Why clarify, it's magic not engineering. Besides, it exists as a mechanism
for the GM to
give info to the players.

William

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Mandos Mitchinson
Sent: Sunday, 2 January 2005 11:59 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Divination.


Based on the lack of consensus with current comments showing two people to
each option, is this something we should clarify within the rules?

Are there any other people out there with preferences?

Mandos
/s


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

For my tuppeny worth...

As long as the body can be resurrected, then I would prefer option 2. 

But I don't think divination should cross major changes in aura (such as
living to dead) or description (say from 'wine glass' to 'shards of
vitrified sand'). We need to be able to have some mystery in the game.

Also this means that as long as _significant change_ is done then magic
cannot reveal previous magic. And hey, glorification of semi-gratuitous
violence is always good.

An (extreme) example would be hand of glory. I do not think divination would
reveal anything older than its transformation (which counts as 'significant
change' for the above purposes).

As for William's last, I agree with the preference for guidance over rule,
but I am unaware of an up-dated source book for GMs where this guideline can
be put. GM's guide Mandos?

Ian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> William Dymock
> Sent: 03 January 2005 07:25
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Divination.
> 
> Why clarify, it's magic not engineering. Besides, it exists as a mechanism
> for the GM to
> give info to the players.
> 
> William
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Mandos Mitchinson
> Sent: Sunday, 2 January 2005 11:59 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Divination.
> 
> 
> Based on the lack of consensus with current comments showing two people to
> each option, is this something we should clarify within the rules?
> 
> Are there any other people out there with preferences?
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

Ask Michael P, as he wrote the skill.

I think you will find it has to do with degrees or styles of similarity.
Probably a Babylonian, or even Sumerian, plot to confuse us latter day
babel-towerians.

Btw- I didn't know that centaurs spoke their own version of elvish.

Ian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> Mandos Mitchinson
> Sent: 02 January 2005 23:57
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: [dq] Language Groups
> 
> 
> How do language groups work?
> 
> I would have though that a language would only be part of one family and
> on
> group of languages but Drow, Ogre and Centaur Elvish and Purple-Old-Drow
> are
> in two groups each?
> 
> What defines a grouping?
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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