Meaning we could actually get on with the
supposedly GM driven non-biased voting. In my opinion the use of the
pacifier was perfectly reasonable given that the complaint should not have
occoured in the first place had everyone been wearing their GM hats.

Mandos
/s


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

> > My opinion was that Ian offered this to Jacqui to pacify her so he could
> > push the vote through. This pork-belly politicing was explicitly not
> > discussed, nor voted on. Or perhaps I have gone past the point of good
> > manners.
>
> Pork-belly politicing? What do you mean?
> [[I'm not being sarcastic - I don't understand the term]]
> Cheers G.


Im my presumption, I think Andrew meant "pork-barrel" politics, basically
referring to a symptom of ( in this instance )the American representive
system in which
the politician's judgement is most swayed the happiness of the people due to
re-elect them. Hence big defense contracts and subsidies for their states
make them happy.

Hardly an original problem, and nothing to do with hog jowls, which was my
first thought.

Maybe a more accurate discription might be a concessionary or appeasement
politics, but
I don't know if that help soothe any possible ruffled feathers.



Not annexing nothing, nope, not me......


ben


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

hi guys, i am a little surprised and a triffle hurt by this from Andrew and
Martin. I hope the following comes across as reasonable, as there is no
intention of 'crossing the line'

to the gist of Andrew's paragraph:
Sentence 1 - not true
Sentence 2 - not understood entirely but the 'desire for a vote' is true
Sentence 3 - no comment

to reply in full.

I did not push the 'yes' vote through, although i certainly wanted the vote
to
occur without filibustering (time wasting to block the chance for a vote to
occur). I felt enough people had made up their minds already and we needed a
pure vote. 'decision time' had come.

I wanted the spell removed so that we can look afresh at what ever
'attention not-seeking' spell Mind could have without it being immediately
referenced back to undetectability. Hence the next spell will have its own
rationale, em bc etc. And hence my plea at the end for exactly this.

About Jacqui's continued use of the spell (the character is Starflower isn't
it?). I do not wish any character broken by GMs changing the rules. If
undetectability is critical to the playability or enjoyment of Starflower
then i, as a human with feelings, would offer that it be an unteachable,
non-storable, non-standard mind college spell for Starflower to use. If this
is required
to enable Starflower to continue playing the way her character was
developed, then this is good. The offer made was genuine, if it felt _slick_
to some, then they should look inside themself.

We didn't talk about conversion, other than that comment made to Jacqui. I
honestly think there is enough precedence and that GMs have enough sense to
do the simple conversion unassisted. And Struan offered to Jacqui to do the
conversion of Starflower so that we all know that her needs will be met,
within the context of the discussion and to the better enjoyment of all.

I will finish by reiterating my first point. Part of healthy group dynamics
is that anyone can call for a decision. A vote takes almost no time. IIRC 7
people voted for, 3 voted against, 5 abstained. a decision was made and we
can and will move on. In no way did i push a 'yes' vote through, although i
did try very hard to make a vote happen. And if the 5 abstensions had been
against, then i would continue to play dq and continue to try to make a
positive contribution to the dq community. Either way, I play by the
decision chosen by the community.

regards, Ian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Withy" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>
To: <dq@dq.sf.org.nz>
Sent: Monday, 22 September 2003 10:14
Subject: Re: [dq] Guild meeting minutes - Spring 03


> My opinion was that Ian offered this to Jacqui to pacify her so he could
> push the vote through. This pork-belly politicing was explicitly not
> discussed, nor voted on. Or perhaps I have gone past the point of good
> manners.
>
> Andrew
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martind@peace.com]
> Sent: Monday, 22 September 2003 9:52 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Guild meeting minutes - Spring 03
>
>
> Errol Cavit wrote:
>
> >>PCs may have the option of keeping their spell as a non-teachable unique
> spell or
> >>respending the EP. Passed (7/5/3)
> >>
> >As Conversion is part of the normal Player/GM interaction  does it need
> >specific mention? - I do not think so. We acknowledged that conversion
may
> >mean that some characters retain it (or their own particular versions of
> it)
> >in a non-teachable form.
> >
> Hi Errol,
>
> I think that if the GMs present included the nature of the permitted
> conversions (i.e. keep as unteachable _or_ respend EP) as part of the
> resolution then it should be so noted to avoid any confusion.
>
> Without such a notation it would not be unreasonable for a GM overseeing
> conversion to only offer EP (and time) refund as an option -- in most
> cases where spells have been lost (e.g. due to College re-write) then an
> option to retain has not been extended.
>
> 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 --

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz">m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz</a> wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:200309190549.RAA24952@smtp.sig.net.nz">
  <pre wrap="">Quoting Stephen Martin <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stephen_martin@clear.net.nz">&lt;stephen_martin@clear.net.nz&gt;</a>:<br><br></pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">Can you actively resist a triggered spell?<br><br>I think the reasonable answer is yes, but then technically<br>the BC of the invested item is fixed at time of creation and<br>only dice roll modifiers apply at time of triggering.<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
    <pre wrap=""><!----><br>As always, the question is what do we want &amp; then to justify, or demolish <br>(sorry,... edit) the rules to match what we desire.  I too lean towards feeling <br>that it is reasonable.<br></pre>
    </blockquote>
Going with the "what we want" method: &nbsp;there are 4 standard methods for storing
magic and 3 of them use the term "trigger" in a more of less colloquial fashion.
As already covered, Investeds are triggered, and their Cast Check made at
that point so Active Resist would be OK to calculate (if that's what we want).<br>
    <br>
Wards are also triggered, but "there is no possibility for a double or triple
effect (nor for failure or backfire)". [9.4 Ward Ritual]. Since no Cast Check
is made when they are triggered it wouldn't be terribly sensible to apply
a mod for Active Resist.<br>
    <br>
Magical Traps are also triggered, but in this case the mage had to successfully
cast into the the trap when it was built, with doubles and triples being
possible. (If they had failed they would have had to cast again, a backfire
would have required another cast and repairs to the trap). &nbsp;Active Resist
would be a pain here as we'd need to know both the Cast Chance and the Cast
Check of the original mage in order to sensibly apply the negative mod.<br>
    <br>
Potions are not "triggered", but for completeness -- Potions act as though
the Caster had made a successful (but unexceptional) Cast Check, so again
Active Resist would be hard to integrate.<br>
    <br>
So, of the 4 storage methods only Investment would work easily with Active
Resist, and I too tend towards feeling that Active Resist is reasonable in
this case.<br>
    <br>
Cheers,<br>
Martin<br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="$mailwrapcol">-- 

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:martin.dickson@peace.com">martin.dickson@peace.com</a>
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401</pre>
    <br>
    </body>
    </html>


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

Ian at Dawn's Haven wrote:

>hi guys, i am a little surprised and a triffle hurt by this from Andrew and
>Martin. 
>
Hi Ian,

Excuse me?  If I have in any way given offence I will be happy to 
apologise, but I am rather at a loss to see how I have become implicated 
in surprise or hurt.

Please re-read what I asked -- I simply replied to Errol to state that I 
thought it was important that if multiple conversion options had been 
made available by the GMs that these be documented.  (So that should a 
GM who was not present at the time -- such as me -- came to convert a 
character, we would know what the valid options were).

If on the other hand you would care to un-involve me in this -- that 
would be just fine too.

- Martin

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martind@peace.com]
>>
>>Subject: Re: [dq] Guild meeting minutes - Spring 03
>>
>>
>>Errol Cavit wrote:
>>
>>>As Conversion is part of the normal Player/GM interaction  does it need
>>>specific mention? - I do not think so. 
>>>
>>Hi Errol,
>>
>>I think that if the GMs present included the nature of the permitted
>>conversions (i.e. keep as unteachable _or_ respend EP) as part of the
>>resolution then it should be so noted to avoid any confusion.
>>
>>Without such a notation it would not be unreasonable for a GM overseeing
>>conversion to only offer EP (and time) refund as an option -- in most
>>cases where spells have been lost (e.g. due to College re-write) then an
>>option to retain has not been extended.
>>

-- 

 _/_/  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 --

Hi Ian,

Any indignation at being tarred with Andrew's bellicose brush aside, all 
I wanted to achieve, as you so elegantly put it is to "play by the 
decision chosen by the community".

You wrote:

>We didn't talk about conversion, other than that comment made to Jacqui. I
>honestly think there is enough precedence and that GMs have enough sense to
>do the simple conversion unassisted.
>
The standard conversion option is to refund EP and time and (since the 
spell in question is SK) purchase cost.  This, I agree, would not 
require any special explanation.

However, the minutes as published also indicated that a non-standard 
conversion option (retention as unteachable) was part of the vote.

Do the minutes require correction?

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 --