Quoting Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>:

> At 13:01 13/01/06, you wrote:
> >So now we have had the holidays and stopped talking about the finer
> >points of the weather table are we able to get back to fixing the broken
> >spells of Necrosis, Hellfire, Whirlwind Vortex and (maybe but probably
> >not) dragonflames?
>
> I concur that the principle problem with these spells is their multiple
> target nature,

The principle problem with the spell is not the number of targets. It was that
their functional utility was so high  you would rarely cast anything else in
combat.

>
> Change that into DQese, changing lighting to flames (or whirlwinds or...
> whatever it is necros do) and reducing the number of secondary targets, and
> I think you might well have a decent sort of write-up which maintains the
> basic flavour of the existing spells while removing the worst of the
> excesses. One advantage is that the need to select a primary target and
> make sure other targets are in the area means that the player is not doing
> the same thing round after round...

It doesn't reduce the functional utility of the spells in any significant way.
You would still be better off casting this sort of spell than an area of effect
save for nothing damage spell like Stream of Corruption.

For a suggestion to be workable, it has to change the spell so that something
else is worth considering. It is extremely unlikely, given this logical
requirement, that you can do it with one spell description. I would not think
it likely that it will work at all with this spell description at all, however.

>
> However, I still maintain that the spells Agony and Windstorm are in many
> ways at least as broken... or why are there so many PCs around with
> specific anti-Agony effects? Hmm?

This is true, irrelevant, and capable of dragging the discussion off topic.
Please start a new thread if you want to talk about Agony and Windstorm.

Jim.


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

Computer Role Playing Game

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Sent: Monday, 16 January 2006 10:28 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] How have crappages changed table-top?


Quoting William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>:

Don't know. What's a CRPG?


Jim


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

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 14/01/2006

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 14/01/2006


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

Quoting William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>:


They can do everything that requires vast amounts of calculation really quickly,
and they don't forget details.

They cannot tell stories, though, and they cannot read them, either.

So, they create the situation where you never have to worry about the rules,
because you, as a player, have no real impact on them, and can't convince the
game to change them in your favour. The focus, then, is on using the rules to
create a situation that you want.

This means that you tend not to focus too much on the things that can distract
you from immersion...dice rolling, tactical displays, bits of paper,
etc...Instead, you get a more cinematic sense of what is going on, and it is
easy to translate into the role. I don't believe that you get substantial role
playing in the sense of great performances, player to player. But, players get
an internal sense of validation that you probably can't get very often in a
real time rpg.

Having said that, you can't do anything in the game that is is your own. You
can't choose to pursue an adventure that hasn't been scripted. You have to
follow the path of the quest you are on, or else it will fail and there will
have been  no point to the exercise.

In a real rpg, a player can tell the DM that he's going to hunt down some NPC
and visit a pointy reckoning on them for whatever reason...That's something you
can't do in an crpg.

Jim.


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

------=_Part_13970_24524200.1137414686107
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I know its rare but in some CRPGs you do get the oppertunity to do rare and
unique things. There was a game a while back. I forget its name. Came out
roughly the same time as dungeon seige but was more D&D orientated. You
could make your own modules and one of my friends tried making them for his
friends and when they did something or wanted to do something it could
change the next module he made. I realise this is a fairly unusual example
but with some adaption it could make for one of the best mixes of total
immersion and conequence/reward based RPing.

Dylan

P.S. It might have been Never winter Nights but I can't remember for sure
since I never played any of the modules he made.


On 1/17/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> Quoting William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>:
>
>
> They can do everything that requires vast amounts of calculation really
> quickly,
> and they don't forget details.
>
> They cannot tell stories, though, and they cannot read them, either.
>
> So, they create the situation where you never have to worry about the
> rules,
> because you, as a player, have no real impact on them, and can't convince
> the
> game to change them in your favour. The focus, then, is on using the rule=
s
> to
> create a situation that you want.
>
> This means that you tend not to focus too much on the things that can
> distract
> you from immersion...dice rolling, tactical displays, bits of paper,
> etc...Instead, you get a more cinematic sense of what is going on, and it
> is
> easy to translate into the role. I don't believe that you get substantial
> role
> playing in the sense of great performances, player to player. But, player=
s
> get
> an internal sense of validation that you probably can't get very often in
> a
> real time rpg.
>
> Having said that, you can't do anything in the game that is is your own.
> You
> can't choose to pursue an adventure that hasn't been scripted. You have t=
o
> follow the path of the quest you are on, or else it will fail and there
> will
> have been  no point to the exercise.
>
> In a real rpg, a player can tell the DM that he's going to hunt down some
> NPC
> and visit a pointy reckoning on them for whatever reason...That's
> something you
> can't do in an crpg.
>
> Jim.
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_13970_24524200.1137414686107
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>I know its rare but in some CRPGs you do get the oppertunity to do rar=
e and unique things. There was a game a while back. I forget its name. Came=
 out roughly the same time as dungeon seige but was more D&amp;D orientated=
. You could make your own modules and one of my friends tried making them f=
or his friends and when they did something or wanted to do something it cou=
ld change the next module he made. I realise this is a fairly unusual examp=
le but with some adaption it could make for one of the best mixes of total =
immersion and conequence/reward based RPing.
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Dylan</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>P.S. It might have been Never winter Nights but I can't remember for s=
ure since I never played any of the modules he made.<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1/17/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">=
<a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a><=
/b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac=
.nz
</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Quoting William Dymock &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:dworkin@ihug.co.nz">dworkin@ihug.co.nz</a>&gt;:<br><br><br>The=
y can do everything that requires vast amounts of calculation really quickl=
y,
<br>and they don't forget details.<br><br>They cannot tell stories, though,=
 and they cannot read them, either.<br><br>So, they create the situation wh=
ere you never have to worry about the rules,<br>because you, as a player, h=
ave no real impact on them, and can't convince the
<br>game to change them in your favour. The focus, then, is on using the ru=
les to<br>create a situation that you want.<br><br>This means that you tend=
 not to focus too much on the things that can distract<br>you from immersio=
n...dice rolling, tactical displays, bits of paper,
<br>etc...Instead, you get a more cinematic sense of what is going on, and =
it is<br>easy to translate into the role. I don't believe that you get subs=
tantial role<br>playing in the sense of great performances, player to playe=
r. But, players get
<br>an internal sense of validation that you probably can't get very often =
in a<br>real time rpg.<br><br>Having said that, you can't do anything in th=
e game that is is your own. You<br>can't choose to pursue an adventure that=
 hasn't been scripted. You have to
<br>follow the path of the quest you are on, or else it will fail and there=
 will<br>have been&nbsp;&nbsp;no point to the exercise.<br><br>In a real rp=
g, a player can tell the DM that he's going to hunt down some NPC<br>and vi=
sit a pointy reckoning on them for whatever reason...That's something you
<br>can't do in an crpg.<br><br>Jim.<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify ma=
ilto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a>=
 --<br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_13970_24524200.1137414686107--


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

Aparantly Matt is selling everything, so there is a sale starting on
Thursday. Historic Games, Kyber Pass, massive closing down sale. 30% off
everything across the board, thats EVERYTHING, no exceptions, at 30% off.
(gw, boardgames, fow, roleplaying, warmachine, etc)... osprey books are at
50%. Thought some people on here might like to know.

Karen


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

> However, I still maintain that the spells Agony and Windstorm are in
many 
> ways at least as broken... or why are there so many PCs around with
> specific anti-Agony effects? Hmm?

How many people are immune to agony and windstorm? I am aware of two
players with anti-agony writeups and no-one with anti-windstorm.

I think both spells are fine. They are of limited use as they affect a
huge area and get PC's as well as NPC's, so you have to be careful in
the application of the spell. I have seen a number of times when agony
has been used by both PC's and NPC's and have never thought the spell
unbalanced or unfair and the only real problem it adds is a bit of
complexity to the initiative system. Windstorm I have seen cast fairly
rarely but has never seemed broken. 

Mandos
/s


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

How many people are immune to agony and windstorm? I am aware of two
players with anti-agony writeups and no-one with anti-windstorm.

Yup, Saydar complains that no-one is taking his resisting agony lessons to
heart :.-(
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 14/01/2006


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C61B4A.199AE7F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

No. How have the existance of CRPGs CHANGED table-top games. I know the
differences. How has it changed the table-top experience? Are their less
munchkins (cos they can load Diablo, DAoC or Final Fantasy) or more (due to
increased expectations from playing such games). Has there been a move to
more streamlined invisible rules? Is there a bigger emphasis on the things
CRPGs just cant do (I climb out the window and climb up to the next one)?

William
  -----Original Message-----
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
RPer 4eva
  Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 1:31 a.m.
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  Subject: Re: [dq] How have crappages changed table-top?


  I know its rare but in some CRPGs you do get the oppertunity to do rare
and unique things. There was a game a while back. I forget its name. Came
out roughly the same time as dungeon seige but was more D&D orientated. You
could make your own modules and one of my friends tried making them for his
friends and when they did something or wanted to do something it could
change the next module he made. I realise this is a fairly unusual example
but with some adaption it could make for one of the best mixes of total
immersion and conequence/reward based RPing.

  Dylan

  P.S. It might have been Never winter Nights but I can't remember for sure
since I never played any of the modules he made.


  On 1/17/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz > wrote:
    Quoting William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>:


    They can do everything that requires vast amounts of calculation really
quickly,
    and they don't forget details.

    They cannot tell stories, though, and they cannot read them, either.

    So, they create the situation where you never have to worry about the
rules,
    because you, as a player, have no real impact on them, and can't
convince the
    game to change them in your favour. The focus, then, is on using the
rules to
    create a situation that you want.

    This means that you tend not to focus too much on the things that can
distract
    you from immersion...dice rolling, tactical displays, bits of paper,
    etc...Instead, you get a more cinematic sense of what is going on, and
it is
    easy to translate into the role. I don't believe that you get
substantial role
    playing in the sense of great performances, player to player. But,
players get
    an internal sense of validation that you probably can't get very often
in a
    real time rpg.

    Having said that, you can't do anything in the game that is is your own.
You
    can't choose to pursue an adventure that hasn't been scripted. You have
to
    follow the path of the quest you are on, or else it will fail and there
will
    have been  no point to the exercise.

    In a real rpg, a player can tell the DM that he's going to hunt down
some NPC
    and visit a pointy reckoning on them for whatever reason...That's
something you
    can't do in an crpg.

    Jim.


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



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 14/01/2006

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C61B4A.199AE7F0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D822523420-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>No.=20
How have the existance of CRPGs&nbsp;CHANGED table-top games. I know the =

differences. How has it changed the table-top experience? Are their less =

munchkins (cos they can load Diablo, DAoC or Final Fantasy) or more (due =
to=20
increased expectations from playing such games). Has there been a move =
to more=20
streamlined invisible rules? Is there a bigger emphasis on the things =
CRPGs just=20
cant do (I climb out the window and climb up to the next=20
one)?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D822523420-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D822523420-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2>William</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>RPer =
4eva<BR><B>Sent:</B>=20
  Tuesday, 17 January 2006 1:31 a.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] How have crappages changed =

  table-top?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>I know its rare but in some CRPGs you do get the oppertunity to =
do rare=20
  and unique things. There was a game a while back. I forget its name. =
Came out=20
  roughly the same time as dungeon seige but was more D&amp;D =
orientated. You=20
  could make your own modules and one of my friends tried making them =
for his=20
  friends and when they did something or wanted to do something it could =
change=20
  the next module he made. I realise this is a fairly unusual example =
but with=20
  some adaption it could make for one of the best mixes of total =
immersion and=20
  conequence/reward based RPing. </DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>Dylan</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV>P.S. It might have been Never winter Nights but I can't remember =
for sure=20
  since I never played any of the modules he made.<BR><BR>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3Dgmail_quote>On 1/17/06, <B =
class=3Dgmail_sendername><A=20
  =
href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</A></=
B>=20
  &lt;<A =
href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz=20
  </A>&gt; wrote:</SPAN>=20
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
  style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: =
#ccc 1px solid">Quoting=20
    William Dymock &lt;<A=20
    =
href=3D"mailto:dworkin@ihug.co.nz">dworkin@ihug.co.nz</A>&gt;:<BR><BR><BR=
>They=20
    can do everything that requires vast amounts of calculation really =
quickly,=20
    <BR>and they don't forget details.<BR><BR>They cannot tell stories, =
though,=20
    and they cannot read them, either.<BR><BR>So, they create the =
situation=20
    where you never have to worry about the rules,<BR>because you, as a =
player,=20
    have no real impact on them, and can't convince the <BR>game to =
change them=20
    in your favour. The focus, then, is on using the rules to<BR>create =
a=20
    situation that you want.<BR><BR>This means that you tend not to =
focus too=20
    much on the things that can distract<BR>you from immersion...dice =
rolling,=20
    tactical displays, bits of paper, <BR>etc...Instead, you get a more=20
    cinematic sense of what is going on, and it is<BR>easy to translate =
into the=20
    role. I don't believe that you get substantial role<BR>playing in =
the sense=20
    of great performances, player to player. But, players get <BR>an =
internal=20
    sense of validation that you probably can't get very often in =
a<BR>real time=20
    rpg.<BR><BR>Having said that, you can't do anything in the game that =
is is=20
    your own. You<BR>can't choose to pursue an adventure that hasn't =
been=20
    scripted. You have to <BR>follow the path of the quest you are on, =
or else=20
    it will fail and there will<BR>have been&nbsp;&nbsp;no point to the=20
    exercise.<BR><BR>In a real rpg, a player can tell the DM that he's =
going to=20
    hunt down some NPC<BR>and visit a pointy reckoning on them for =
whatever=20
    reason...That's something you <BR>can't do in an=20
    crpg.<BR><BR>Jim.<BR><BR><BR>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<A=20
    href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A>=20
  --<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C61B4A.199AE7F0--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61ADC.4A8F0AA3
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Given this is neither a computer game or table-top list, could people
reply to William directly?
=20
Andrew

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61ADC.4A8F0AA3
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179023420-16012006><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20
size=3D2>G<SPAN class=3D179023420-16012006>iven this is neither&nbsp;a =
computer game=20
or table-top list, could people reply to William=20
directly?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179023420-16012006><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D179023420-16012006></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV=
>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D179023420-16012006><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D179023420-16012006>Andrew</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV=
></BODY></HTML>
=00
------_=_NextPart_001_01C61ADC.4A8F0AA3--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=____1137443852487_3fKsG59G)F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

hey,

i dont think d-flames is broken. sure the multiple effects can be down powered, but the 60 degree arc is just fine. it is quite limiting and the caster has to be at teh front or they will scorch some friends. (Used as gm and triggered by PC.)

You may even find whilrwind vortex would benefit from a similar limitation.

Ian
> 
> From: Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>
> Date: 2006/01/16 Mon PM 11:45:45 GMT+13:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken spells.
> 
> At 13:01 13/01/06, you wrote:
> >So now we have had the holidays and stopped talking about the finer
> >points of the weather table are we able to get back to fixing the broken
> >spells of Necrosis, Hellfire, Whirlwind Vortex and (maybe but probably
> >not) dragonflames?
> 
> I concur that the principle problem with these spells is their multiple 
> target nature, and suggested a compromise akin to the D&D spell "chain 
> lightning" wherein the primary target would resist for half, and secondary 
> targets take half damage, resist for none.... as follows, quoting directly 
> from the D20 SRDs:
> 
> "This spell creates an electrical discharge that begins as a single stroke 
> commencing from your fingertips. Unlike lightning bolt, chain lightning 
> strikes one object or creature initially, then arcs to other targets.
> The bolt deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum 
> 20d6) to the primary target. After it strikes, lightning can arc to a 
> number of secondary targets equal to your caster level (maximum 20). The 
> secondary bolts each strike one target and deal half as much damage as the 
> primary one did (rounded down).
> Each target can attempt a Reflex saving throw for half damage. You choose 
> secondary targets as you like, but they must all be within 30 feet of the 
> primary target, and no target can be struck more than once. You can choose 
> to affect fewer secondary targets than the maximum."
> 
> Change that into DQese, changing lighting to flames (or whirlwinds or... 
> whatever it is necros do) and reducing the number of secondary targets, and 
> I think you might well have a decent sort of write-up which maintains the 
> basic flavour of the existing spells while removing the worst of the 
> excesses. One advantage is that the need to select a primary target and 
> make sure other targets are in the area means that the player is not doing 
> the same thing round after round...
> 
> It's also worthwhile noting the numbers involved - a PC would not be facing 
> an NPC with chain lightning until around 11th or 12th level - by which 
> point an average PC would have say 70 to 80 hit points - and would be 
> unlucky to go down, even as the primary target of the spell, even assuming 
> they failed the saving throw, and had no elemental resistance spells up. DQ 
> characters normally just don't get that kind of endurance and fatigue, and 
> the only elemental resistance one can get is versus fire.
> 
> Part of the problem is applying critical successes to these spells and the 
> multiplication of damage that can result - while multiple damage is not 
> such a problem with the relatively low damage bolt spells, here I'd suggest 
> adding no more than an extra 1/rank on a double effect, and 2/rank on a 
> triple - significant, while not all out deadly.
> 
> However, I still maintain that the spells Agony and Windstorm are in many 
> ways at least as broken... or why are there so many PCs around with 
> specific anti-Agony effects? Hmm?
> 
> Jacqui
> 
> (who has given up on reading most of this thread since most of it seems to 
> be irrelevant to the subject - so please excuse me if my points have 
> already been covered) 
> 

------=____1137443852487_3fKsG59G)F
Content-Type: text/html;
	name="reply"
Content-Disposition: inline;
	filename="reply"

<html>
<body>
At 13:01 13/01/06, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">So now we have had the holidays
and stopped talking about the finer<br>
points of the weather table are we able to get back to fixing the
broken<br>
spells of Necrosis, Hellfire, Whirlwind Vortex and (maybe but
probably<br>
not) dragonflames?</blockquote><br>
I concur that the principle problem with these spells is their multiple
target nature, and suggested a compromise akin to the D&amp;D spell
&quot;chain lightning&quot; wherein the primary target would resist for
half, and secondary targets take half damage, resist for none.... as
follows, quoting directly from the D20 SRDs:<br><br>
&quot;This spell creates an electrical discharge that begins as a single
stroke commencing from your fingertips. Unlike <i>lightning bolt</i>,
<i>chain lightning </i>strikes one object or creature initially, then
arcs to other targets.<br>
The bolt deals 1d6 points of electricity damage per caster level (maximum
20d6) to the primary target. After it strikes, lightning can arc to a
number of secondary targets equal to your caster level (maximum 20). The
secondary bolts each strike one target and deal half as much damage as
the primary one did (rounded down).<br>
Each target can attempt a Reflex saving throw for half damage. You choose
secondary targets as you like, but they must all be within 30 feet of the
primary target, and no target can be struck more than once. You can
choose to affect fewer secondary targets than the maximum.&quot;
<br><br>
Change that into DQese, changing lighting to flames (or whirlwinds or...
whatever it is necros do) and reducing the number of secondary targets,
and I think you might well have a decent sort of write-up which maintains
the basic flavour of the existing spells while removing the worst of the
excesses. One advantage is that the need to select a primary target and
make sure other targets are in the area means that the player is not
doing the same thing round after round... <br><br>
It's also worthwhile noting the numbers involved - a PC would not be
facing an NPC with chain lightning until around 11th or 12th level - by
which point an average PC would have say 70 to 80 hit points - and would
be unlucky to go down, even as the primary target of the spell, even
assuming they failed the saving throw, and had no elemental resistance
spells up. DQ characters normally just don't get that kind of endurance
and fatigue, and the only elemental resistance one can get is versus
fire.<br><br>
Part of the problem is applying critical successes to these spells and
the multiplication of damage that can result - while multiple damage is
not such a problem with the relatively low damage bolt spells, here I'd
suggest adding no more than an extra 1/rank on a double effect, and
2/rank on a triple - significant, while not all out deadly. <br><br>
However, I still maintain that the spells Agony and Windstorm are in many
ways at least as broken... or why are there so many PCs around with
specific anti-Agony effects? Hmm?<br><br>
Jacqui<br><br>
(who has given up on reading most of this thread since most of it seems
to be irrelevant to the subject - so please excuse me if my points have
already been covered)</body>
</html>


------=____1137443852487_3fKsG59G)F--


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

At 08:10 17/01/06, you wrote:
>How many people are immune to agony and windstorm? I am aware of two
>players with anti-agony writeups and no-one with anti-windstorm.
>
>I think both spells are fine. They are of limited use as they affect a
>huge area and get PC's as well as NPC's, so you have to be careful in
>the application of the spell. I have seen a number of times when agony
>has been used by both PC's and NPC's and have never thought the spell
>unbalanced or unfair and the only real problem it adds is a bit of
>complexity to the initiative system. Windstorm I have seen cast fairly
>rarely but has never seemed broken.

I am not talking about these spells from the point of view of a player with 
a necromancer (or air mage) in the party. I am talking about them as a GM 
who frequently uses necromancers (and occasionally air mages) as 
antagonists in adventurers.

Typically I would have a necromancer accompanied by undead minions facing a 
party - such minions are unaffected by agony, and thus can act freely while 
the party is slowed or unable to act. The fact that this spell will affect 
an entire party and slows them even if they resist means that it's 
frustrating for players and I don't like to frustrate my players... I like 
them to have fun - which means that as it stands I cannot use it. And that 
is enough for me to cry "Broken!"

Much the same frustration results when a party is caught in a windstorm. 
The evening a GM used that spell on a party I was it was one of the most 
miserable role-playing experiences I have ever had - and it wasn't the 
fault of the GM in question. It was the combination of a spell which knocks 
people prone, and keeps knocking them prone together with the rule that one 
cannot cast while prone... Which is by the way a less than heroic rule... 
reduce the base chance sure, but let them try to cast when they're down...

Hmmm... It might help if the appropriate counterspell suppressed the 
effects of each of these spells within the area of the counterspell....

Jacqui


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

------=_Part_119574_10094547.1137444343454
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/17/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> Quoting Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>:
>
> The principle problem with the spell is not the number of targets. It was
> that
> their functional utility was so high  you would rarely cast anything else
> in
> combat.


...

For a suggestion to be workable, it has to change the spell so that
> something
> else is worth considering.


Of the changes suggested to Hellfire so far, Mark's proposal (single target
/ centre of effect big zorch, plus surrounding lesser collateral damage)
seems the best example of changing the nature of the spell's functional
utility rather than just reducing the # of targets or damage.

The collateral damage "shape" given by the proposal creates a use
restriction, rather like DF's cone of effect, making the spell inappropriat=
e
for some uses.

Drawbacks that reduce the universal application of a spell force decision
making.

Offering 2 spells -- #1) single target / high damage, and #2) area or
multi-target / low damage is still not much of a decision -- big bad =3D us=
e
#1, little bads =3D use #2, can't use #2 for some reason =3D use #1.

With reference to Witch college: keeping Hellfire as the one damage spell,
but changing its utility in the way Mark has suggested is more likely to
force users to look for alternate spells in (at least) some circumstances,
and may provide added reasons to rank and use DMin, DMag, and Harm Entity.

Btw, if we want a name change for the Wiccan version -- if diverging from
Fire's -- and if (per Mark's suggestion) it creates a big whoosh of flame
from underfoot, then I'd suggest "Balefire", as having witchy overtones,
being a usually outdoor fire lit for magical purposes, and having funereal
ties. :-)

Cheers,
Martin

------=_Part_119574_10094547.1137444343454
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/17/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"><a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auck=
land.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a></b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raro002=
@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">
</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rg=
b(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Quoting Ja=
cqui Smith &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz">flamis@ihug.co.nz</a>&g=
t;:
<br><br>The principle problem with the spell is not the number of targets. =
It was that<br>their functional utility was so high&nbsp;&nbsp;you would ra=
rely cast anything else in<br>combat.</blockquote><div><br>...<br></div><br=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204,=
 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
For a suggestion to be workable, it has to change the spell so that somethi=
ng<br>else is worth considering.</blockquote><div><br>Of the changes sugges=
ted to Hellfire so far, Mark's proposal (single target / centre of effect b=
ig zorch, plus surrounding lesser collateral damage) seems the best example=
 of changing the nature of the spell's functional utility rather than just =
reducing the # of targets or damage.
<br><br>The collateral damage &quot;shape&quot; given by the proposal creat=
es a use restriction, rather like DF's cone of effect, making the spell ina=
ppropriate for some uses.<br><br>Drawbacks that reduce the universal applic=
ation of a spell force decision making.
<br><br>Offering 2 spells -- #1) single target / high damage, and #2) area =
or multi-target / low damage is still not much of a decision -- big bad =3D=
 use #1, little bads =3D use #2, can't use #2 for some reason =3D use #1.<b=
r>
<br>With reference to Witch college: keeping Hellfire as the one damage spe=
ll, but changing its utility in the way Mark has suggested is more likely t=
o force users to look for alternate spells in (at least) some circumstances=
, and may provide added reasons to rank and use DMin, DMag, and Harm Entity=
.
<br><br>Btw, if we want a name change for the Wiccan version -- if divergin=
g from Fire's -- and if (per Mark's suggestion) it creates a big whoosh of =
flame from underfoot, then I'd suggest &quot;Balefire&quot;, as having witc=
hy overtones, being a usually outdoor fire lit for magical purposes, and ha=
ving funereal ties. :-)
<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div>

------=_Part_119574_10094547.1137444343454--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C61B4C.9C0007F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1250"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

MessageLast I checked DQ was a table-top game.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Andrew Withy (DSL AK)
  Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 9:35 a.m.
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
  Subject: Re: [dq] How have crappages changed table-top?


  Given this is neither a computer game or table-top list, could people
reply to William directly?

  Andrew
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 14/01/2006

------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C61B4C.9C0007F0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="windows-1250"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dwindows-1250">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D567455420-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>Last I=20
checked DQ was a table-top game. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Andrew Withy (DSL=20
  AK)<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, 17 January 2006 9:35 a.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] How have crappages changed =

  table-top?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D179023420-16012006><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20
  size=3D2>G<SPAN class=3D179023420-16012006>iven this is neither&nbsp;a =
computer=20
  game or table-top list, could people reply to William=20
  directly?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D179023420-16012006><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20
  size=3D2><SPAN=20
  =
class=3D179023420-16012006></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV=
>
  <DIV><SPAN class=3D179023420-16012006><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20
  size=3D2><SPAN=20
  =
class=3D179023420-16012006>Andrew</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV=
></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C61B4C.9C0007F0--


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

On 17/01/2006, at 09:34, Andrew Withy ((DSL AK)) wrote:

> Given this is neither a computer game or table-top list, could people 
> reply to William directly?

Well DQ is a table-top roleplaying game, but you are right this is not 
a general roleplaying list.

cheers,

clare


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

> Typically I would have a necromancer accompanied by undead 
> minions facing a party - such minions are unaffected by agony, and
thus can 
> act freely while the party is slowed or unable to act. The fact that
this 
> spell will affect an entire party and slows them even if they resist
means that it's 
> frustrating for players and I don't like to frustrate my 
> players... I like them to have fun - which means that as it stands I
cannot use 
> it. And that is enough for me to cry "Broken!"

Agony and Windstorm are special knowledge spells with specific uses,
hordes of undead and a necromancer with a range of special knowledge
spells seems like a medium high/high kind of bad guy. Players at those
levels should be ready fopr frustration and hardship, things are going
to be tough and if it is too tough or not fun then maybe you need to
look at the players you have and shape the adventure appropriatly. 

Just because a spell isn't fun for players to run into doesn't mean the
spell is broken. Personally I like the screams you can hear from players
as the agony goes off, tis music to mine ears. 

Mandos
/s


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

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61AE0.F97CDB86
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1250"

I don't think the DQ-list is an appropriate place for a meta discussion of
this sort.
You could perhaps set up a thread in a role-playing forum somewhere, and
point people here to it?
URL of a gaming blog I look at occasionally below, it links to lots of
gaming sites.
http://www.20by20room.com/ <http://www.20by20room.com/> 
 
Cheers
Errol

-----Original Message-----
From: William Dymock [mailto:dworkin@ihug.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 09:59
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] How have crappages changed table-top?


Last I checked DQ was a table-top game. 

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Andrew Withy (DSL AK)
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 9:35 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] How have crappages changed table-top?


Given this is neither a computer game or table-top list, could people reply
to William directly?
 
Andrew


------_=_NextPart_001_01C61AE0.F97CDB86
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="windows-1250"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1250">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>

<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=730225720-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I 
don't think the DQ-list is an appropriate place for a meta discussion of this 
sort.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=730225720-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>You 
could&nbsp;perhaps set up a thread in a role-playing forum somewhere, and point 
people here to it?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=730225720-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>URL of 
a gaming blog I look at occasionally below, it links to lots of gaming 
sites.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=730225720-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><A 
href="http://www.20by20room.com/">http://www.20by20room.com/</A></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=730225720-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=730225720-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=730225720-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Errol</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> William Dymock 
  [mailto:dworkin@ihug.co.nz]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, 17 January 2006 
  09:59<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] How have 
  crappages changed table-top?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=567455420-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Last 
  I checked DQ was a table-top game. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
  <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
    <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma 
    size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz 
    [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Andrew Withy (DSL 
    AK)<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, 17 January 2006 9:35 a.m.<BR><B>To:</B> 
    dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] How have crappages changed 
    table-top?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
    <DIV><SPAN class=179023420-16012006><FONT face=Arial><FONT 
    color=#0000ff><FONT size=2>G<SPAN class=179023420-16012006>iven this is 
    neither&nbsp;a computer game or table-top list, could people reply to 
    William directly?</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
    <DIV><SPAN class=179023420-16012006><FONT face=Arial><FONT 
    color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN 
    class=179023420-16012006></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
    <DIV><SPAN class=179023420-16012006><FONT face=Arial><FONT 
    color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN 
    class=179023420-16012006>Andrew</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61AE0.F97CDB86--


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

Windstorm.
On a high game, windstorm is fairly ignorable - 2xPS + 2-AG - Rank is
often at 100% for half the party (if its not, use higher-ranked waters
of strength!). It kills arrow fire and personal flight - the latter
being a fine reason to introduce it into one of your combats for some
variety. This means that a EM200 spell has small or tactical effect at
high levels. Good.

At low-medium levels, with PS+AG ~ 20-40, most peole fail around half
the time. Given that you then need to spend the next action getting up,
it's a little much. Saying that if you fail the stat check then you
can't act for that pulse/action as you are knocked down and getting up
again leads to more activity, rather than having to make two 50% rolls
in a row to prepare your sword again, which is a bit boring for players.
I would be happy with this as a rule tweak, if people think windstorm
needs work.

Casting while prone encourages cowardice. This is why I was happy to see
it gone. Commonsense or caution by the entire party is sometimes
required - its more slapstick roleplaying than heroic roleplaying a lot
of the time. However sniping by casting while behind a log and being
safe while the rest of the party risks their necks by working within the
genre is not to be encouraged.

Andrew


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

At 09:54 17/01/06, you wrote:
>Agony and Windstorm are special knowledge spells with specific uses,
>hordes of undead and a necromancer with a range of special knowledge
>spells seems like a medium high/high kind of bad guy. Players at those
>levels should be ready fopr frustration and hardship, things are going
>to be tough and if it is too tough or not fun then maybe you need to
>look at the players you have and shape the adventure appropriatly.
>
>Just because a spell isn't fun for players to run into doesn't mean the
>spell is broken. Personally I like the screams you can hear from players
>as the agony goes off, tis music to mine ears.

Hardship for PCs is one thing.... frustration for players is quite another. 
Even at high levels I don't like to see frustration in players - I like to 
see hardships which can be overcome by ingenuity, not problems which are by 
their nature, insoluble. And the Agony spell, as it stands, because it is a 
massive area effect slow-or-worse spell which cannot be overcome by player 
ingenuity is in the later category.

I don't like to see players scream... I am not the kind of GM who sees the 
players as the enemy. I see them as fellow participants in the art of 
story, and for that purpose the Agony spell as it stands is well and truly 
unusable.

Jacqui


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

A combination Agony and spiralling Windstorm created some of the best
heroic ingenuity (perhaps driven by frustration) that I've seen (a
couple of years ago). Only one of the party failed the Agony. She was
also affected by the windstorm a fair bit. She crawled into the teeth of
the wind, and then leapt up, allowing the spiralling windstorm to throw
her spasming, agonied body into and through the cluster of pleb
bodyguards protecting a group of support mages while the rest of the
party dealt with the attack mages and fighters. By the time we could
help her, she had broken the cohesion and morale of the enemy by
throwing herself through them, and then crawling upwind again three
times. The remaining half of the mage group fled when a mobile party
member arrived.

Agony can create heroics - its just hard and uncommon.

-----Original Message-----
Hardship for PCs is one thing.... frustration for players is quite
another. 
Even at high levels I don't like to see frustration in players - I like
to 
see hardships which can be overcome by ingenuity, not problems which are
by 
their nature, insoluble. And the Agony spell, as it stands, because it
is a 
massive area effect slow-or-worse spell which cannot be overcome by
player 
ingenuity is in the later category.

Jacqui


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

> I don't like to see players scream... I am not the kind of GM 
> who sees the players as the enemy. I see them as fellow participants
in the art of 
> story, and for that purpose the Agony spell as it stands is well and
truly 
> unusable.

Unusable by you..... 

Your not that kind of Gm....

Just a quick reminder that we are in a multiGM campaign here and we
should be able to accommodate lots of different styles and tastes. 

If Agony is not something you like to use on a party I would suggest
that you exercise your freedom of choice and do not use it. Others will
exercise the same choice and use the spell, either way the spell is not
broken it is simply one you don't want to use. 

Mandos
/s


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

Hi all,

I have spoken to some people already and I am sorry if I am repeating
myself. I am interested in either being involved in a GM workshop or helping
run one.

Here is my view:
Given the nature of DQ where we have a single GM and multiple players,
players often have the opportunity to learn from other players within a
game. Sometimes this is true for GMs also, but most of the time it is
inappropriate to talk about GM’ing skill within a game. GMs in general work
in isolation. I am keen to see a group of GMs gather to try to improve the
raw GM’ing skill.

This is to say - not rules as such but skills that a GM calls upon such as:
Handling a group of people, creating and holding tension within a game,
consequences of GM styles and actions etc

To this end:
Direction:
1) I would like to get 4 to 6 GMs to talk for 10 to 15 mins on a subject,
which has been of value to them, in a structured talk.
2) I am aiming at this point to get GMs from differing sub-groups within DQ.
3) I hope they will write-up an overview of what they will be speaking on.
4) Put it into an agenda, which will be going out a couple of weeks before
hand so GMs are able to think about the subject before the talk.
5) Conduct the workshop on a Saturday in early March (if we get things
done).
6) Speakers will talk to their subject, then Q&A for 5mins, then Hamish will
facilitate a general discussion.
7) At the end of the event we will get GMs to fill in forms of what they
valued, and what they would like to see next time.
8) Publish a record of the event (agenda, talk, discussion).

Hamish Brown (a skilled facilitator) and he is willing to assist in such an
attempt.

Aims:
To create an environment where GMs can learn something in a strutured way.
To encourage GMs.
To be inclusive of all DQ GM new and old.
If it is a success I want the Campaign Committee to work on the next one and
expand their charter to include helping GMs.
Not to argue of the pros/cons of rules.

--------------------
We all need your help!!

Calling all GMs - If you have thought about your games and what has worked
for you and you think it is of value please contribute. We can all learn
something from each other so please put your hand up and contribute.

I am looking for 4 people willing to write-up their subject and talk on it
other GMs.

So in general what do people think of the idea.
Are people willing to assist and help in this?

Jono


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

At 10:09 17/01/06, you wrote:
>On a high game, windstorm is fairly ignorable - 2xPS + 2-AG - Rank is
>often at 100% for half the party (if its not, use higher-ranked waters
>of strength!).

The actual formula is 2 × (Physical Strength + Agility) - 2 × Rank
At high levels one can assume the NPC will have at least Rank 10 in the 
spell - so unless you have strength boosted and assuming good stats of 20 
or so in both PS and AG (unusual even at high level for mages) you're prone 
40% of the time - I don't think that is able to be ignored.

>It kills arrow fire and personal flight - the latter
>being a fine reason to introduce it into one of your combats for some
>variety. This means that a EM200 spell has small or tactical effect at
>high levels. Good.
>
>At low-medium levels, with PS+AG ~ 20-40, most peole fail around half
>the time. Given that you then need to spend the next action getting up,
>it's a little much. Saying that if you fail the stat check then you
>can't act for that pulse/action as you are knocked down and getting up
>again leads to more activity, rather than having to make two 50% rolls
>in a row to prepare your sword again, which is a bit boring for players.
>I would be happy with this as a rule tweak, if people think windstorm
>needs work.

Average PS and AG (say total 30) versus the basic rank 6 gives a failure 
about 50% of the time... personally I'd go for the option where you make an 
initial stat check, and thereafter only if you attempt to move from hex to 
hex or to engage in melee.

>Casting while prone encourages cowardice. This is why I was happy to see
>it gone. Commonsense or caution by the entire party is sometimes
>required - its more slapstick roleplaying than heroic roleplaying a lot
>of the time. However sniping by casting while behind a log and being
>safe while the rest of the party risks their necks by working within the
>genre is not to be encouraged.

Behind a log, behind a tree, peeking through an arrow slit.... there's 
really no difference.... casting from cover will happen, because it is a 
valid tactical option. Good tactics don't make for bad or unheroic stories 
(having just finished reading another Honor Harrington novel I can 
certainly vouch for that). However, just knocking the mage off her feet 
should not stop her from waving her hand correctly... and makes for a much 
more heroic picture, than "Oh, I have to stand up before I can cast."

Jacqui


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

> The actual formula is 2 × (Physical Strength + Agility) - 2 × 
> Rank At high levels one can assume the NPC will have at least 
> Rank 10 in the spell - so unless you have strength boosted and assuming good 
> stats of 20 or so in both PS and AG (unusual even at high level for 
> mages) you're prone 40% of the time - I don't think that is able to be ignored.

On a high or even medium game most characters (or at least one or two in a party) will have good ranked waters of strength, so strength will be high. Anyone who doesn't is ill prepared and if you are ill prepared on a high you deserve to be prone 40% of the time :-)

Mandos
/s


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

Quoting William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>:

People seem to have less patience with the administration side of rpgs and are
more interested in what the result of a critical decision point is.

Jim.

> No. How have the existance of CRPGs CHANGED table-top games. I know the
> differences. How has it changed the table-top experience? Are their less
> munchkins (cos they can load Diablo, DAoC or Final Fantasy) or more (due to
> increased expectations from playing such games). Has there been a move to
> more streamlined invisible rules? Is there a bigger emphasis on the things
> CRPGs just cant do (I climb out the window and climb up to the next one)?
>
> William
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> RPer 4eva
>   Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 1:31 a.m.
>   To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
>   Subject: Re: [dq] How have crappages changed table-top?
>
>
>   I know its rare but in some CRPGs you do get the oppertunity to do rare
> and unique things. There was a game a while back. I forget its name. Came
> out roughly the same time as dungeon seige but was more D&D orientated. You
> could make your own modules and one of my friends tried making them for his
> friends and when they did something or wanted to do something it could
> change the next module he made. I realise this is a fairly unusual example
> but with some adaption it could make for one of the best mixes of total
> immersion and conequence/reward based RPing.
>
>   Dylan
>
>   P.S. It might have been Never winter Nights but I can't remember for sure
> since I never played any of the modules he made.
>
>
>   On 1/17/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz > wrote:
>     Quoting William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>:
>
>
>     They can do everything that requires vast amounts of calculation really
> quickly,
>     and they don't forget details.
>
>     They cannot tell stories, though, and they cannot read them, either.
>
>     So, they create the situation where you never have to worry about the
> rules,
>     because you, as a player, have no real impact on them, and can't
> convince the
>     game to change them in your favour. The focus, then, is on using the
> rules to
>     create a situation that you want.
>
>     This means that you tend not to focus too much on the things that can
> distract
>     you from immersion...dice rolling, tactical displays, bits of paper,
>     etc...Instead, you get a more cinematic sense of what is going on, and
> it is
>     easy to translate into the role. I don't believe that you get
> substantial role
>     playing in the sense of great performances, player to player. But,
> players get
>     an internal sense of validation that you probably can't get very often
> in a
>     real time rpg.
>
>     Having said that, you can't do anything in the game that is is your own.
> You
>     can't choose to pursue an adventure that hasn't been scripted. You have
> to
>     follow the path of the quest you are on, or else it will fail and there
> will
>     have been  no point to the exercise.
>
>     In a real rpg, a player can tell the DM that he's going to hunt down
> some NPC
>     and visit a pointy reckoning on them for whatever reason...That's
> something you
>     can't do in an crpg.
>
>     Jim.
>
>
>     -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 14/01/2006
>


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

> If it is a success I want the Campaign Committee 
> to work on the next one and expand their charter to include 
> helping GMs. Not to argue of the pros/cons of rules.

Just a thought that it does not appear to me that this kind of thing is
a campaign committee responsibility. The sole area of campaign committee
influence is in the area of combining and shaping multiGM campaign
stories. This has nothing to do with rules or GM skill levels. 

It would be better I suspect to gate a group of interested senior GM's
to oversee this kind of thing. Perhaps you and Hanish would be good
people to build a group around. 

Mandos
/s


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

------=_Part_120402_30336086.1137448581270
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/17/06, Andrew Withy (DSL AK) <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Casting while prone encourages cowardice.


Absolutely. Just like firing a gun while prone encourages cowardice.
Soldiers everywhere should be forced to stand while shooting -- or better
yet, march forward purposefully with cleft chins held high.

:-)

Or, we could agree that casting while prone allows a style of play that we
don't want to encourage in DQ; one that appears inconsistent with an heroic
fantasy flavour.

Cheers,
Martin

------=_Part_120402_30336086.1137448581270
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/17/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Andrew Withy (DSL AK)</b> &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz">AndrewW@datacom.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<=
div><span class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex=
; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>Casting while prone encourages cowardice. </blockquote><div><br>Absolut=
ely. Just like firing a gun while prone encourages cowardice. Soldiers ever=
ywhere should be forced to stand while shooting -- or better yet, march for=
ward purposefully with cleft chins held high.
<br><br>:-)<br><br>Or, we could agree that casting while prone allows a sty=
le of play that we don't want to encourage in DQ; one that appears inconsis=
tent with an heroic fantasy flavour.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div>
</div><br>

------=_Part_120402_30336086.1137448581270--


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

Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>:

> On 1/17/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>:
> >
> > The principle problem with the spell is not the number of targets. It was
> > that
> > their functional utility was so high  you would rarely cast anything else
> > in
> > combat.
>
>
> ...
>
> For a suggestion to be workable, it has to change the spell so that
> > something
> > else is worth considering.
>
>
> Of the changes suggested to Hellfire so far, Mark's proposal (single target
> / centre of effect big zorch, plus surrounding lesser collateral damage)
> seems the best example of changing the nature of the spell's functional
> utility rather than just reducing the # of targets or damage.
>
> The collateral damage "shape" given by the proposal creates a use
> restriction, rather like DF's cone of effect, making the spell inappropriate
> for some uses.
>
> Drawbacks that reduce the universal application of a spell force decision
> making.

Only if you have another choice to make. It does not relieve the boredom if you
take away a possible action. You've just made it boring in another way.
>
> Offering 2 spells -- #1) single target / high damage, and #2) area or
> multi-target / low damage is still not much of a decision -- big bad = use
> #1, little bads = use #2, can't use #2 for some reason = use #1.
>
> With reference to Witch college: keeping Hellfire as the one damage spell,
> but changing its utility in the way Mark has suggested is more likely to
> force users to look for alternate spells in (at least) some circumstances,
> and may provide added reasons to rank and use DMin, DMag, and Harm Entity.

Players look for alternative spells whatever is offered. It's not a bad thing.
There's no point, however, in balancing on the expectation of players gaining
points of difference because you can never tell what they're going to get.

Jim


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

Quoting Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>:

I agree with everything Jacqui says about these spells and the interaction they
force between the game and the player characters.

Jim.


> I am not talking about these spells from the point of view of a player with
> a necromancer (or air mage) in the party. I am talking about them as a GM
> who frequently uses necromancers (and occasionally air mages) as
> antagonists in adventurers.
>
> Typically I would have a necromancer accompanied by undead minions facing a
> party - such minions are unaffected by agony, and thus can act freely while
> the party is slowed or unable to act. The fact that this spell will affect
> an entire party and slows them even if they resist means that it's
> frustrating for players and I don't like to frustrate my players... I like
> them to have fun - which means that as it stands I cannot use it. And that
> is enough for me to cry "Broken!"
>
> Much the same frustration results when a party is caught in a windstorm.
> The evening a GM used that spell on a party I was it was one of the most
> miserable role-playing experiences I have ever had - and it wasn't the
> fault of the GM in question. It was the combination of a spell which knocks
> people prone, and keeps knocking them prone together with the rule that one
> cannot cast while prone... Which is by the way a less than heroic rule...
> reduce the base chance sure, but let them try to cast when they're down...
>
> Hmmm... It might help if the appropriate counterspell suppressed the
> effects of each of these spells within the area of the counterspell....
>
> Jacqui
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61AE8.BC47365A
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Dickson [mailto:martin.dickson@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 10:56
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Agony and windstorm.


On 1/17/06, Andrew Withy (DSL AK) < AndrewW@datacom.co.nz
<mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> > wrote: 



Casting while prone encourages cowardice. 


Absolutely. Just like firing a gun while prone encourages cowardice.
Soldiers everywhere should be forced to stand while shooting -- or better
yet, march forward purposefully with cleft chins held high. 

:-)
 

See also parachutes (not) in WWI combat aircraft.

 
Or, we could agree that casting while prone allows a style of play that we
don't want to encourage in DQ; one that appears inconsistent with an heroic
fantasy flavour.

 

'Encourages' would perhaps be better than 'allows'. People can still cast
while hidden, but having to be non-prone reduces the opportunities greatly
on most battlegrounds.
 
Cheers
Errol
 
PS, as fresh owner of a Aerial Affinity talent, does it partially offset
Windstorm effects?

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61AE8.BC47365A
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">


<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Martin Dickson 
  [mailto:martin.dickson@gmail.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, 17 January 2006 
  10:56<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Agony and 
  windstorm.<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>On 1/17/06, <B class=gmail_sendername>Andrew 
  Withy (DSL AK)</B> &lt;<A 
  href="mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz">AndrewW@datacom.co.nz</A>&gt; wrote:
  <DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote 
  style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"><BR>Casting 
    while prone encourages cowardice. </BLOCKQUOTE>
  <DIV><BR>Absolutely. Just like firing a gun while prone encourages cowardice. 
  Soldiers everywhere should be forced to stand while shooting -- or better yet, 
  march forward purposefully with cleft chins held high. <BR><BR>:-)<BR><SPAN 
  class=434515721-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
  size=2>&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><SPAN class=434515721-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>See 
also parachutes (not) in WWI combat aircraft.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">
  <DIV><SPAN class=434515721-16012006>&nbsp;</SPAN><BR>Or, we could agree that 
  casting while prone allows a style of play that we don't want to encourage in 
  DQ; one that appears inconsistent with an heroic fantasy flavour.<BR><BR><SPAN 
  class=434515721-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
  size=2>&nbsp;</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><SPAN class=434515721-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>'Encourages' would perhaps be better than 'allows'. People can still cast 
while hidden, but having to be non-prone reduces the opportunities greatly on 
most battlegrounds.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=434515721-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=434515721-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=434515721-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Errol</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=434515721-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=434515721-16012006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>PS, as 
fresh owner of a Aerial Affinity talent, does it partially offset Windstorm 
effects?</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C61AE8.BC47365A--


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

> Or, we could agree that casting while prone allows a style of play
that we
> don't want to encourage in DQ; one that appears inconsistent with an
heroic
> fantasy flavour.

Just as a quick question....how often do we actually see this behaviour?


In 10 years of GM'ing DQ I have only twice seen people casting while
prone or behing cover. And in one case they were casting while prone
beacasue of a broken leg and despite huge penalties to concentration
kept fighting and helping the party, behaviour I think should be
encouraged. 

Mandos
/s


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

Quoting Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz>:

> Just because a spell isn't fun for players to run into doesn't mean the
> spell is broken. Personally I like the screams you can hear from players
> as the agony goes off, tis music to mine ears.

If an effect of whatever kind creates boredom and frustration, then it IS a
problem. Sure, there must be situations where there is plenty of resistance to
the plans of the players, but these spells do things that entirely predictable
and entirely uninteresting.

Whenever this kind of thing is detected, then a solution should be vigorously
pursued.

Jim.


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

I understood that you could not cast when prone. Is this not the case?

Jonathan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Mandos Mitchinson
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 11:04 a.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Agony and windstorm.
> 
> 
> > Or, we could agree that casting while prone allows a style of play
> that we
> > don't want to encourage in DQ; one that appears inconsistent with an
> heroic
> > fantasy flavour.
> 
> Just as a quick question....how often do we actually see this behaviour?
> 
> 
> In 10 years of GM'ing DQ I have only twice seen people casting while
> prone or behing cover. And in one case they were casting while prone
> beacasue of a broken leg and despite huge penalties to concentration
> kept fighting and helping the party, behaviour I think should be
> encouraged. 
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 
>


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

> I understood that you could not cast when prone. Is this not the case?

A number of years ago there was some confusion and the rule was brought
in. No idea if anyone bothers with it at all.

Mandos
/s


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

Quoting Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz>:

>
> > I don't like to see players scream... I am not the kind of GM
> > who sees the players as the enemy. I see them as fellow participants
> in the art of
> > story, and for that purpose the Agony spell as it stands is well and
> truly
> > unusable.
>
> Unusable by you.....
>
> Your not that kind of Gm....
>
> Just a quick reminder that we are in a multiGM campaign here and we
> should be able to accommodate lots of different styles and tastes.
>
> If Agony is not something you like to use on a party I would suggest
> that you exercise your freedom of choice and do not use it. Others will
> exercise the same choice and use the spell, either way the spell is not
> broken it is simply one you don't want to use.
>

No, I think Jacqui is right about Agony. It's a stupid spell, and always has
been. At a purely administrative level, it's a bugger to work with. At a player
level, it stops people from doing things. And, whatever other things role
playing games are about, making a critical action choice is at the centre of
it. Agony can stop a lot of players making those kinds of decisions, and it's
not exactly a rare spell, either.

Jim


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

i feel it would certainly be an expansion of the term "campaign" from 'on-going story line' to 'many things to do with DQ'. It doesnt seem to fit our 'engagement profile' (collate information and work through a GM). Also, it would distract from our other CC work.

First impression is to agree with Mandos: it should stay outside teh CC. 

Ian

> 
> > If it is a success I want the Campaign Committee
> > to work on the next one and expand their charter to include
> > helping GMs. Not to argue of the pros/cons of rules.
> 
> Just a thought that it does not appear to me that this kind of thing is
> a campaign committee responsibility. The sole area of campaign committee
> influence is in the area of combining and shaping multiGM campaign
> stories. This has nothing to do with rules or GM skill levels.
> 
> It would be better I suspect to gate a group of interested senior GM's
> to oversee this kind of thing. Perhaps you and Hanish would be good
> people to build a group around.
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

> If an effect of whatever kind creates boredom and 
> frustration, then it IS a problem. Sure, there must be 
> situations where there is plenty of resistance to the plans 
> of the players, but these spells do things that entirely 
> predictable and entirely uninteresting.
> 
> Whenever this kind of thing is detected, then a solution 
> should be vigorously pursued.

In the case of these spells Bordom and frustration are a result of using
the spell at the wrong level. At low-lowmedium levels these spells knock
out the party and stop them performing or achieving anything, hence the
bordom/frustration issues. At higher levels the spells simply add to the
complications the party is dealing with, it causes them to think about
their actions, work to help other party members and it acts as a
catalyst to change the dynamic of a combat in all kinds of ways. Just as
you wouldn't use Dragonflames against lower level parties
(Death/incapacitation being both boring and frustrating) Agony and
Windstorm should be used at higher levels. 

Boredom and frustration here is a GM issues not a result of the spell. 

Mandos
/s


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

Quoting Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz>:

> > The actual formula is 2 × (Physical Strength + Agility) - 2 ×
> > Rank At high levels one can assume the NPC will have at least
> > Rank 10 in the spell - so unless you have strength boosted and assuming
> good
> > stats of 20 or so in both PS and AG (unusual even at high level for
> > mages) you're prone 40% of the time - I don't think that is able to be
> ignored.
>
> On a high or even medium game most characters (or at least one or two in a
> party) will have good ranked waters of strength, so strength will be high.
> Anyone who doesn't is ill prepared and if you are ill prepared on a high you
> deserve to be prone 40% of the time :-)

This is not a reasonable counterargument, George. All high level players would
begin to look very similar if they all have the same type of resources.

Jim.


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C61B58.72909DB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Errol asked:
PS, as fresh owner of a Aerial Affinity talent, does it partially offset
Windstorm effects?

-------------------

Yes it does offset the effects. You can clearly see the intent on the
Weather table 1.0 on page 67 of Rules2004 (pdf).
It allows the mage to lower the effect of the weathers wind by 1 step for
every 4 ranks in the telant.
Windstorm is a force 9 effect.
A mage with rank 12 in the telant would be effected as if in a force 6 wind
(6 Strong breeze Large branches in motion, whistling through trees)

Jono

------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C61B58.72909DB0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D434515721-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D434515721-16012006><FONT face=3DArial><FONT =
color=3D#0000ff><FONT=20
size=3D2>Errol<SPAN class=3D265161822-16012006>=20
asked:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D434515721-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2>PS, as=20
fresh owner of a Aerial Affinity talent, does it partially offset =
Windstorm=20
effects?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D434515721-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =

size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D434515721-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D265161822-16012006>-------------------</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>=

<DIV><SPAN class=3D434515721-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D265161822-16012006></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D434515721-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D265161822-16012006>Yes it does offset the effects. You can =
clearly see the=20
intent on the Weather table 1.0 on page 67 of Rules2004=20
(pdf).</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D434515721-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D265161822-16012006>It allows the mage to lower the effect of the =
weathers=20
wind by 1 step for every 4 ranks in the =
telant.</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D434515721-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D265161822-16012006>Windstorm is a force 9 effect.=20
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D434515721-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D265161822-16012006>A mage with rank 12 in the telant would be =
effected as=20
if in a force 6 wind (<FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>6 Strong breeze Large =
branches in=20
motion, whistling through trees)</FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D434515721-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D265161822-16012006><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV></FONT></SPAN></FONT></SPAN><SPAN=20
class=3D434515721-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D265161822-16012006></SPAN></FONT></SPAN>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D434515721-16012006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D265161822-16012006>Jono</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV></BODY></=
HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C61B58.72909DB0--


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

Again, I agree with everything Jacqui wrote. Well, except I've never read an
Honor Harrington novel.

Jim

Quoting Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>:

> At 10:09 17/01/06, Andrew Withy wrote:

> >Casting while prone encourages cowardice. This is why I was happy to see
> >it gone. Commonsense or caution by the entire party is sometimes
> >required - its more slapstick roleplaying than heroic roleplaying a lot
> >of the time. However sniping by casting while behind a log and being
> >safe while the rest of the party risks their necks by working within the
> >genre is not to be encouraged.
>
> Behind a log, behind a tree, peeking through an arrow slit.... there's
> really no difference.... casting from cover will happen, because it is a
> valid tactical option. Good tactics don't make for bad or unheroic stories
> (having just finished reading another Honor Harrington novel I can
> certainly vouch for that). However, just knocking the mage off her feet
> should not stop her from waving her hand correctly... and makes for a much
> more heroic picture, than "Oh, I have to stand up before I can cast."
>
> Jacqui
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

> This is not a reasonable counterargument, George. All high 
> level players would begin to look very similar if they all 
> have the same type of resources.

Not sure if we are playing the same game here Jim but most of the high
level players are pretty similar in the basic resources. Waters of
Strength are easily available and cheap. I would doubt that many high
level characters are without a few of them, like healing potions,
magical weapons, waters of healing, restoratives, amulets of luck and a
Greater. 

These are standard and easily available resources and most high level
characters carry them in my experience. 

I would guess that at least 95% of characters considered to be high
would have at least 5 out of 7 of the above listed items. 

Mandos
/s


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

------=_Part_120698_31452868.1137450611756
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/17/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> > Drawbacks that reduce the universal application of a spell force
> decision
> > making.
>
> Only if you have another choice to make. It does not relieve the boredom
> if you
> take away a possible action. You've just made it boring in another way.


Agreed. In the case of Witchcraft we do know that they do have other option=
s
-- just not damaging ones.

> With reference to Witch college: keeping Hellfire as the one damage spell=
,
> > but changing its utility in the way Mark has suggested is more likely t=
o
> > force users to look for alternate spells in (at least) some
> circumstances,
> > and may provide added reasons to rank and use DMin, DMag, and Harm
> Entity.
>
> Players look for alternative spells whatever is offered. It's not a bad
> thing.
> There's no point, however, in balancing on the expectation of players
> gaining
> points of difference because you can never tell what they're going to get=
.


I worded that badly, out of college options were not the primary point; to
rephrase: changing Hellfire in the way Mark has suggested will
encourage/force players to review their other spell options and consider
ranking and using other spells available in the college, such as curses.
(And I think this is a good thing).

(They will of course still look for GM granted options -- but as you say,
those cannot be predicted / depended upon).

Cheers,
Martin

------=_Part_120698_31452868.1137450611756
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 1/17/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"><a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auck=
land.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a></b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raro002=
@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">
</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rg=
b(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">&gt; Drawb=
acks that reduce the universal application of a spell force decision<br>&gt=
; making.
<br><br>Only if you have another choice to make. It does not relieve the bo=
redom if you<br>take away a possible action. You've just made it boring in =
another way.</blockquote><div><br>Agreed. In the case of Witchcraft we do k=
now that they do have other options -- just not damaging ones.
<br></div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px s=
olid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">&gt=
; With reference to Witch college: keeping Hellfire as the one damage spell=
,
<br>&gt; but changing its utility in the way Mark has suggested is more lik=
ely to<br>&gt; force users to look for alternate spells in (at least) some =
circumstances,<br>&gt; and may provide added reasons to rank and use DMin, =
DMag, and Harm Entity.
<br><br>Players look for alternative spells whatever is offered. It's not a=
 bad thing.<br>There's no point, however, in balancing on the expectation o=
f players gaining<br>points of difference because you can never tell what t=
hey're going to get.
</blockquote><div><br>I worded that badly, out of college options were not =
the primary point; to rephrase: changing Hellfire in the way Mark has sugge=
sted will encourage/force players to review their other spell options and c=
onsider ranking and using other spells available in the college, such as cu=
rses. (And I think this is a good thing).
<br><br>(They will of course still look for GM granted options -- but as yo=
u say, those cannot be predicted / depended upon).<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin=
<br></div></div><br>

------=_Part_120698_31452868.1137450611756--


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

I am failing to see problem with agony. (agree with Mandos, disagree with Jim and Jacqui (on this point)).

It also comes down to what you want the party to be 'against'. if you merely want a few minutes of hack and slaughter then leave off the disruptive spells. If you want the party to have to counter the actions of the opposition then bring in some irritants.

Agony is not a big deal. all it really does is slow the combat, which is not such a bad thing. ok, so now the party has to deal with the Agony. or wait for it to go away / crawl out of the area of effect. 
At least they are not dead. which a TK rage would have done. or sinking doom etc.

Good grief, the GM gets to plan the engagement. the party has to react to it. 

I accept Jim's point about player-discontent is not good. But i feel in this case the problem is that the discontent reflects an unreasonable expectation that the player will be 'doing things all the time, regardless of circumstances'. i have seen players demand to be involved in a conversation even when their PCs are not in the area (split party), and that expectation was very difficult to change. Perhaps the GM could have sped up the combat or 'fast-forwarded' towards the end of the agony, but really we have to be able to sit back and let others have their spot in the sun... again, the problem does not appear to be the spells.

Ian


> 
> From: Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz>
> Date: 2006/01/17 Tue AM 11:20:52 GMT+13:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Agony and windstorm.
> 
> > If an effect of whatever kind creates boredom and
> > frustration, then it IS a problem. Sure, there must be
> > situations where there is plenty of resistance to the plans
> > of the players, but these spells do things that entirely
> > predictable and entirely uninteresting.
> >
> > Whenever this kind of thing is detected, then a solution
> > should be vigorously pursued.
> 
> In the case of these spells Bordom and frustration are a result of using
> the spell at the wrong level. At low-lowmedium levels these spells knock
> out the party and stop them performing or achieving anything, hence the
> bordom/frustration issues. At higher levels the spells simply add to the
> complications the party is dealing with, it causes them to think about
> their actions, work to help other party members and it acts as a
> catalyst to change the dynamic of a combat in all kinds of ways. Just as
> you wouldn't use Dragonflames against lower level parties
> (Death/incapacitation being both boring and frustrating) Agony and
> Windstorm should be used at higher levels.
> 
> Boredom and frustration here is a GM issues not a result of the spell.
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Quoting Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz>:

> > If an effect of whatever kind creates boredom and
> > frustration, then it IS a problem. Sure, there must be
> > situations where there is plenty of resistance to the plans
> > of the players, but these spells do things that entirely
> > predictable and entirely uninteresting.
> >
> > Whenever this kind of thing is detected, then a solution
> > should be vigorously pursued.
>
> In the case of these spells Bordom and frustration are a result of using
> the spell at the wrong level. At low-lowmedium levels these spells knock
> out the party and stop them performing or achieving anything, hence the
> bordom/frustration issues. At higher levels the spells simply add to the
> complications the party is dealing with, it causes them to think about
> their actions, work to help other party members and it acts as a
> catalyst to change the dynamic of a combat in all kinds of ways. Just as
> you wouldn't use Dragonflames against lower level parties
> (Death/incapacitation being both boring and frustrating) Agony and
> Windstorm should be used at higher levels.
>

The spells are in the game, and you cannot stop them being used out of their
context. They will be used that way from time to time.

Now, the classic necromancer with undead minions is a staple of this genre, then
the spell is going to turn up, whether or not you think it is appropriate. And,
to use your own argument back at you, this is a multi-GM environment where the
next DM may have a distinctly different point of view on whether or not Agony
should ever be cast in a low-medium game.

> Boredom and frustration here is a GM issues not a result of the spell.

Boredom and frustration are only DM issues if they routinely suspend the
operation of boring and frustrating spells. Otherwise, if they administer the
game as the rules are written, then it is an issue of the game.


Jim


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=____1137451534132_igkM.2RArt
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

the point i took from Martin's post is that the options may not deal out damage, but rather incapacitate. an elegant decision point. 

However, NPCs tend to resist most "resist for none" knock out spells such as Mental Attack, and for bloody good reason. so the options have to be ablative...

To this extent i like the resist for some effect parts of some spells... but maybe that is just frustration at not have my expectations met (see my earlier post on agony and windstorm to get the self-deprogation (sp?).

BTW - i am in sydney airport having been flying since midnight and have another 6 hours to go, so i hope all is coherent and not snappish! There are good points coming up in the discussions, some of which i agree with, but all seem good to me.

Ian



> 
> From: Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/01/17 Tue AM 11:30:11 GMT+13:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken spells.
> 
> On 1/17/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> >
> > > Drawbacks that reduce the universal application of a spell force
> > decision
> > > making.
> >
> > Only if you have another choice to make. It does not relieve the boredom
> > if you
> > take away a possible action. You've just made it boring in another way.
> 
> 
> Agreed. In the case of Witchcraft we do know that they do have other options
> -- just not damaging ones.
> 
> > With reference to Witch college: keeping Hellfire as the one damage spell,
> > > but changing its utility in the way Mark has suggested is more likely to
> > > force users to look for alternate spells in (at least) some
> > circumstances,
> > > and may provide added reasons to rank and use DMin, DMag, and Harm
> > Entity.
> >
> > Players look for alternative spells whatever is offered. It's not a bad
> > thing.
> > There's no point, however, in balancing on the expectation of players
> > gaining
> > points of difference because you can never tell what they're going to get.
> 
> 
> I worded that badly, out of college options were not the primary point; to
> rephrase: changing Hellfire in the way Mark has suggested will
> encourage/force players to review their other spell options and consider
> ranking and using other spells available in the college, such as curses.
> (And I think this is a good thing).
> 
> (They will of course still look for GM granted options -- but as you say,
> those cannot be predicted / depended upon).
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> 
> 

------=____1137451534132_igkM.2RArt
Content-Type: text/html;
	name="reply"
Content-Disposition: inline;
	filename="reply"

On 1/17/06, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a></b> &lt;<a href="mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote">
</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">&gt; Drawbacks that reduce the universal application of a spell force decision<br>&gt; making.
<br><br>Only if you have another choice to make. It does not relieve the boredom if you<br>take away a possible action. You've just made it boring in another way.</blockquote><div><br>Agreed. In the case of Witchcraft we do know that they do have other options -- just not damaging ones.
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">&gt; With reference to Witch college: keeping Hellfire as the one damage spell,
<br>&gt; but changing its utility in the way Mark has suggested is more likely to<br>&gt; force users to look for alternate spells in (at least) some circumstances,<br>&gt; and may provide added reasons to rank and use DMin, DMag, and Harm Entity.
<br><br>Players look for alternative spells whatever is offered. It's not a bad thing.<br>There's no point, however, in balancing on the expectation of players gaining<br>points of difference because you can never tell what they're going to get.
</blockquote><div><br>I worded that badly, out of college options were not the primary point; to rephrase: changing Hellfire in the way Mark has suggested will encourage/force players to review their other spell options and consider ranking and using other spells available in the college, such as curses. (And I think this is a good thing).
<br><br>(They will of course still look for GM granted options -- but as you say, those cannot be predicted / depended upon).<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br>


------=____1137451534132_igkM.2RArt--


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

The thing with Agony that makes it so [amazing/powerful/broken/annoying] is the old resist and still get slowed. In the same way that resist for half in Hellfire was a major component in it being the sole spell of choice for wiccans (who had it and spent the ep on ranking it).  

It all come back to resists really. In DQ resists are, on the whole, binary. Resist for no damage/no effect or fail and take the whole lot is how the vast majority of spells work. By the time characters get to medium/high level resists are 50-70% or more, even without counters. Hence the attractiveness of those few spells that have effects even when resisted, increases exponentially. With counters to the appropriate college up most medium+ player characters  are effectively immune to all spells from that college (except for those few which have an effect even if resisted). This is why I proposed, some years ago, a change to the way counter spells worked. Instead of adding to your resistance a counter spell would given you a second resistance roll (with a percentage chance based roughly on the amount it would have added to resist plus 10-20). That would get away from PC's and NPC's being effectively able to negate one college in any combat they were prepared for (unless it was one of those icky ones with resist for half effects and/or agony ... or dangerous generals). 

On the other side of the coin it would be nice to see some more spells that have an effect even if resisted and/or regardless of resists, so long as those effects are not quite so debilitating and unavoidable as agony. Sometimes a spell can just effect the environment without directly going through the charatcers resists. If your rainstorm water logs the ground, characters/npc's will have to slow down and/or risk falling over. If a spell sets a wooden building on fire the characters will get burnt if they don't leave or put it out. There is perhaps scope here to have spells have the environmental effect even when the main effect was resisted by the target. 

Anyway the main point of this post was to invite discussion of resists/counters. The fact that agony/hellfire/necrosis break the resist for none mould is IMHO a major reason they are up for discussion. 

Mark  

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 11:03 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Agony and windstorm. 


Quoting Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>:

I agree with everything Jacqui says about these spells and the interaction they
force between the game and the player characters.

Jim.


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

Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>:


> I worded that badly, out of college options were not the primary point; to
> rephrase: changing Hellfire in the way Mark has suggested will
> encourage/force players to review their other spell options and consider
> ranking and using other spells available in the college, such as curses.
> (And I think this is a good thing).
>
> (They will of course still look for GM granted options -- but as you say,
> those cannot be predicted / depended upon).

Players are going to pursue half damage spells, and use them over and above a
single target debuff. There may be a few occasions where you might use
something else, but the largest frequency of spell use in combat will still be
hellfire.

Jim.


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

> Now, the classic necromancer with undead minions is a staple 
> of this genre, then the spell is going to turn up, whether or 
> not you think it is appropriate. And, to use your own 
> argument back at you, this is a multi-GM environment where 
> the next DM may have a distinctly different point of view on 
> whether or not Agony should ever be cast in a low-medium game.

That's right, they will, and if they do I am sure they will deal with
the resulting combat as they see fit. If it results in boredom and
frustration then the GM needs to look at what they did and work to avoid
it in future. 

I don't use agony against low level parties in the same way that I don't
use sinking doom, lots of stone golems and Titans. I personally find it
difficult to have interesting fights with all of these things, that is
up to me as a GM to work through, I certainly don't think we should
change all of the effects of the spells and rewrite the monsters to
avoid players being bored on my games. Instead I use other spells,
different creatures and plan my combats appropriatly to make them
interesting. 

That said I do use most of the above in high combats and either my
players should be on the wrold poker circuit or these spells are not
causing mass boredom and frustration. 

I have to say the main times I have been bored or frustrated in a combat
it is far more likely to be caused be either wading through easily
defeatable bad guys that just need taking down, ie lack of excitement or
the GM appearing to add new abilites whenever their bad guys look
vunerable. Spell effects don't even come into it. 

Mandos
/s


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

> The thing with Agony that makes it so 
> [amazing/powerful/broken/annoying] is the old resist and 
> still get slowed. In the same way that resist for half in 
> Hellfire was a major component in it being the sole spell of 
> choice for wiccans (who had it and spent the ep on ranking it).  

It isn't quite the same way. Agony has the downside that the entire
battlefield is covered. Ie the party gets hit as well. It is very rare
that a party wants a necromancer to cast Agony in a normal melee. It is
used by parties to slow down people following, block large area's to
funnel opponents or sometimes as a last desperate act to see if the
combat could be swayed. 

The downside is a great balancer for party use. NPC use tends to
occasions where none agonyable entities are being used, such as golems
or lesser undead. 

Mandos
/s


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

... bump to a quiet spot after the morning rush is over :-)

Hi all,

I have spoken to some people already and I am sorry if I am repeating
myself. I am interested in either being involved in a GM workshop or helping
run one.

Here is my view:
Given the nature of DQ where we have a single GM and multiple players,
players often have the opportunity to learn from other players within a
game. Sometimes this is true for GMs also, but most of the time it is
inappropriate to talk about GM’ing skill within a game. GMs in general work
in isolation. I am keen to see a group of GMs gather to try to improve the
raw GM’ing skill.

This is to say - not rules as such but skills that a GM calls upon such as:
Handling a group of people, creating and holding tension within a game,
consequences of GM styles and actions etc

To this end:
Direction:
1) I would like to get 4 to 6 GMs to talk for 10 to 15 mins on a subject,
which has been of value to them, in a structured talk.
2) I am aiming at this point to get GMs from differing sub-groups within DQ.
3) I hope they will write-up an overview of what they will be speaking on.
4) Put it into an agenda, which will be going out a couple of weeks before
hand so GMs are able to think about the subject before the talk.
5) Conduct the workshop on a Saturday in early March (if we get things
done).
6) Speakers will talk to their subject, then Q&A for 5mins, then Hamish will
facilitate a general discussion.
7) At the end of the event we will get GMs to fill in forms of what they
valued, and what they would like to see next time.
8) Publish a record of the event (agenda, talk, discussion).

Hamish Brown (a skilled facilitator) and he is willing to assist in such an
attempt.

Aims:
To create an environment where GMs can learn something in a strutured way.
To encourage GMs.
To be inclusive of all DQ GM new and old.
If it is a success I want the Campaign Committee to work on the next one and
expand their charter to include helping GMs.
Not to argue of the pros/cons of rules.

--------------------
We all need your help!!

Calling all GMs - If you have thought about your games and what has worked
for you and you think it is of value please contribute. We can all learn
something from each other so please put your hand up and contribute.

I am looking for 4 people willing to write-up their subject and talk on it
other GMs.

So in general what do people think of the idea.
Are people willing to assist and help in this?

Jono


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

At 11:41 17/01/06, you wrote:
>The spells are in the game, and you cannot stop them being used out of their
>context. They will be used that way from time to time.
>
>Now, the classic necromancer with undead minions is a staple of this 
>genre, then
>the spell is going to turn up, whether or not you think it is appropriate. 
>And,
>to use your own argument back at you, this is a multi-GM environment where the
>next DM may have a distinctly different point of view on whether or not Agony
>should ever be cast in a low-medium game.

The other problem I have with Agony is that the punishment does not seem to 
fit the crime - the game effects of the spell do not seem to line up with 
the apparent intent... Here is a version of Agony I wrote a little while 
back for your comment:

Agony (S-1)
Range: 15 feet + 5/Rank
Duration: Concentration; maximum of 10 seconds + 10 / Rank
Experience Multiple: 350
Base Chance: 10%
Resist: Active, Passive
Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
Target: Area
Effects: This spell causes all living entities in the affected area, except 
the Adept, to suffer extreme agony.
Entities who fail to resist must reduce their initiative by twice the rank 
of the spell, and make a once times willpower check to take any other than 
a non-magical pass action for the duration of the spell, or until such time 
as they leave the area of effect.
Entities who successfully resist must reduce their initiative by the rank 
of the spell, and make a three times willpower check to perform any other 
than a non-magical pass action for the duration of the spell, or until such 
time as they leave the area of effect.
Mind Mages gain a bonus to these willpower checks equal to 10% + 2 × Rank 
with their Talent of Resisting Pain.

Hmmm....

Jacqui


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

------=_Part_5297_34298.1137465020054
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I think that people having some forum for building munchkins and trialing
them in combat are less likely to feel the need to have to fight everything
that comes there way in TTs. Also while on occasion they might train people
into limited options I think more often people who have played them alot
will be more interested in trying other options that just aren't open to
them in the average computer game.
Dylan


On 1/17/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
> Quoting William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>:
>
> People seem to have less patience with the administration side of rpgs an=
d
> are
> more interested in what the result of a critical decision point is.
>
> Jim.
>
> > No. How have the existance of CRPGs CHANGED table-top games. I know the
> > differences. How has it changed the table-top experience? Are their les=
s
> > munchkins (cos they can load Diablo, DAoC or Final Fantasy) or more (du=
e
> to
> > increased expectations from playing such games). Has there been a move
> to
> > more streamlined invisible rules? Is there a bigger emphasis on the
> things
> > CRPGs just cant do (I climb out the window and climb up to the next
> one)?
> >
> > William
> >   -----Original Message-----
> >   From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf O=
f
> > RPer 4eva
> >   Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 1:31 a.m.
> >   To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> >   Subject: Re: [dq] How have crappages changed table-top?
> >
> >
> >   I know its rare but in some CRPGs you do get the oppertunity to do
> rare
> > and unique things. There was a game a while back. I forget its name.
> Came
> > out roughly the same time as dungeon seige but was more D&D orientated.
> You
> > could make your own modules and one of my friends tried making them for
> his
> > friends and when they did something or wanted to do something it could
> > change the next module he made. I realise this is a fairly unusual
> example
> > but with some adaption it could make for one of the best mixes of total
> > immersion and conequence/reward based RPing.
> >
> >   Dylan
> >
> >   P.S. It might have been Never winter Nights but I can't remember for
> sure
> > since I never played any of the modules he made.
> >
> >
> >   On 1/17/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz >
> wrote:
> >     Quoting William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>:
> >
> >
> >     They can do everything that requires vast amounts of calculation
> really
> > quickly,
> >     and they don't forget details.
> >
> >     They cannot tell stories, though, and they cannot read them, either=
.
> >
> >     So, they create the situation where you never have to worry about
> the
> > rules,
> >     because you, as a player, have no real impact on them, and can't
> > convince the
> >     game to change them in your favour. The focus, then, is on using th=
e
> > rules to
> >     create a situation that you want.
> >
> >     This means that you tend not to focus too much on the things that
> can
> > distract
> >     you from immersion...dice rolling, tactical displays, bits of paper=
,
> >     etc...Instead, you get a more cinematic sense of what is going on,
> and
> > it is
> >     easy to translate into the role. I don't believe that you get
> > substantial role
> >     playing in the sense of great performances, player to player. But,
> > players get
> >     an internal sense of validation that you probably can't get very
> often
> > in a
> >     real time rpg.
> >
> >     Having said that, you can't do anything in the game that is is your
> own.
> > You
> >     can't choose to pursue an adventure that hasn't been scripted. You
> have
> > to
> >     follow the path of the quest you are on, or else it will fail and
> there
> > will
> >     have been  no point to the exercise.
> >
> >     In a real rpg, a player can tell the DM that he's going to hunt dow=
n
> > some NPC
> >     and visit a pointy reckoning on them for whatever reason...That's
> > something you
> >     can't do in an crpg.
> >
> >     Jim.
> >
> >
> >     -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date:
> 14/01/2006
> >
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_5297_34298.1137465020054
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>I think that people having some forum for building munchkins and trial=
ing them in combat are less likely to feel the need to have to fight everyt=
hing that comes there way in TTs. Also while on occasion they might train p=
eople into limited options I think more often people who have played them a=
lot will be more interested in trying other options that just aren't open t=
o them in the average computer game.
</div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1/17/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">=
<a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a><=
/b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac=
.nz
</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Quoting William Dymock &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:dworkin@ihug.co.nz">dworkin@ihug.co.nz</a>&gt;:<br><br>People =
seem to have less patience with the administration side of rpgs and are
<br>more interested in what the result of a critical decision point is.<br>=
<br>Jim.<br><br>&gt; No. How have the existance of CRPGs CHANGED table-top =
games. I know the<br>&gt; differences. How has it changed the table-top exp=
erience? Are their less
<br>&gt; munchkins (cos they can load Diablo, DAoC or Final Fantasy) or mor=
e (due to<br>&gt; increased expectations from playing such games). Has ther=
e been a move to<br>&gt; more streamlined invisible rules? Is there a bigge=
r emphasis on the things
<br>&gt; CRPGs just cant do (I climb out the window and climb up to the nex=
t one)?<br>&gt;<br>&gt; William<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; -----Original Message--=
---<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; From: <a href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-o=
wner@dq.sf.org.nz</a>
 [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</a>=
]On Behalf Of<br>&gt; RPer 4eva<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; Sent: Tuesday, 17 Janua=
ry 2006 1:31 a.m.<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; To: <a href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz=
">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a>
<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; Subject: Re: [dq] How have crappages changed table-top=
?<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; I know its rare but in some CRPGs you=
 do get the oppertunity to do rare<br>&gt; and unique things. There was a g=
ame a while back. I forget its name. Came
<br>&gt; out roughly the same time as dungeon seige but was more D&amp;D or=
ientated. You<br>&gt; could make your own modules and one of my friends tri=
ed making them for his<br>&gt; friends and when they did something or wante=
d to do something it could
<br>&gt; change the next module he made. I realise this is a fairly unusual=
 example<br>&gt; but with some adaption it could make for one of the best m=
ixes of total<br>&gt; immersion and conequence/reward based RPing.<br>&gt;
<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; Dylan<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; P.S. It might have b=
een Never winter Nights but I can't remember for sure<br>&gt; since I never=
 played any of the modules he made.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; On =
1/17/06, <a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">
raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.=
nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a> &gt; wrote:<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p; Quoting William Dymock &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dworkin@ihug.co.nz">dworkin=
@ihug.co.nz</a>&gt;:
<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; They can do everything tha=
t requires vast amounts of calculation really<br>&gt; quickly,<br>&gt;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and they don't forget details.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp; They cannot tell stories, though, and they cannot read them=
, either.
<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; So, they create the situation wher=
e you never have to worry about the<br>&gt; rules,<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp; because you, as a player, have no real impact on them, and can't<br=
>&gt; convince the<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; game to change them in y=
our favour. The focus, then, is on using the
<br>&gt; rules to<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; create a situation that y=
ou want.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This means that you tend n=
ot to focus too much on the things that can<br>&gt; distract<br>&gt;&nbsp;&=
nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; you from immersion...dice rolling, tactical displays, bit=
s of paper,
<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; etc...Instead, you get a more cinematic se=
nse of what is going on, and<br>&gt; it is<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; =
easy to translate into the role. I don't believe that you get<br>&gt; subst=
antial role<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; playing in the sense of great p=
erformances, player to player. But,
<br>&gt; players get<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; an internal sense of v=
alidation that you probably can't get very often<br>&gt; in a<br>&gt;&nbsp;=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; real time rpg.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; H=
aving said that, you can't do anything in the game that is is your own.
<br>&gt; You<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; can't choose to pursue an adve=
nture that hasn't been scripted. You have<br>&gt; to<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nb=
sp;&nbsp; follow the path of the quest you are on, or else it will fail and=
 there<br>&gt; will<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; have been&nbsp;&nbsp;no=
 point to the exercise.
<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In a real rpg, a player can tell t=
he DM that he's going to hunt down<br>&gt; some NPC<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;&nbsp; and visit a pointy reckoning on them for whatever reason...That's<=
br>&gt; something you<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; can't do in an crpg.
<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jim.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;&nbsp;=
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-req=
uest@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt;<b=
r>&gt; --<br>&gt; No virus found in this outgoing message.
<br>&gt; Checked by AVG Free Edition.<br>&gt; Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Data=
base: 267.14.18/230 - Release Date: 14/01/2006<br>&gt;<br><br><br>-- to uns=
ubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-reques=
t@dq.sf.org.nz
</a> --<br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_5297_34298.1137465020054--


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

I see where you are coming from, resist for half spell is still going to be desirable DQ. However, often the preferred target(s) will quickly be in melee combat with 1 or more of the Wiccan mages fellow party members. The danger of zorching your fellow party members will quickly cause that mage to consider an alternative spell like harm entity. They may choose to still cast it but there's definitely a real choice there (and some anguished melee types to add to the game tension ...). The spell becomes something a little like TK rage. A powerful effect (which you'd expect for a high em special) but one that can only be safely used in somewhat limited circumstances. 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 11:49 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken spells.


Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>:


> I worded that badly, out of college options were not the primary point; to
> rephrase: changing Hellfire in the way Mark has suggested will
> encourage/force players to review their other spell options and consider
> ranking and using other spells available in the college, such as curses.
> (And I think this is a good thing).
>
> (They will of course still look for GM granted options -- but as you say,
> those cannot be predicted / depended upon).

Players are going to pursue half damage spells, and use them over and above a
single target debuff. There may be a few occasions where you might use
something else, but the largest frequency of spell use in combat will still be
hellfire.

Jim.


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

Quoting Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>:

I think it is entirely appropriate for Agony to be a binarily resistable spell,
with no effect as a result of a successful saving throw, and where resist pain
contributes meaningfully to the chance to resist is entirely reasonable.

George has pointed out in another place that the spell use is 'balanced' because
the area of effect is so dire that pcs can't use it terribly often. This is not
balance, that's just poor design...Unless you do not intend for players to be
able to  use the spell much. And, after all, necromancy was never intended as a
pc college, nor were Black Mages and Greater Summoners.

Since we are prepared to allow them as pc colleges, then it seems to me that we
should be making the spell usable by players. This is not the same as leaving a
weak spell weak to provide players with a reason to adventure for something
better. This should be changed because necros that cast this spell aren't
usually invited to the next adventure.

Whatever fantasy people think they are engaged in, the over-riding concern is
that this pasttime be entertaining. There is a problem when pc necros have
Agony. The players will sit around with their collective thumbs up their arses
waiting for the necro and his minions to do everything for them. There is a
problem when npc necros have Agnoy. The players will sit around with their
collective thumbs up their arses waiting for the necros and his minions to do
for them.

Stepping away from censoriousness on what a character on a high level adventure
ought to be doing, the fact is that this spell works great if it is the sort of
thing you encounter once or twice in your adventuring career. But, if you are
going to go out bashing necros, and this is a reasonable guild sport, then this
spell forces people to behave logistically, rather than heroically.

Sure, some degree of preparedness is important, but when that preparedness
becomes a 'by the numbers' exercise, it has stopped being a story and has
become a table top war game.

I don't think that changing this spell to a resist for nothing effect will make
it a valuable addition to the game. I don't believe leaving it the way it is
does anything except make the odd pc necro feel warm inside.

Jim

> At 11:41 17/01/06, you wrote:
> >The spells are in the game, and you cannot stop them being used out of their
> >context. They will be used that way from time to time.
> >
> >Now, the classic necromancer with undead minions is a staple of this
> >genre, then
> >the spell is going to turn up, whether or not you think it is appropriate.
> >And,
> >to use your own argument back at you, this is a multi-GM environment where
> the
> >next DM may have a distinctly different point of view on whether or not
> Agony
> >should ever be cast in a low-medium game.
>
> The other problem I have with Agony is that the punishment does not seem to
> fit the crime - the game effects of the spell do not seem to line up with
> the apparent intent... Here is a version of Agony I wrote a little while
> back for your comment:
>
> Agony (S-1)
> Range: 15 feet + 5/Rank
> Duration: Concentration; maximum of 10 seconds + 10 / Rank
> Experience Multiple: 350
> Base Chance: 10%
> Resist: Active, Passive
> Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
> Target: Area
> Effects: This spell causes all living entities in the affected area, except
> the Adept, to suffer extreme agony.
> Entities who fail to resist must reduce their initiative by twice the rank
> of the spell, and make a once times willpower check to take any other than
> a non-magical pass action for the duration of the spell, or until such time
> as they leave the area of effect.
> Entities who successfully resist must reduce their initiative by the rank
> of the spell, and make a three times willpower check to perform any other
> than a non-magical pass action for the duration of the spell, or until such
> time as they leave the area of effect.
> Mind Mages gain a bonus to these willpower checks equal to 10% + 2 × Rank
> with their Talent of Resisting Pain.
>
> Hmmm....
>
> Jacqui
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

Quoting Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz, " Mark (NZ)" <SimpsoM2@anz.com>:

> I see where you are coming from, resist for half spell is still going to be
> desirable DQ. However, often the preferred target(s) will quickly be in melee
> combat with 1 or more of the Wiccan mages fellow party members. The danger of
> zorching your fellow party members will quickly cause that mage to consider
> an alternative spell like harm entity. They may choose to still cast it but
> there's definitely a real choice there (and some anguished melee types to add
> to the game tension ...). The spell becomes something a little like TK rage.
> A powerful effect (which you'd expect for a high em special) but one that can
> only be safely used in somewhat limited circumstances.

It will still be the spell of choice. You cannot increase the range of options
by simply creating a negative counter-situation. Your solution still makes it a
powerful solution to most combats, except in one or two situations where it
might not be. That exists now. The idea is to create a general condition where
a player with these spells might have to think about alternatives.

I don't think this notion does that. Mind you, it would if they were Fire Mages.
They'd drop it like a hot stone and rank Fireball.

Jim.


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

I think its fair to say that most DQ combats usually involve some melee combat, so I dont think I'm creating a limited and seldom occuring counter-situation here. 

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 3:51 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken spells.


Quoting Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz, " Mark (NZ)" <SimpsoM2@anz.com>:

> I see where you are coming from, resist for half spell is still going to be
> desirable DQ. However, often the preferred target(s) will quickly be in melee
> combat with 1 or more of the Wiccan mages fellow party members. The danger of
> zorching your fellow party members will quickly cause that mage to consider
> an alternative spell like harm entity. They may choose to still cast it but
> there's definitely a real choice there (and some anguished melee types to add
> to the game tension ...). The spell becomes something a little like TK rage.
> A powerful effect (which you'd expect for a high em special) but one that can
> only be safely used in somewhat limited circumstances.

It will still be the spell of choice. You cannot increase the range of options
by simply creating a negative counter-situation. Your solution still makes it a
powerful solution to most combats, except in one or two situations where it
might not be. That exists now. The idea is to create a general condition where
a player with these spells might have to think about alternatives.

I don't think this notion does that. Mind you, it would if they were Fire Mages.
They'd drop it like a hot stone and rank Fireball.

Jim.


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

Quoting Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz, " Mark (NZ)" <SimpsoM2@anz.com>:

> I think its fair to say that most DQ combats usually involve some melee
> combat, so I dont think I'm creating a limited and seldom occuring
> counter-situation here.

Why don't you test it in a game that you run and see how it works out?

Jim.


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

So you've tested your suggested "amended versions" of Hellfire etc. in a game you have run? What were the results?

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 4:06 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken spells.


Quoting Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz, " Mark (NZ)" <SimpsoM2@anz.com>:

> I think its fair to say that most DQ combats usually involve some melee
> combat, so I dont think I'm creating a limited and seldom occuring
> counter-situation here.

Why don't you test it in a game that you run and see how it works out?

Jim.


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

Quoting Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz, " Mark (NZ)" <SimpsoM2@anz.com>:

> So you've tested your suggested "amended versions" of Hellfire etc. in a game
> you have run? What were the results?

I've run lots of games, Mark. In DQ and other systems. I can project from my
experience what I think the results will be.

I can't quite remember the last DQ game you ran, I'm afraid. My memory might be
failing. This happens as you get older, after having run lots of games.

Jim.


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

LOL, oh I see now your opinion has much more weight than mine, what was I thinking! 

Actually, as it happens I have run some DQ sessions, and alot of other stuff in other systems. Martin also seemed to like the idea, and hes probably run more DQ games than you. Does that invalidate your opinion? 



-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 4:17 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Big nasty and broken spells.


Quoting Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz, " Mark (NZ)" <SimpsoM2@anz.com>:

> So you've tested your suggested "amended versions" of Hellfire etc. in a game
> you have run? What were the results?

I've run lots of games, Mark. In DQ and other systems. I can project from my
experience what I think the results will be.

I can't quite remember the last DQ game you ran, I'm afraid. My memory might be
failing. This happens as you get older, after having run lots of games.

Jim.


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

Jim,
Please stop using arguments from authority. You know why they are
flawed, and they detract from your ideas.

Yup, I do it as well at times, and get slapped down when I do. And I
deserve it.

Regards

Andrew


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

>From: Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>
>On 1/17/06, Andrew Withy (DSL AK) <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Casting while prone encourages cowardice.
>
>
>Absolutely. Just like firing a gun while prone encourages cowardice.
>Soldiers everywhere should be forced to stand while shooting -- or better
>yet, march forward purposefully with cleft chins held high.
>
>:-)
>
>Or, we could agree that casting while prone allows a style of play that we
>don't want to encourage in DQ; one that appears inconsistent with an heroic
>fantasy flavour.
>
>Cheers,
>Martin

how do you wave your arms to cast when your lying on them, and if you are on 
your back how do you target the spell in your fire action?

You want cover use a meat shield ah I mean party member.(preferably a non 
mage because they are thicker).

_________________________________________________________________
Need a new job? Check out XtraMSN Careers http://xtramsn.co.nz/careers


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

Hmm simple fix may the spell only available via Quest
that way it limits the PC that can get the spell and
it also means that it likely will only be used by
Medium to high adventurers.

Personally I don't see the spell as being that bad.
The spell is a special knowledge spell that isn't
useful in every situation... so it means that its
there as an option and nothng more. Last I heard there
was a string complaining about how Necro's only cast
Necrosis in combat... how can they be casting Necrosis
and Agony at the same time? 

Hmmm there seems to be a bit of a double standard
there.

Zane

--- raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz wrote:

> Quoting Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>:
> 
> I think it is entirely appropriate for Agony to be a
> binarily resistable spell,
> with no effect as a result of a successful saving
> throw, and where resist pain
> contributes meaningfully to the chance to resist is
> entirely reasonable.
> 
> George has pointed out in another place that the
> spell use is 'balanced' because
> the area of effect is so dire that pcs can't use it
> terribly often. This is not
> balance, that's just poor design...Unless you do not
> intend for players to be
> able to  use the spell much. And, after all,
> necromancy was never intended as a
> pc college, nor were Black Mages and Greater
> Summoners.
> 
> Since we are prepared to allow them as pc colleges,
> then it seems to me that we
> should be making the spell usable by players. This
> is not the same as leaving a
> weak spell weak to provide players with a reason to
> adventure for something
> better. This should be changed because necros that
> cast this spell aren't
> usually invited to the next adventure.
> 
> Whatever fantasy people think they are engaged in,
> the over-riding concern is
> that this pasttime be entertaining. There is a
> problem when pc necros have
> Agony. The players will sit around with their
> collective thumbs up their arses
> waiting for the necro and his minions to do
> everything for them. There is a
> problem when npc necros have Agnoy. The players will
> sit around with their
> collective thumbs up their arses waiting for the
> necros and his minions to do
> for them.
> 
> Stepping away from censoriousness on what a
> character on a high level adventure
> ought to be doing, the fact is that this spell works
> great if it is the sort of
> thing you encounter once or twice in your
> adventuring career. But, if you are
> going to go out bashing necros, and this is a
> reasonable guild sport, then this
> spell forces people to behave logistically, rather
> than heroically.
> 
> Sure, some degree of preparedness is important, but
> when that preparedness
> becomes a 'by the numbers' exercise, it has stopped
> being a story and has
> become a table top war game.
> 
> I don't think that changing this spell to a resist
> for nothing effect will make
> it a valuable addition to the game. I don't believe
> leaving it the way it is
> does anything except make the odd pc necro feel warm
> inside.
> 
> Jim
> 
> > At 11:41 17/01/06, you wrote:
> > >The spells are in the game, and you cannot stop
> them being used out of their
> > >context. They will be used that way from time to
> time.
> > >
> > >Now, the classic necromancer with undead minions
> is a staple of this
> > >genre, then
> > >the spell is going to turn up, whether or not you
> think it is appropriate.
> > >And,
> > >to use your own argument back at you, this is a
> multi-GM environment where
> > the
> > >next DM may have a distinctly different point of
> view on whether or not
> > Agony
> > >should ever be cast in a low-medium game.
> >
> > The other problem I have with Agony is that the
> punishment does not seem to
> > fit the crime - the game effects of the spell do
> not seem to line up with
> > the apparent intent... Here is a version of Agony
> I wrote a little while
> > back for your comment:
> >
> > Agony (S-1)
> > Range: 15 feet + 5/Rank
> > Duration: Concentration; maximum of 10 seconds +
> 10 / Rank
> > Experience Multiple: 350
> > Base Chance: 10%
> > Resist: Active, Passive
> > Storage: Investment, Ward, Magical Trap
> > Target: Area
> > Effects: This spell causes all living entities in
> the affected area, except
> > the Adept, to suffer extreme agony.
> > Entities who fail to resist must reduce their
> initiative by twice the rank
> > of the spell, and make a once times willpower
> check to take any other than
> > a non-magical pass action for the duration of the
> spell, or until such time
> > as they leave the area of effect.
> > Entities who successfully resist must reduce their
> initiative by the rank
> > of the spell, and make a three times willpower
> check to perform any other
> > than a non-magical pass action for the duration of
> the spell, or until such
> > time as they leave the area of effect.
> > Mind Mages gain a bonus to these willpower checks
> equal to 10% + 2 × Rank
> > with their Talent of Resisting Pain.
> >
> > Hmmm....
> >
> > Jacqui
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify
> mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify
> mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com


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

At 17:55 17/01/06, you wrote:
>Personally I don't see the spell as being that bad.
>The spell is a special knowledge spell that isn't
>useful in every situation... so it means that its
>there as an option and nothng more. Last I heard there
>was a string complaining about how Necro's only cast
>Necrosis in combat... how can they be casting Necrosis
>and Agony at the same time?

They don't - Agony has a duration of 10 seconds +10/Rank so Mr Cunning NPC 
Necromancer drops an Agony first to soften up the party and follows that up 
with Necrosis...

Jacqui


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

>From: Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz>

>At 17:55 17/01/06, you wrote:
>>Personally I don't see the spell as being that bad.
>>The spell is a special knowledge spell that isn't
>>useful in every situation... so it means that its
>>there as an option and nothng more. Last I heard there
>>was a string complaining about how Necro's only cast
>>Necrosis in combat... how can they be casting Necrosis
>>and Agony at the same time?
>
>They don't - Agony has a duration of 10 seconds +10/Rank so Mr Cunning NPC 
>Necromancer drops an Agony first to soften up the party and follows that up 
>with Necrosis...
>
>Jacqui

I do believe the piont was that one of the main contenions with Necrocisis 
bieng overpowered, from the original thread, was that it was th only spell 
that a necro would cast because it was too good. And as Zane is trying to 
point out this argument, at least in the case of Necrosis is 
wrong/false/can't hold water.

I don't think he was actually asking about casting two spells at once, 
mearly highlighting the flawed argument and trying to direct the thread back 
on topic.

Side bar; why do we call them counterspells if they don't actually counter 
the spells?
              Ok maybe the area one does but the personal?

TTFN
Michael

_________________________________________________________________
Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @ 
http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html


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