Scott: Another aspect is that it will give characters that can't train
for 
whatever reason (eg not enough XP) something they can do - I'll go find 
those mushrooms I need for the potion that causes me to have visions.

Sally:
This is one aspect that scares me about the proposal.  That downtime for
the character can be used to be part of powering it up.  It seems to me
that ranking checks are often cursory at the start of adventure - and a
(friendly) GM to sign off getting an ingredient "because it sounds
resonable thing for the chracter to have done" would be rather easy.  

Generally I think of Alusia general public as not very magic savvy (or
perhaps I have been on too many little-village-magic-phobic adventures).
So, like Stephen, I am wary of magical items that have been GM created,
proliferating in the villages adventures pass through.

I like the idea of this to formalise a method for GM's create
non-standard, not gamebreaking, useful items.  Since there are so many
about anyway  - and having a way of constructing them other than "that
shadowy shaper figure from generations past".  

It is good for villages/NPCs to barter rather than pay in monies.  This
involves changing the culture/expectation of adventurers as much as
anything.  

Getting the campaign comitte working has been a good thing - getting
palyers/adventurers involved in the world as whole rather than going off
plane.  This proposal of Jono's could be something that is brought in
gradually via the campaign.  Rather than finding "the book" GM's have
parties discover say one recipie a year??  Rather than being a "rule
change" it is supplementary GM aid.

Fence Sitter Sally
#####################################################################################
Attention:
The information contained in this message and or attachments is intended
only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and
delete the material from any system and destroy any copies.
#####################################################################################


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

Chris Caulfield wrote:

>WHAT IS BROKEN THAT THESE RECIPES NEED TO REPLACE?
>  
>
This isn't a bug report, it's a feature request. :-)

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

Sally Musgrave wrote:

>...having a way of constructing [shaped items] other than "that
>shadowy shaper figure from generations past".
>  
>
Hi Sally,

You're not the only one to mention this "long gone shaper myth" (so read 
nothing into me replying to your comments in particular).

Shapers may not be a player college (neither are Greater Summoners), but 
they are not extinct.  As a player I have met several Shapers and as a 
GM I have used them too.

I'm not sure where this idea that there are now no Shapers has come 
from, but it does not fit observed facts (at least in my experience).

>It is good for villages/NPCs to barter rather than pay in monies.  This
>involves changing the culture/expectation of adventurers as much as
>anything.  
>  
>
I agree -- I once had a village pay a party 3 round cheeses and 1/2 a 
cow for slaying an ogre.  :-)

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

I was not trying to imply that shapers were extinct, merely that on my
low adventures, meeting a shaper in person is not desirable. (I don't
want the party hitting him/her up for personally shaped items.) Thus
when dealing with villagers, they may have a shaped item as payment/to
use - which was created by that shadowy shaper of their past ...
Sally

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Martin Dickson
Sent: Thursday, 2 June 2005 10:04 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Comment and Feedback on Recipe Magics system please


Sally Musgrave wrote:

>...having a way of constructing [shaped items] other than "that shadowy

>shaper figure from generations past".
>  
>
Hi Sally,

You're not the only one to mention this "long gone shaper myth" (so read

nothing into me replying to your comments in particular).

Shapers may not be a player college (neither are Greater Summoners), but

they are not extinct.  As a player I have met several Shapers and as a 
GM I have used them too.

I'm not sure where this idea that there are now no Shapers has come 
from, but it does not fit observed facts (at least in my experience).

>It is good for villages/NPCs to barter rather than pay in monies.  This

>involves changing the culture/expectation of adventurers as much as 
>anything.
>  
>
I agree -- I once had a village pay a party 3 round cheeses and 1/2 a 
cow for slaying an ogre.  :-)

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
#####################################################################################
Attention:
The information contained in this message and or attachments is intended
only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and
delete the material from any system and destroy any copies.
#####################################################################################


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

Sally Musgrave wrote:

>I was not trying to imply that shapers were extinct, merely that on my
>low adventures, meeting a shaper in person is not desirable.
>
Apologies, my misunderstanding. Yes, a Shaper in a village is not 
something I'd expect (unless they were in hiding).

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C56762.21C6A690
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


But some Fundamental issues are:
WHAT IS BROKEN THAT THESE RECIPES NEED TO REPLACE?

What is being implied as being broken? Nothing. It's just a new way of
looking at rewarding PCs. It's like you reading up on some basic squad 
level tactics for your antagonists to use and then telling other GMs how
to get more bang out of the guard other than having them drip with magic. 
Nothing's changed, it's just your using the rules in a new way. 

Absoulutely PCs can do whatever they want to do, they can adventure or
not, they can fight or not, they can create or not, they can discover or
not, they can make rocks or not, they can have families or not.
DQ doesn't limit PC actions - only players do that!

Actually, DQ does limit player options. Your PC must be combat capable, must

earn X amount of cash to advance, must be more useful than they are a
burden.
How do I know this, from observation of PCs playing in the game. Mabye
there's 
a whole host of PCs I don't know about because they do the Allusian
equivalent
of watching TV instead of adventuring. Kinda doubt it though. 

>>>>>>>>>> PROBLEMS WITH THIS IDEA ARE <<<<<<<<<<<<<

POWERING UP PC's:
This is yet another way to power up characters (as if there weren't
already enough) so they can play higher and higher above their 'normal'
level.
These power ups would not be college related so counter-spells wouldn't
work and would require the GM's to equip all their NPC's with similar
items so as to provide a challenge to PC's

No counterspell will stop a herbalist potion, alchemical potion, 
greater/lesser enchantment,wiccan/water potions, amulats or golems. And 
these things only cost money to make. 

ITEMS:
One of the problems with DQ is the fact that there are few restraints on
what GM's give out and sometimes what they give out unbalances the game to
the detriment of others who don't have items as whoopee.
One GM gives out an item they want to give out and other GM's have to
rewrite the item to be playable for the PC or in some rare cases state
'that item wont work in this adventure'

Try no restraints.

Are you asking that GM's give out looser items, more badly written up,
freer to interpretation or merely components for various items?

Currently all I have to do to give out a loose item is take 5 minutes to
scrawl it out on a piece of paper and sign it. If I give out a loose recipie

and all the components what is functionally different? Nothing, I have given
out a loose item. However since the components are intended to be 
separate entities I don't see a problem except that some players will have 
to work for the looseness.

People also seem to think that getting components will be easy. Look at the 
example for the +2 PC tea. What's that component there? 'Red cockatrice
feather'.
Cockatrice. A creature whose gaze turns you to stone/immolates you, has
 virilant poison for blood, a poison bite and turns all who touch it to
stone. Is +2 PC 
for a night worth this? So, yes they'll be easy if you can stand the shame
of playing 
with GMs who give you whatever you want. A GM with a semblance of competence
is unlikely to do this.

And how many times can you boil down your own grandmother anyways?

William (Grandma will be featuring in one recipie just so I can test an
axiom) 

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C56762.21C6A690
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef;
	name="winmail.dat"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="winmail.dat"
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------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C56762.21C6A690--


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

Think of it this way.

Some GMs will start giving out items that are in 7 parts and this is part
one of it. It is limited by time(days weeks, months, and years if we wish),
write-ups from adventures, a small amount by cash, skills (Exp needed to
rank them), and player desire to get something and GMs willing to hand out
write-ups.

It is also intended that the resulting items be semi-permanent so if they
become a real problem then we can stop giving out the part of the recipe
that renews the semi-permanent item. 

I also would like this to work within our current rules system. I see no
need to change them change.

I expect that it will still be easier a million times over to get a loose
broken, game braking item from a GMs adventure as loot written up and
complete (no work from the player needed), than it will be to make any of
these items.

Jonathan Bean
 
Business Development Manager
TME - Its all about time
Phone 966 1656         PO Box 35902, Browns Bay
Fax 448 1051           Auckalnd, New Zealand
Mob 021 173 4060       www.tme.co.nz
Free 0800 55 33 66

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> Chris Caulfield
> Sent: 1 June 2005 8:31 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Comment and Feedback on Recipe Magics system please
> 
> I suppose my thoughts on this idea are (another 2cp worth):
> 
> I like this idea as it's a way of improving the fantasy game we all love
> which is DQ (even if its not perfect, has faults in several areas etc)
> there are just things that need to be discussed further.
> 
> I'm all for more for PC's to do in terms of reasons to live, interact with
> the world etc
> 
> But some Fundamental issues are:
> WHAT IS BROKEN THAT THESE RECIPES NEED TO REPLACE?

I am not aiming to replace things. I wish to add things.


> >> Quest vs. Cash system <<
> Answer: See a GM, discuss what you are thinking and if possible they think
> of an adventure for you to complete to achieve your aim.     This is
> becoming more an more prevalent with a move away from full written
> scenarios to looser missions with set objectives which are usually
> tailored to PC wishes or at times requirements of the DQ campaign world.

Limiting player by making them dependent on GMs running games for the player
for something that is minor (unlike getting to rank 8 or 9 in a skill) is
placing more demands on GMs. Yes you can do this, often as you point out it
is happening, but it is not the only way and I am saying that with a set if
knowledge such as recipes - then this will help assist the GMs to become
free of the minor stuff. 

> Questing is what the game is all about, GM's present a mission with
> specified goals and rewards and the PC chooses to go on the mission or
> not.   

I agree and I hope when a GM says at a guild meeting "we need help with a
vampire" a number of players will think cool - I need vampire teeth for my
recipe. 

> Payment is often cash or equivalent for the mission and
> commensurate to the level of challenge involved.
>
> If we are players in a medieval world then we would surely be similar to
> knights of the time. By this I am meaning PC's are largely independent of
> authority, able to support themselves (& their family) and can buy what
> they require.
> 
> Most PC's don't go on adventure for cash but for other rewards or for the
> chance to better the world.    

I agree I think it is more about the night of the week and real world
location in Auckland that the game is being held at. Sometimes for some
people it is about the GM and the GM style.

> But if PC's do adventure for money this
> means they can then use the money to buy furniture, anti rat rocks etc.
> The cash system means that PC's are then able to learn skills and spend
> vast amounts of time doing ranking etc without having to earn an a
> constant income.
> 
> 
> >> PC's working towards things that they cannot normally do <<
> Answer:  Develop the appropriate skill-set to allow creation of items.
> EG an item to keep rocks away from houses.   Perhaps a combination of
> Herbalist applying a particular salve, which the rock absorbs and then
> releases over time as a gas inimical to rats in a set area.   The other
> part of this is a geologist, miner etc finding the appropriate rock

I have not developed a skill-set as such but I have developed a use for the
skills we currently have. This is to say a recipe that shows you how to use
a skill you have ranked such as "herbalist".

This is what I have done.
 
> PC's should be encouraged to do these sorts of things, which enhance the
> interaction with the DQ universe and provide alternative ways to earn
> income, prestige, competition (with stoat breeders etc)
> 
> 
> >> Players can for the most part not make anything for themselves <<
> Answer: learn skills rather than combat orientated abilities such as
> baking (we all enjoy chocolate cakes) or learn the non combat spells such
> as blessing on crops or unborn children (perfect for wandering around and
> getting money from poor hard working farmers or stressed mothers).
> DQ has skills so that PC's can make all sorts of things they just need to
> learn appropraiet skills.
> 
> >> Players should be able to guide their own directions. <<
> Absoulutely PCs can do whatever they want to do, they can adventure or
> not, they can fight or not, they can create or not, they can discover or
> not, they can make rocks or not, they can have families or not.
> DQ doesn't limit PC actions - only players do that!

My point here is that players are dependent on GMs for event minor stuff.

 
> >> Wicca Amulets <<
> Answer: Propose changes for the college to be play-tested and then voted
> in or out.

I am not interested in changing the rules system.

> 
> >> What power of items are we talking <<
> If they are combat orientated are there not already enough ways of doing
> this?   Such as herbalist potions, Enhancement spells etc?
> If non-combat related then the items are just for around the home (perhaps
> better decorations, bells and whistles?).

The level or power of the item is not really the issue. 

> 
> 
> I SUGGEST YOU PROVIDE A SAMPLE LIST OF THE SORTS OF RECIPES YOU ARE
> PROMOTING SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE WHAT THEY ARE INTENDED TO REPLACE AND
> THEREFORE HOW WORTHWHILE THEY ARE
> 
> 
> >>>>>>>>> PROBLEMS WITH THIS IDEA ARE <<<<<<<<<<<<<
> 
> POWERING UP PC's:
> This is yet another way to power up characters (as if there weren't
> already enough) so they can play higher and higher above their 'normal'
> level.

Advancement for people within DQ is something that a lot of people seek.
This isnt true for everyone but is clearly true for some.

> These power ups would not be college related so counter-spells wouldn't
> work and would require the GM's to equip all their NPC's with similar
> items so as to provide a challenge to PC's

This may or may not be true. If you make a wand that casts lightning bolts I
would say that an Air mage counter spell would work.

> 
> 
> ITEMS:
> One of the problems with DQ is the fact that there are few restraints on
> what GM's give out and sometimes what they give out unbalances the game to
> the detriment of others who don't have items as whoopee.
> One GM gives out an item they want to give out and other GM's have to
> rewrite the item to be playable for the PC or in some rare cases state
> 'that item wont work in this adventure'
> 
> Are you asking that GM's give out looser items, more badly written up,
> freer to interpretation or merely components for various items?
> 
> Cheers
> Chris
> 
> > Chris Caulfield
> > I can't see what benefit these changes can bring to DQ.
> >
> > The key question here is:
> >
> > - What is lacking in the game that these recipes are needed to address?
> >
> > JB:
> >
> > Character and player determination of quests and results across a
> > multi-GM-Game, independent of a single GM. I hope it will change the
> > culture from a cash system to quest system.
> >
> > This is an opportunity to allow characters to work towards things that
> > they can not normally do - such as make a rock which keeps rats away
> > from a house, Talk to the dead. Etc The use of write-ups was intended
> > from the start so players can swap with other players at guild meetings.
> > I hope that the requirements of places/events/skills and time and
> > write-ups for ingredient - will limit if not completely stop the heavy
> > involvement of wide scale NPC, but retain the system it in the hands of
> > characters and players.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am an ex EQ player and I know about all these from that style of
> > gaming.
> >
> > But EQ is about gaining better and better items either by discovery or
> >
> > creation and no actual Roleplaying which is what DQ is about.   Online
> >
> > gaming cannot replicate the play of a bunch of PC's in a room together
> >
> > discussing actions, reactions etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > JB:
> >
> > Forget EQ I don't think it is relevant.
> >
> >
> >
> > We have Shapers to create items, Wicca for amulets and other colleges
> >
> > create various other items for use by PC's.  This means that the
> > colleges
> >
> > and the PC's choices (of colleges (or non colleges), weapons, skills
> >
> > etc)determine what they can and cannot do rather than their equipment.
> >
> >
> >
> > JB:
> >
> > Wicca amulets are broke. Players can for the most part not make anything
> > for themselves, such as a rock to keep rats away. Look upon this as a
> > formal system for quests.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In DQ we gain items for use and a lot of times to fit with the PC's
> >
> > character, persona etc but the main thing is the Roleplaying of the PC
> > by
> >
> > a player.
> >
> >
> >
> > JB:
> >
> > I agree - but again GMs give out items and its all about freeing the
> > restraints that GMs have to do all the work. Players should be able to
> > guide their own directions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Apologies Jono, these sound like I'm slating your ideas for the sake of
> > it
> >
> > but I'm not, I just like the DQ system the way it is - with all its
> >
> > foibles, faults and issues.
> >
> >
> >
> > I like the idea of developing PC interactions with the world,
> > environment
> >
> > & geography that are outside of guild missions and developing contacts,
> >
> > influencing events, building relationships etc, however I too retain the
> >
> > cynacism Andrew has expressed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> >
> > JB:
> >
> > I don't think I can not help you with you cynacism.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

> Sally:
> This is one aspect that scares me about the proposal.  That downtime for
> the character can be used to be part of powering it up.  It seems to me
> that ranking checks are often cursory at the start of adventure - and a
> (friendly) GM to sign off getting an ingredient "because it sounds
> resonable thing for the chracter to have done" would be rather easy.

Items (ingredients) from GMs should come as loot from adventure or as
signing off the completion of a recipe that has been uses, which will have
needed the item write-ups (from other adventures) an skills/place/event etc
to make the new item. This is other than common items with are shop brought
and do not need a write up for. 

Jonathan Bean
 
Business Development Manager
TME - Its all about time
Phone 966 1656         PO Box 35902, Browns Bay
Fax 448 1051           Auckalnd, New Zealand
Mob 021 173 4060       www.tme.co.nz
Free 0800 55 33 66


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

William Dymock wrote:

> It's like you reading up on some basic squad
> level tactics for your antagonists to use and then telling other GMs how
> to ...
> Nothing's changed, it's just your using the rules in a new way.
>
Not quite -- for this system to work well requires a reasonable level of 
GM buy in.  Jono (or any GM) could give away recipes as treasure, and 
make those recipes usable by anyone with the appropriate skills, 
components, locations, etc, but if components are only available from 
the same GM then a key value of the proposal will be lost.  Certainly 
not every GM needs to be willing to start handing out unusual body parts 
as treasure, but the more who do the better the system would work.

> No counterspell will stop a herbalist potion, alchemical potion,
> greater/lesser enchantment,wiccan/water potions, amulats or golems. And
> these things only cost money to make.
>
Counterspells generally only protect against incoming hostile magics, or 
prevent magics of a certain sort from being cast in a very small area.  
Namer dissipation or dispel magic however, both of which are CS based, 
can effect some of the magics noted above, but would be ineffective 
against items/potions crafted from recipes unless the recipe so stated.

> People also seem to think that getting components will be easy. Look 
> at the  example for the +2 PC tea. What's that component there? 'Red 
> cockatrice  feather'.

> ...  Is +2 PC for a night worth this?

One risk however is that things with precious little value at the moment 
may become quite useful in this system and we would want to ensure that 
GMs understand this.  At the moment I could have a box full of 
cockatrice feathers as "window dressing" in some Alchemist's lab, but 
once they have value I'd want to be a lot more careful, and it is very 
easy to accidentally set up a situation where considerable loot is 
possible... or some straining of suspended disbelief occurs: "Ah yes, 
you search the Alchemist's lab and find absolutely nothing of 
interest... nope, no feathers, no eyes, no blood, mucous, or other body 
fluids, nothing". :-)  It can be dealt with I guess, just something be 
aware of; PCs in the past have shown the damnedest ability to walk off 
with everything that isn't welded down.

> And how many times can you boil down your own grandmother anyways?
>
Twice... in most families.

> William (Grandma will be featuring in one recipie just so I can test an
> axiom)
>
I thought the axiom was "sell" rather than "rend". :-)

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

I'm still mulling over the Recipe proposal.

Would the following suggestions reduce people's concerns for escalation
and tie recipe more to PC development and individuality?

(a) making recipes explicitly learnable - e.g. it take 2 weeks and a
trivial amount of ep to learn, but you need a teacher. It implies that
most villagers won't have any recipes, and that a village could have
some special recipes known only there. It also means that a PC can go
somewhere, stay an extra two weeeks and learn something cute, that may
or may not require going back to the area or taking supplies from the
area to use. It also means that a PC can't just *give* the recipe to
soemone else - it takes time for them to teach it as well.

(b) making some recipes tied to their creator - i.e. you make it, you
wear it - or requiring the target's time during the creation or tuning
process. This would reduce sale of recipe items, casual looting, and
"sets of"s - where people own one of each amulet because they can and
its easier to say "one of everything" than choose not to have the
miscarriage amulet. It would then make recipe items more
individualistic.

I'm not convinced by either suggestion, but feel they address some of
the concerns raised without changing many of the underlying goals.

Trying to be constructive.

Andrew


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

We as GMs can add controls to things like Recipes as we see fit.
One control that has been used within the game is Exp.

Andrew and Martin have both floated the idea of Exp being linked to the
recipes.

My main problem with this is:
I don't want to change the rules as such.

I called named the system as Recipes as I see it as a recipe to making a
cake. I don't want to make a skill such as Baking.

I want to give some knowledge to use the skill of Baking to make a Cake.
As I don't want us all to become sick of Cakes and to be tripping over cakes
in the street - I have made sure that the supply of ingredients is for cakes
is limited.


Jonathan Bean
 
Business Development Manager
TME - Its all about time
Phone 966 1656         PO Box 35902, Browns Bay
Fax 448 1051           Auckalnd, New Zealand
Mob 021 173 4060       www.tme.co.nz
Free 0800 55 33 66

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Withy (DSL AK)
> Sent: 2 June 2005 11:57 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Comment and Feedback on Recipe Magics system please
> 
> I'm still mulling over the Recipe proposal.
> 
> Would the following suggestions reduce people's concerns for escalation
> and tie recipe more to PC development and individuality?
> 
> (a) making recipes explicitly learnable - e.g. it take 2 weeks and a
> trivial amount of ep to learn, but you need a teacher. It implies that
> most villagers won't have any recipes, and that a village could have
> some special recipes known only there. It also means that a PC can go
> somewhere, stay an extra two weeeks and learn something cute, that may
> or may not require going back to the area or taking supplies from the
> area to use. It also means that a PC can't just *give* the recipe to
> soemone else - it takes time for them to teach it as well.
> 
> (b) making some recipes tied to their creator - i.e. you make it, you
> wear it - or requiring the target's time during the creation or tuning
> process. This would reduce sale of recipe items, casual looting, and
> "sets of"s - where people own one of each amulet because they can and
> its easier to say "one of everything" than choose not to have the
> miscarriage amulet. It would then make recipe items more
> individualistic.
> 
> I'm not convinced by either suggestion, but feel they address some of
> the concerns raised without changing many of the underlying goals.
> 
> Trying to be constructive.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

Jonathan Bean wrote:

>Andrew and Martin have both floated the idea of Exp being linked to the
>recipes.
>
>My main problem with this is: I don't want to change the rules as such.
>
>I called named the system as Recipes as I see it as a recipe to making a
>cake. I don't want to make a skill such as Baking.
>
>I want to give some knowledge to use the skill of Baking to make a Cake.
>  
>
Hi Jono,

Yes, introducing your recipes and having them cost EP would be a rule 
change, but I see it as an harmonious extension to the current 
rule/concept that practical, applied knowledge has costs.  The question 
is: has the PC already paid the cost by ranking the dependant skills(s)?

For example, a Weaponsmith with the sword proficiency can make any sword 
-- presumably any sword with which they are familiar. If such a 
weaponsmith had never seen a Rapier it seems reasonable that they could 
not make one.  However, once they have seen one then they can crank out 
rapiers with no additional EP cost (making Rapiers has been paid for 
under the sword category).  To learn to make whips however would require 
an extra category (and the expenditure of more EP).

By the same token a Baker can make cakes, and although Baker does not 
have categories like Weaponsmith, it seems reasonable to argue that it 
covers all mundane cakes, pastries, etc. Any additional, mundane, cake 
recipe acquired by the Baker should not require additional EP. 
Specifically: the Baker can already make you a cake.

The question inherent in suggesting EP costs for the proposed recipes is 
whether the ability to take various wierd and wonderful plants and make 
a "Cake of Growing " (a la Alice in Wonderland) is covered by the EP 
cost of Baker or is an extension to that skill.

I believe that considering the recipes you propose to be skill 
extensions, and having a small but non-trivial cost for such extensions 
would be changing the rules in a manner consistent with the existing 
rule/experience concepts, and would positively control/limit the spread 
and use of recipes in a fashion that I would support.

(Andrew: I previously suggested to Jono a sliding scale of 200ep & 1 day 
up to 2000ep and 1 week based on complexity/power, EP and time to be 
noted on the recipe. A teacher could be an additional requirement, but 
I'd also be keen on the possibilty of learning recipes from books).

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C56776.9B1C6B60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit




>
Not quite -- for this system to work well requires a reasonable level of 
GM buy in.  Jono (or any GM) could give away recipes as treasure, and 
make those recipes usable by anyone with the appropriate skills, 
components, locations, etc, but if components are only available from 
the same GM then a key value of the proposal will be lost.  Certainly 
not every GM needs to be willing to start handing out unusual body parts 
as treasure, but the more who do the better the system would work.

How is changing how loot is given out changing the rules? Currently we give
out items, special abilities, new spells and moneys. Recipies give out item 
components. Where is the rule change?

Counterspells generally only protect against incoming hostile magics, or 
prevent magics of a certain sort from being cast in a very small area.  
Namer dissipation or dispel magic however, both of which are CS based, 
can effect some of the magics noted above, but would be ineffective 
against items/potions crafted from recipes unless the recipe so stated.

No, I imagine Disjunction would be the spell to use,.Besides what
counterspells protect you from regular items? None. Notice the complete 
lack of rule changing.

One risk however is that things with precious little value at the moment 
may become quite useful in this system and we would want to ensure that 
GMs understand this.  At the moment I could have a box full of 
cockatrice feathers as "window dressing" in some Alchemist's lab, but 
once they have value I'd want to be a lot more careful, and it is very 
easy to accidentally set up a situation where considerable loot is 
possible... or some straining of suspended disbelief occurs: "Ah yes, 
you search the Alchemist's lab and find absolutely nothing of 
interest... nope, no feathers, no eyes, no blood, mucous, or other body 
fluids, nothing". :-)  It can be dealt with I guess, just something be 
aware of; PCs in the past have shown the damnedest ability to walk off 
with everything that isn't welded down.

I thought this is why we insist on GMs having functioning brains. And 
what's wrong with the loot out of the alchemy lab being codified rather 
than totally up to the wildness and looseness of the GM? Also a recipie 
list would act as a damn good indicator of what you could concievably 
find there. And alchemists don't have to be right all the time. Have a few, 
or a lot of things that look useful but don't do anything.


> William (Grandma will be featuring in one recipie just so I can test an
> axiom)
>
I thought the axiom was "sell" rather than "rend". :-)

In order to prevent PCs reselling and rescuing granny over and over.of
course.

William (Wise in the ways of players)

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C56776.9B1C6B60
Content-Type: application/ms-tnef;
	name="winmail.dat"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="winmail.dat"
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------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C56776.9B1C6B60--


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

Hi William,

William Dymock wrote:

> > Not quite -- for this system to work well...  
>
> How is changing how loot is given out changing the rules? Currently we 
> give
> out items, special abilities, new spells and moneys. Recipies give out 
> item
> components. Where is the rule change?
>
I think that you think that I am arguing with you... or worried about 
rule changes.  Nothing could be further from the truth. For the first I 
agree with your general comments and support for Jono's proposal... and 
for the second: bring em on.  :-)

I was simply suggesting that this is not quite the same thing as 
offering some new squad tactics to the GMs insofar as it will work 
better if more of us support it. That is all.

> No, I imagine Disjunction would be the spell to use,.Besides what
> counterspells protect you from regular items? None. Notice the complete
> lack of rule changing.
>
See as above with regards to arguing and rule changes. However, many 
regular items do embody college magics and CS can effect these.  Jono 
has suggested that should a recipe create something containing a 
lightning bolt then Air college CS should help... all I wrote was that 
CS would be ineffective unless the recipe stated to the contrary... 
which is how I would expect the problem to be solved.

> I thought this is why we insist on GMs having functioning brains.
>
Ignoring the fact that a functioning brain has never been a documented 
requirement for GMing in DQ, I was simply making the point that the 
introduction of recipes (and attendant value for weird things) would be 
something that GMs would have to allow for when working out potential 
treasure.

Perhaps we should document the requirement for brains.  Or perhaps these 
could be a quest item... "We're off to see the Wizard...."  :-)

Cheers,
Martin

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

*This is my opinion / viewpoint only.  If I offend anyone reading this I 
apologise now as that is not my intention.


*Having followed this discussion since it was proposed I am still in 
full favour of this is idea as it acn be used to add  evn more depth to 
our current campaign.  I can see characters hiring and leading parties  
for the sole purpose of getting  a rare and adngerous ingredient.


The negative sides main argument so far has been "It might be abused to 
make characters more powerful".  This is a b&^*$#t reason to block 
something from coming into the game which will enhance.  There will 
always be powergamers who are only interested in having the most 
powerful character possible.  I beleive they are a minority in the guild.

If an intersting idea is going to be canned beacuse a minority of 
powergamers *MIGHT* abuse it then we should stop playing altogether.  
This attitude gives total power to a minority and ignores the majority 
who wish to role-play not roll-play.


*This is my opinion / viewpoint only.  If I offend anyone reading this I 
apologise now as that is not my intention.


Scott Whitaker
*


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

no offence taken Scott.

rather than 'negative' perhaps i (and even 'we') may be considered 'cautious'.

If i have reservations, then it is my responsibility to articulate them. at the moment i am uneasy about the proposal, but cannot do much more than write that.
 
if you support something, then you have discharged any responsibility by so writing.

but please, do not expect me to shut up, just because someone somewhere _had an idea_ If would be a poorer world if we cannot discuss an idea, voice concerns, raise suggestions and get *all of our needs met*. and the proposal may even be the better for it. Perhaps you are too recent, or too old, a player to remember the plethora of changes suggested to DQ. it got to the point where the first requirement of any change was to demonstrate a need for the change, and to show exactly how the change would benefit the game. 
Now several people have explained, as simply as possibly, the benefits they see in this proposal. That doesn't mean i agree with them. seeing something in writing does not equate to truth - an issue of note for politicians and religiuos zealots.

I will attempt to get some thoughts down and posted. but please do not interpret them as gospel truth. they are only my thoughts. 

Ian
  
> 
> The negative sides main argument so far has been "It might be abused to make characters more powerful".  This is a b&^*$#t reason to block something from coming into the game which will enhance.  There will always be powergamers who are only interested in having the most 
> powerful character possible.  I beleive they are a minority in the guild.


> 
> If an intersting idea is going to be canned beacuse a minority of 
> powergamers *MIGHT* abuse it then we should stop playing altogether.  
> This attitude gives total power to a minority and ignores the majority 
> who wish to role-play not roll-play.
> 
> 
> *This is my opinion / viewpoint only.  If I offend anyone reading this I 
> apologise now as that is not my intention.
> 
> 
> Scott Whitaker
> *
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

here are some thoughts. they vaguely match my feelings. 

I too am mulling this over. I am more interested in the game effects than the logic behind it. right now my intuition suggests this is a bad idea - and i am not sure why.
  

  it appears to me, that people are comparing recipes with items. i feel
  there are several flaws to that.
  
  items can generally only be used by one person at a time. skills or
  spells learnt are generally non-teachable. It appears to my reading that
  these recipes are highly teachable. many items can be made with one
  recipe (ok you need rare ingredients), and then shared amongst the
  party. 
  
  co-ordination between GMS will police this. we then worry about loose
  GMs and wild items. these arguments contradict each other.
  
  ingredients, loot, coins, magic, gems. It is all taxable, tradable and
  hence indistinguishable. It matters not a whit to anyone if you pay by
  coins, gems or agreed value of an item / ingredient. so it doesn't add
  to the game - you just need to imagination to understand that teh
  village paid x sp worth of blah. sure the blah can be funny or
  interesting. I guess some villages can suddenly have valuable resources
  (rare ingredients) where before they only had sheep, goats, and a young
  girl frog - but those villagers will be rare, and it will be rarer still
  for PCs to encounter them, so the possibility will hardly ever come up.
  
 
  
  If we are to have recipes then perhaps they should be the junior of
  items 
- much weaker than shaped items. 
- and they do not stack, nor meld to create a new effect. 
- you can be under the effects of one such item at a time. 
- They are non-teachable from a PC. (here i disagree with Andrew)
- they require a high rank of a non-adventuring, non-artisan skill (eg alchemist) AND an artisan skill
  (in teh same (n)PC) to learn and to make items. 
- they require proper facilities to make items. 
- items have a shelf life. 
  
I also liked Jacqui's list of points to be addressed. 

so why shouldn't it be learnable from a fellow PC? well what would be the point of learning something that requires 'rare' ingredients? if everyone can learn it and benefit from it, then the ingredients can't be that rare. So why not just offer them at the door as adventurers head out - like shadow wings only new and cool.

It is not that i disagree with the concept, it is that i have reservations. And i would like to be able to see that they have been addressed, along with the concerns raised by others.

the more deparate teh defence of a suggestion, and less willingness to change the suggestion, the more i suspect a hidden agenda and personal gain from the proposers. of course i expect to be completely wrong on the last bit. but a niggle could begin soon.

After all, I am sure we are all willing to change things for the good of the game.

Ian
    
    From: "Andrew\ Withy\ \(DSL\ AK\)" < 
    Date: 2005/06/02 Thu AM 11:56:39 GMT+12:00
    To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
    Subject: Re: [dq] Comment and Feedback on Recipe Magics system please
    
    I'm still mulling over the Recipe proposal.
    
    Would the following suggestions reduce people's concerns for 
    escalation and tie recipe more to PC development and individuality?
    
    (a) making recipes explicitly learnable - e.g. it take 2 weeks and a 
    trivial amount of ep to learn, but you need a teacher. It implies that
  
    most villagers won't have any recipes, and that a village could have 
    some special recipes known only there. It also means that a PC can go 
    somewhere, stay an extra two weeeks and learn something cute, that may
  
    or may not require going back to the area or taking supplies from the 
    area to use. It also means that a PC can't just *give* the recipe to 
    soemone else - it takes time for them to teach it as well.
    
    (b) making some recipes tied to their creator - i.e. you make it, you 
    wear it - or requiring the target's time during the creation or tuning
  
    process. This would reduce sale of recipe items, casual looting, and 
    "sets of"s - where people own one of each amulet because they can and 
    its easier to say "one of everything" than choose not to have the 
    miscarriage amulet. It would then make recipe items more 
    individualistic.
    
    I'm not convinced by either suggestion, but feel they address some of 
    the concerns raised without changing many of the underlying goals.
    
    Trying to be constructive.
    
    Andrew


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

dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz wrote:

>so why shouldn't it be learnable from a fellow PC? well what would be the point of learning something that requires 'rare' ingredients?
>
Character interest? desire to learn new stuff?

> if everyone can learn it and benefit from it, then the ingredients can't be that rare. So why not just offer them at the door as adventurers head out - like shadow wings only new and cool.
>  
>
A flat EP cost per recipe learnt may solve this -- would certainly 
explain why bunnies don't just get them all.

-- 
Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com


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

Jonathan Bean
 
Business Development Manager
TME - Its all about time
Phone 966 1656         PO Box 35902, Browns Bay
Fax 448 1051           Auckalnd, New Zealand
Mob 021 173 4060       www.tme.co.nz
Free 0800 55 33 66

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> Martin Dickson
> Sent: 2 June 2005 4:21 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Comment and Feedback on Recipe Magics system please
> 
> dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> 
> >so why shouldn't it be learnable from a fellow PC? well what would be the
> point of learning something that requires 'rare' ingredients?
> >
> Character interest? desire to learn new stuff?

It's a Cake.
 
> > if everyone can learn it and benefit from it, then the ingredients can't
> be that rare. So why not just offer them at the door as adventurers head
> out - like shadow wings only new and cool.
> >
> >
> A flat EP cost per recipe learnt may solve this -- would certainly
> explain why bunnies don't just get them all.

It is only knowledge. Bunnies that have read about a recipe should later on
adventure maybe able to recall that XYZ is of some value in one of those
recipe things I read about - but because they don't have the skills needed
to do anything with it (say ranger rank 4 or whatever) then they are not
able to do anything with it.

So now the adventure stands in front of the over with a mixing bowl and
ingredients for the cake and no skill to bake or cook - good luck.


Jono

 
> --
> Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
> User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
> Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
> Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

hmm, a possibility. much like a 'knowledge' costs 500 ep?
  
> >
> A flat EP cost per recipe learnt may solve this -- would certainly 
> explain why bunnies don't just get them all.
> 
> -- 
> Martin Dickson                           ph:  +64 9 3730400 x5115
> User Experience Engineer                 fax: +64 9 3730401
> Strategy, Research & Architecture        email: martin.dickson@peace.com
> Peace Software                           http://www.peace.com
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Jonathan Bean
 
Business Development Manager
TME - Its all about time
Phone 966 1656         PO Box 35902, Browns Bay
Fax 448 1051           Auckalnd, New Zealand
Mob 021 173 4060       www.tme.co.nz
Free 0800 55 33 66
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz
> Sent: 2 June 2005 4:03 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: [dq] Comment and Feedback on Recipe Magics system please
> 
> 


> here are some thoughts. they vaguely match my feelings.
> 
> I too am mulling this over. I am more interested in the game effects than
> the logic behind it. right now my intuition suggests this is a bad idea -
> and i am not sure why.
> 
> 
>   it appears to me, that people are comparing recipes with items. i feel
>   there are several flaws to that.
> 
>   items can generally only be used by one person at a time. 
Expect all the common ones - Wicca amulets, lessors, greaters, healing
potions, waters of healing etc

>   skills or spells learnt are generally non-teachable.
This is only a form of damage control.

>   It appears to my reading that
>   these recipes are highly teachable. 

Yes it is intended that the knowledge not be a controlling aspect of this
system, but gaining more knowledge is always helpful and an advantage.

>   many items can be made with one
>   recipe (ok you need rare ingredients), and then shared amongst the
>   party.


Yes this is intended.
 
>   co-ordination between GMS will police this. we then worry about loose
>   GMs and wild items. these arguments contradict each other.

I am intending very little to no real co-ordination between GMs on this.
There is simple no need. GMs that wish to can give out write-ups, and they
will enter play as loot etc. GMs that do not won't. We will print a booklet
for GMs if they wish that will be internally balanced as a document as far
as the number of items go. 

To example - 
All pages will have 8 write-ups on them.
Pages 1 to 8 pages are uncommon write-ups
Pages 9 and 10 rare write-ups
Page 11 very rare.

This simple system of resistance and relying on GMs laziness, and most GMs
just not caring a huge amount about it - will I hope on average maintain the
rough balance in the items being handed out in the form of write-ups.

Keep in mind all items here are intended to be semi-permanent only.
 
>   ingredients, loot, coins, magic, gems. It is all taxable, tradable and
>   hence indistinguishable. It matters not a whit to anyone if you pay by
>   coins, gems or agreed value of an item / ingredient. so it doesn't add
>   to the game - you just need to imagination to understand that teh
>   village paid x sp worth of blah. sure the blah can be funny or
>   interesting. I guess some villages can suddenly have valuable resources
>   (rare ingredients) where before they only had sheep, goats, and a young
>   girl frog - but those villagers will be rare, and it will be rarer still
>   for PCs to encounter them, so the possibility will hardly ever come up.
> 
> 
> 
>   If we are to have recipes then perhaps they should be the junior of
>   items
> - much weaker than shaped items.
Why - if I spend 6 real years questing for xyz - maybe its ok that its like
a normal shaped item.

> - and they do not stack, nor meld to create a new effect.
Why - it is intended that they do exactly this - stack and meld to create
new effects. That is why I have in the orginal post - two items at the end -
and the second item using the first as a ingrediant for the second item.

> - you can be under the effects of one such item at a time.
Why - I hope these will completely replace "normal shaped items" for the
most part. I hope we have less ABC swords/armour and more recipes and
write-ups.

> - They are non-teachable from a PC. (here i disagree with Andrew)
Ummm 

> - they require a high rank of a non-adventuring, non-artisan skill (eg
> alchemist) AND an artisan skill
>   (in teh same (n)PC) to learn and to make items.
They already do

> - they require proper facilities to make items.
Already do

> - items have a shelf life.
Already do



> 
> I also liked Jacqui's list of points to be addressed.
> 
> so why shouldn't it be learnable from a fellow PC? well what would be the
> point of learning something that requires 'rare' ingredients? if everyone
> can learn it and benefit from it, then the ingredients can't be that rare.
> So why not just offer them at the door as adventurers head out - like
> shadow wings only new and cool.
> 
> It is not that i disagree with the concept, it is that i have
> reservations. And i would like to be able to see that they have been
> addressed, along with the concerns raised by others.
> 
> the more deparate teh defence of a suggestion, and less willingness to
> change the suggestion, the more i suspect a hidden agenda and personal
> gain from the proposers. of course i expect to be completely wrong on the
> last bit. but a niggle could begin soon.
> 
> After all, I am sure we are all willing to change things for the good of
> the game.
> 
> Ian
> 
>     From: "Andrew\ Withy\ \(DSL\ AK\)" <
>     Date: 2005/06/02 Thu AM 11:56:39 GMT+12:00
>     To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
>     Subject: Re: [dq] Comment and Feedback on Recipe Magics system please
> 
>     I'm still mulling over the Recipe proposal.
> 
>     Would the following suggestions reduce people's concerns for
>     escalation and tie recipe more to PC development and individuality?
> 
>     (a) making recipes explicitly learnable - e.g. it take 2 weeks and a
>     trivial amount of ep to learn, but you need a teacher. It implies that
> 
>     most villagers won't have any recipes, and that a village could have
>     some special recipes known only there. It also means that a PC can go
>     somewhere, stay an extra two weeeks and learn something cute, that may
> 
>     or may not require going back to the area or taking supplies from the
>     area to use. It also means that a PC can't just *give* the recipe to
>     soemone else - it takes time for them to teach it as well.
> 
>     (b) making some recipes tied to their creator - i.e. you make it, you
>     wear it - or requiring the target's time during the creation or tuning
> 
>     process. This would reduce sale of recipe items, casual looting, and
>     "sets of"s - where people own one of each amulet because they can and
>     its easier to say "one of everything" than choose not to have the
>     miscarriage amulet. It would then make recipe items more
>     individualistic.
> 
>     I'm not convinced by either suggestion, but feel they address some of
>     the concerns raised without changing many of the underlying goals.
> 
>     Trying to be constructive.
> 
>     Andrew
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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