>I noticed that with [Rulebook].
>Use {GM}, that should come out as "[DQ] {GM}"

Somewhere. there's still the old list that was used for the last 
rulebook edits ... you guys want that one reactivated?

And, a seperate list for gm stuff can be created if you want it ... 
might even ask for a 'spare' list to be created if we find we need a 
new one temporarily.

Keith


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

>7.8 Magic resistance (Of course):
>Sentient entities are those with an MA of 0 or greater.

Is it worth moving that to the definitions section in 7.1?

>9
>List of Aura strengths. Stone Golems are non-sentient.
>
>13.6 Golem Intellience
>Golems have an animal level intelligence.
>Golem Animal Equivalents: Clay = Ox; Rag & String = Monkey; Iron = 
>Tiger; Stone = Elephant; Wood = Dog.
>
>All those players with golems (Stephen and Helen - are there any 
>others?) are trying to either depower their own rituals, or fix a 
>typo/contradiction. Its clearly an oops, and most everyone plays the 
>animal intelligence as per the ritual descriptions.
>
>Unless it is controversial?...

Animals are counted as non-sentients in the bestiary but I coudn't 
find the entries for dog or monkey in the original. The others were 
listed as MA=None.

Keith


>
>Andrew
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf 
>Of Errol Cavit
>Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2006 2:11 p.m.
>To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
>Subject: Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Golem Table
>
>To save future arguments, are you able to give a paper trail?
>
>Which Rulebook had the error introduced, and can you indicate a 
>correct version?
>
>Without a confirmation vote, I'll only change the Rulebook on the 
>basis of strong evidence (e.g Rituals backfire on 30+ vs 40+ had 
>evidence in History of which was correct)
>
>Also, are the implications of MA:none vs MA:0 spelt out anywhere?
>
>Thanks
>Errol
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz 
> [<mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz>mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> > Stephen Martin
> > Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2006 13:42
> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > Subject: Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Golem Table
> >
> >
> > Fine by me Errol.
> >
> > And I'm in favour of making them MA none.  As the person who
> > made the mistake of putting 0 instead
> > of none, I can confirm that it was a mistake.  They are
> > non-sentient entities.  As such they
> > should have MA none not 0.
> >
> > Cheers, Stephen.
> >
> > Helen Saggers said:
> > >
> > > Can we get rid of the anoying MA 0 in the table with out a Vote?
> > >
> > > MA 0 on a construct with an Animal like inteligance dosn't work.
> > > It should be none or Adepts when possessed.
> > >
> > > Helen
> > >   ----- Original Message -----
> > >   From: Errol Cavit
> > >   To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> > >   Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 11:17 AM
> > >   Subject: [dq] {Rulebook} Golem Table
> > >
> > >
> > >   I guess this is mainly for Helen and Stephen, but there
> > is no reason not to have everything
> > > transparent.
> > >
> > >
> > 
> <http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Golems#Golem_Statistics>http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Golems#Golem_Statistics 
>
> > >
> > >   I've updated the note on the Wiki version of the Table to
> > reflect the December approval vote.
> > >
> > >   Can you confirm that I'm correct to add a '+' in front of
> > the positive numbers in the 'TMR
> > > Mod' column of the table, and that this is just improving
> > readability? I'll also put a "*"
> > > after the "Rk" at the bottom of each sub-table.
> > >
> > >   Cheers
> > >   Errol
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify 
> <mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz>mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
>
>
>
>__________ NOD32 1.1391 (20060201) Information __________
>
>This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
><http://www.eset.com>http://www.eset.com


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

Quoting Helen Saggers <helen@owbn.net.nz>:

> > Finally, it's just extremely hard to believe that you can hit with a
> weapon so
> > hard that it breaks with the kind of frequency they talk about. I'm sure
> it
> > might happen, particularly with poorly made weapons. I find it hard to
> believe
> > that it would happen in anything other than an exceptional situation.
> >
> > Jim.
>
> You don't have to hit hard to brake weapons.
> My sword broke weekend before last on a water melon. The blow was just hard
> enough to split the melon and pulled enough not to hurt the hand holding it,
> my other hand.
> (Spliting a melon is a good stunt to remind people of how dangerous even a
> blunt sword is. When it works properly :-))
>
> Metal fatgue from years of use caused the brake, not the strenght of the
> blow.
>
> Poorly made weapons just fail faster, just like all poorly made tools.

I would be surprised if your weapon was made of anything other than mild steel.

But, in any case, metal fatigue is unlikely to occur in weapons. It's caused by
cycles of load and unload. You don't get that with weapon use.
>
> Having cut my share of scrub with an axe, while strenght will give you a
> deeper cut, the use of power with out control is more likely to result in an
> axe in your foot, or some other damage to the frail human holding the haft
> than to the axe.

If two axeman are the same, and the only thing that differentiates them is their
strength, then the stronger will clear more. Or will clear the same area with
less effort.

Jim


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

> Are all players bored, I'm not but then I don't have med-high 
> characters 
> like everyone who seems to be bitchin' about being bored.
> 
> Cowinkidink I think not

Good idea, lets get rid of the medium-high aspect of the game because
Michael is not bored by playing on lows. 

We should indeed bow low before the mastery of your idea and remove two
thirds of the characters from the game instead of adjusting the ruleset
that was never really intended to be played this long. 

No-one said they were bored, however aspects of the ruleset encourage
boredom and a lack of choice. As indicated by your Email you have not
played long enough to have experianced the issues being discussed, once
you have you might be taken more seriously. 

Mandos
/s


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

GMing old characters can be more frustrating in general than GMing
younger ones. The personality is set, which is nice, but they are
generally fixed in their approaches, dependant on items and abilities
rather than new ideas, unwiling to take risks on new approaches, and
expect more consistency based on their history that the GM isn't always
aware of.  The up-side is that players are often more comfortable in
their roles, allowing the game to be more social while remaining in
character, and that the players usually relax more as they are in their
comfort zone. This allows a GM to concentrate more on other dynamics. Of
course, if things go wrong, they get worst on "old" games, as the
expectations of players are more fixed.

The players sometimes expect "more of the same" - when they get it, they
eventually get bored, when they get something else, they are less
comfortable. I have some support for Michael's point about where boredom
happens, but think it's a structural issue.

Of course, I explicitly exclude the group of "old" characters I am GMing
currently, and every other set of "old" characters I've played with and
GMed.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Mandos Mitchinson
Sent: Friday, 3 February 2006 7:36 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Fun? A change of discussion direction in the DQ List


> Are all players bored, I'm not but then I don't have med-high
> characters 
> like everyone who seems to be bitchin' about being bored.
> 
> Cowinkidink I think not


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

> GMing old characters can be more frustrating in general than 
> GMing younger ones. The personality is set, which is nice, 
> but they are generally fixed in their approaches, dependant 
> on items and abilities rather than new ideas, unwiling to 
> take risks on new approaches, and expect more consistency 
> based on their history that the GM isn't always aware of.  
> The up-side is that players are often more comfortable in 
> their roles, allowing the game to be more social while 
> remaining in character, and that the players usually relax 
> more as they are in their comfort zone. This allows a GM to 
> concentrate more on other dynamics. Of course, if things go 
> wrong, they get worst on "old" games, as the expectations of 
> players are more fixed.

I much prefer older characters. The interplay between the characters is
more interesting and depending on the players moral quandries give
fantastic roleplaying opportunities because the characters have more
defined moral codes based on past experience. It also means the players
generally have a good knowledge of the game and I don't have to worry
about the player side of things and I can concentrate on my bits. 

> Of course, I explicitly exclude the group of "old" characters 
> I am GMing currently, and every other set of "old" characters 
> I've played with and GMed.

<Grin> 

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_01C6282E.C736C5A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Andrew Withy (DSL AK)
> Sent: Friday, 3 February 2006 08:14
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Fun? A change of discussion direction in the DQ List
> 
<snip>
> 
> Of course, I explicitly exclude the group of "old" characters 
> I am GMing
> currently, and every other set of "old" characters I've 
> played with and
> GMed.
> 

You mis-spelt 'experienced' :-)

Errol 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C6282E.C736C5A0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2658.2">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] Fun? A change of discussion direction in the DQ =
List</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]O=
n Behalf Of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Andrew Withy (DSL AK)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Friday, 3 February 2006 08:14</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Fun? A change of discussion =
direction in the DQ List</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;snip&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Of course, I explicitly exclude the group of =
&quot;old&quot; characters </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I am GMing</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; currently, and every other set of =
&quot;old&quot; characters I've </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; played with and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; GMed.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>You mis-spelt 'experienced' :-)</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6282E.C736C5A0--


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

This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 006B6459CC257109_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Thanks to Mandos for his tips and the responses - this is great stuff for 
those of us who aren't very good at quantifying what works and what 
doesn't.


Regards,
Rosemary (who fumbles her way into the good and the boring)

--=_alternative 006B6459CC257109_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"


<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks to Mandos for his tips and the
responses - this is great stuff for those of us who aren't very good at
quantifying what works and what doesn't.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Regards,<br>
Rosemary (who fumbles her way into the good and the boring)<br>
</font>
--=_alternative 006B6459CC257109_=--


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

Yes these are helpful to see how others have put there games together.
I am keenly following your posts.

Jono


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
> Mandos Mitchinson
> Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2006 4:31 p.m.
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] {GM} Mandos Tips and tricks Query
> 
> 
> 
> Are these the kind of things people want to see and discuss or am I
> missing the point somewhere?
> 
> Mandos
> /s
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 
>


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C62838.92C2E000
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable




There is a problem in a lot of systems that they start to break down a =
bit at higher levels. For me D&D was best at levels 3-8, and quickly =
went down hill from there. High level DQ doesn't appeal for similar =
reasons. Why? Well combats take far too long for one, and have become =
far too regimented. Everyone has ,by medium to high, got their own well =
defined role.  There are less real choices to make (hmmm perhaps, E&E =
prep's/casts quickness, Wicca prep's/cast hellfire etc.).  A pet peeve =
of mine is gm's building up a main "Big Boss Baddie"  in a fight. He has =
most of the abilities of the opposition, melee's for silly amounts of =
damage etc.  Many colleges, without access to the "resist for half " =
damage spells, must revert to mental attack/sleep etc. As a player, you =
just know there's no chance a bad guy will fail to resist those spells =
in the first pulse or two of a fight. You know even a very tough =
individual shouldn't have more than 60% resist chance without =
counterspells, but the chance of him actually failing to resist in pulse =
2 is less than 1%. Partly that's the binary resist system, the GM cant =
have the big baddie fall over in pulse 2 in what he planned to be the =
big combat of the evening (that he spent an hour writing up), but it =
hurts suspension of disbelief in a number of ways. You know the gm has =
had to either  fudge the dice roll or to fudge the rules to give the npc =
godly resistance.=20

Another problem is the diminishing of or lack  of any real sense of =
danger to the characters. When was the last time a character of medium =
to high level was permanently (irresurrectably) killed? I don't blame =
gm's for this, but the ease of resurrection and the only fairly minor =
penalty (1 point of End i.e. 2500 exp) means death is a minor =
inconvenience. And even ressurectible death is fairly rare. I can see =
why, and as a GM I wouldn't want to be responsible for the permanent =
death of a character someone's been playing for 10 years plus. Players =
have become very attached to those characters. I also think the cliques =
also have something to do with it. If you are mostly playing with the =
same players and GM(s) playing the same characters ,  you get into a =
comfort zone which, while "comfortable", easily becomes boring.=20

=20
=20






------_=_NextPart_001_01C62838.92C2E000
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=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<TITLE></TITLE>

<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT><BR>
<P><FONT size=3D2>There is a problem in a lot of systems that they start =
to break=20
down a bit at higher levels. For me D&amp;D was best at levels 3-8, and =
quickly=20
went down hill from there. High level DQ doesn't appeal for similar =
reasons.=20
Why? Well combats take far too long for one, and have become far too =
regimented.=20
Everyone has ,by medium to high, got their own well defined=20
role.&nbsp;&nbsp;There are less real choices to make (hmmm perhaps, =
E&amp;E=20
prep's/casts quickness, Wicca prep's/cast hellfire etc.).&nbsp; A pet =
peeve of=20
mine is gm's building up a main "Big Boss Baddie"&nbsp;</FONT><FONT =
size=3D2> in a=20
fight. He has most of the abilities of the opposition, melee's for silly =
amounts=20
of damage etc.&nbsp; Many colleges, without access to the "resist for =
half "=20
damage spells, must revert to mental attack/sleep etc. As a player, you =
just=20
know there's no chance a bad guy will fail to resist those spells in the =
first=20
pulse or two of a fight. You know even a very tough individual shouldn't =
have=20
more than 60% resist chance without counterspells, but the chance of him =

actually failing to resist in pulse 2 is less than 1%. Partly that's the =
binary=20
resist system, the GM cant have the big baddie fall over in pulse 2 in =
what he=20
planned to be the big combat of the evening (that he spent an hour =
writing up),=20
but it hurts suspension of disbelief in a number of ways. You know the =
gm has=20
had to either &nbsp;fudge the dice roll or to fudge the rules&nbsp;to =
give the=20
npc godly resistance. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D2>Another problem is the diminishing of or =
lack&nbsp;&nbsp;of any=20
real sense of danger to the characters. When was the last time a =
character of=20
medium to high level was permanently (irresurrectably) killed? I don't =
blame=20
gm's for this, but the ease of resurrection and the only fairly minor =
penalty (1=20
point of End i.e. 2500 exp) means death is a minor inconvenience. And =
even=20
ressurectible death is fairly rare. I can see why, and as a GM I =
wouldn't want=20
to be responsible for the permanent death of a character someone's been =
playing=20
for 10 years plus. Players have become very attached to those =
characters. I also=20
think the cliques also have something to do with it. If you are mostly =
playing=20
with the same players and GM(s)&nbsp;playing the same characters , =
&nbsp;you get=20
into a comfort zone which, while "comfortable", easily becomes boring.=20
</FONT></P>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV>
<P><BR><BR></P></FONT></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C62838.92C2E000--


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

> The personality is set, which is nice, 
> but they are generally fixed in their approaches, dependant 
> on items and abilities rather than new ideas, unwiling to 
> take risks on new approaches.

As a point on this I ran an adventure recently to see how much of a
character was defined by Personality and how much by Stats items etc. My
methods of determining this were highly unscientific but the basis was I
would set up an adventure whereby the adventurers would be transported
into bodies that were not theirs and only having access to that entities
items and equipment. 

From a very small sample of players I found.....

When the change first happened there were a couple of unhappy players.
Character choices, expectations and other preconceptions caused the lack
of enthusiasm, a lack which fortunatly dissapeared after a session or
so. 

Most characters missed having their equipment at some point or another
but not having the items did not get in the way of the players normal
behaviours and reactions. I was expecting more hesitations, cursing over
the lack of items and other signs that it was a problem but they never
eventuated. 

Changes to the players stats and physical forms seemed to be more of a
focus of concern, particularly among the fighters who are dependant on
their physical form for the weapons they can use. A fact I had
anticipated and so the adventure was not designed to be combat heavy. 

Overall given the fact that the party is a medium high, item heavy
group, I was expecting a much higher dependancy on items and a greater
difficulty in coping without their gear than was actually the case. This
might be due to the high level of roleplaying ability and experience
among the group but does show that item dependancy may not be as
prevelant as it appears on the surface. 

Mandos
/s


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

> Does anyone have a method or balance of approximation vs detail
> that works well?
>
> Cheers, Stephen.

Yes I do. But first some background.

I use a computer to do large amounts of the work for me.
I use Word and re-use them time and time again.
I build on these bad guys, so if I need 10 bandets I have them on hand.

I run lots of bad guys in general so they are often weaker than the party
members unless they are a 'named hero/villan'.
Because I can often have larger numbered encounters I have put together a
system which is:

I have all the NPCs with a EN FT track and at the top I have a space for two
important facts.
The NPCs will belong to a group which has their over all stats - race, IV,
armour, SC, BC PC etc

The two important spots are for the unique tag that that NPC has.
Calls names at PC, Black armour, Blue hair, Screamer, Three eyes, etc etc -
which players can hook onto to ID the NPC later.
The second is who they are fighting (PC intitals are fine).

So for me to gain speed in my game and to clearly handle 20+ to 40+ NPCs at
once I use clear, clean printed out records.
Like Andrew said sometimes my numbers are approx but they are their. Because
they are there and they remind me, and I use them. I ahve them as of the
size of the combats.

In short - less than 2 X players of NPCs I can wing it. More than 2 X
players I have it planned.

Jono


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

Michael wrote;
> > Are all players bored, I'm not but then I don't have med-high
> > characters
> > like everyone who seems to be bitchin' about being bored.
> >
> > Cowinkidink I think not
>
>Good idea, lets get rid of the medium-high aspect of the game because
>Michael is not bored by playing on lows.

Yes Michael isn't bored on lows and throughly enjoyed the meds hes been on 
but where the hell do you get the idea I'm saying do away with med to high 
adventures?

>We should indeed bow low before the mastery of your idea and remove two
>thirds of the characters from the game instead of adjusting the ruleset
>that was never really intended to be played this long.

Firstly my point was we are only hearing form a minority of PCs not a broad 
x-section.
Secondly that you should consider how the rules changes you want to 
impliment affect everyone so you don't nurf the low end games and turn off 
new players.

>No-one said they were bored, however aspects of the ruleset encourage
>boredom and a lack of choice. As indicated by your Email you have not
>played long enough to have experianced the issues being discussed, once
>you have you might be taken more seriously.

Boredom has been cited over and over again in the posts check your glasses 
oldtimer, and yes I have been playing (DQ) for only six years so to that end 
while I feel I should have my say and maybe try to influance a game I love 
and intend to be playing in 20 years time, I leave the actual voting and 
tinkering to those whom I would think have more experiance if not wisdom 
(with the game).

Of corse judging from some of the petulent behavior I've seen on the lists 
lately I may have been mistaken.

TTFN
Michael

_________________________________________________________________
Become a fitness fanatic @  http://xtramsn.co.nz/health


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

------=_Part_9260_10477127.1138913988326
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

While I kind of submit to the arguement that death only costsing 2500 xp is
cheap at the same time I think Gok has died 4 maybe 5 times in our game. An=
d
Kishwan (sp?) isn't doing much better. Not only is this costing them the
majority of there xp but its making them easier to kill currently since the=
y
haven't bought that endurance back yet. Also it means that our GM can
continue to throw nasty things at us and when half the party goes down it
creates real tension as once you all go down thats it. Game over. I can
honestly say in my current game even with lots of ressurection around I
don't feel the lack of danger. We haven't had an irresurectrable death yet
but we've come close more than once. I nearly became an undead and one of
our party members nearly got sucked into a magical item just as the enemy
was being banished. Kishwan (sp?) got bitten in half by a shark and it took
us quite a while to ascertain if there was enough left to ressurect him.
Even when we found out there was I think the chance was at -65 due to how
much was missing.

 I'm not sure how much more tension of danger sense I can take.
Dylan


On 2/3/06, Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz <Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
> There is a problem in a lot of systems that they start to break down a bi=
t
> at higher levels. For me D&D was best at levels 3-8, and quickly went dow=
n
> hill from there. High level DQ doesn't appeal for similar reasons. Why? W=
ell
> combats take far too long for one, and have become far too regimented.
> Everyone has ,by medium to high, got their own well defined role.  There =
are
> less real choices to make (hmmm perhaps, E&E prep's/casts quickness, Wicc=
a
> prep's/cast hellfire etc.).  A pet peeve of mine is gm's building up a ma=
in
> "Big Boss Baddie"  in a fight. He has most of the abilities of the
> opposition, melee's for silly amounts of damage etc.  Many colleges, with=
out
> access to the "resist for half " damage spells, must revert to mental
> attack/sleep etc. As a player, you just know there's no chance a bad guy
> will fail to resist those spells in the first pulse or two of a fight. Yo=
u
> know even a very tough individual shouldn't have more than 60% resist cha=
nce
> without counterspells, but the chance of him actually failing to resist i=
n
> pulse 2 is less than 1%. Partly that's the binary resist system, the GM c=
ant
> have the big baddie fall over in pulse 2 in what he planned to be the big
> combat of the evening (that he spent an hour writing up), but it hurts
> suspension of disbelief in a number of ways. You know the gm has had to
> either  fudge the dice roll or to fudge the rules to give the npc godly
> resistance.
>
> Another problem is the diminishing of or lack  of any real sense of dange=
r
> to the characters. When was the last time a character of medium to high
> level was permanently (irresurrectably) killed? I don't blame gm's for th=
is,
> but the ease of resurrection and the only fairly minor penalty (1 point o=
f
> End i.e. 2500 exp) means death is a minor inconvenience. And even
> ressurectible death is fairly rare. I can see why, and as a GM I wouldn't
> want to be responsible for the permanent death of a character someone's b=
een
> playing for 10 years plus. Players have become very attached to those
> characters. I also think the cliques also have something to do with it. I=
f
> you are mostly playing with the same players and GM(s) playing the same
> characters ,  you get into a comfort zone which, while "comfortable", eas=
ily
> becomes boring.
>
>
>
>
>
>

------=_Part_9260_10477127.1138913988326
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>While I kind of submit to the arguement that death only costsing 2500 =
xp is cheap at the same time I think Gok has died 4 maybe 5 times in our ga=
me. And Kishwan (sp?) isn't doing much better. Not only is this costing the=
m the majority of there xp but its making them easier to kill currently sin=
ce they haven't bought that endurance back yet. Also it means that our GM c=
an continue to throw nasty things at us and when half the party goes down i=
t creates real tension as once you all go down thats it. Game over. I can h=
onestly say in my current game even with lots of ressurection around I don'=
t feel the lack of danger. We haven't had an irresurectrable death yet but =
we've come close more than once. I nearly became an undead and one of our p=
arty members nearly got sucked into a magical item just as the enemy was be=
ing banished. Kishwan (sp?) got bitten in half by a shark and it took us qu=
ite a while to ascertain if there was enough left to ressurect him. Even wh=
en we found out there was I think the chance was at -65 due to how much was=
 missing.
</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;I'm not sure how much more tension of danger sense I can take.</=
div>
<div>Dylan<br><br>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 2/3/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"><=
a href=3D"mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</a></b> &=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</a>&g=
t; wrote:
</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><font face=3D"Arial" color=3D"#0=
000ff" size=3D"2"></font><br>
<p><font size=3D"2">There is a problem in a lot of systems that they start =
to break down a bit at higher levels. For me D&amp;D was best at levels 3-8=
, and quickly went down hill from there. High level DQ doesn't appeal for s=
imilar reasons. Why? Well combats take far too long for one, and have becom=
e far too regimented. Everyone has ,by medium to high, got their own well d=
efined role.&nbsp;&nbsp;There are less real choices to make (hmmm perhaps, =
E&amp;E prep's/casts quickness, Wicca prep's/cast hellfire etc.).&nbsp; A p=
et peeve of mine is gm's building up a main &quot;Big Boss Baddie&quot;&nbs=
p;
</font><font size=3D"2"> in a fight. He has most of the abilities of the op=
position, melee's for silly amounts of damage etc.&nbsp; Many colleges, wit=
hout access to the &quot;resist for half &quot; damage spells, must revert =
to mental attack/sleep etc. As a player, you just know there's no chance a =
bad guy will fail to resist those spells in the first pulse or two of a fig=
ht. You know even a very tough individual shouldn't have more than 60% resi=
st chance without counterspells, but the chance of him actually failing to =
resist in pulse 2 is less than 1%. Partly that's the binary resist system, =
the GM cant have the big baddie fall over in pulse 2 in what he planned to =
be the big combat of the evening (that he spent an hour writing up), but it=
 hurts suspension of disbelief in a number of ways. You know the gm has had=
 to either &nbsp;fudge the dice roll or to fudge the rules&nbsp;to give the=
 npc godly resistance.=20
</font></p>
<p><font size=3D"2">Another problem is the diminishing of or lack&nbsp;&nbs=
p;of any real sense of danger to the characters. When was the last time a c=
haracter of medium to high level was permanently (irresurrectably) killed? =
I don't blame gm's for this, but the ease of resurrection and the only fair=
ly minor penalty (1 point of End=20
i.e. 2500 exp) means death is a minor inconvenience. And even ressurectible=
 death is fairly rare. I can see why, and as a GM I wouldn't want to be res=
ponsible for the permanent death of a character someone's been playing for =
10 years plus. Players have become very attached to those characters. I als=
o think the cliques also have something to do with it. If you are mostly pl=
aying with the same players and GM(s)&nbsp;playing the same characters , &n=
bsp;you get into a comfort zone which, while &quot;comfortable&quot;, easil=
y becomes boring.=20
</font></p>
<div><font size=3D"2"></font>&nbsp;</div>
<div><font size=3D"2">&nbsp;</font></div>
<p><br><br></p></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_9260_10477127.1138913988326--


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

> Another problem is the diminishing of or lack of any real sense of
danger to the
> characters. When was the last time a character of medium to high level
was
> permanently (irresurrectably) killed? I don't blame gm's for this, but
the ease
> of resurrection and the only fairly minor penalty (1 point of End i.e.
2500 exp)
> means death is a minor inconvenience. And even ressurectible death is
fairly rare.
> I can see why, and as a GM I wouldn't want to be responsible for the
permanent
> death of a character someone's been playing for 10 years plus. Players
have become
> very attached to those characters. I also think the cliques also have
something to
> do with it. If you are mostly playing with the same players and GM(s)
playing the
> same characters ,  you get into a comfort zone which, while
"comfortable", easily
> becomes boring. 

A few point here....

I have felt fear and danger often on adventures. Deans recent combat had
a number of people worried until we finally got the upper hand and the
combat could have gone either way. On my last outing as a GM there was a
death and 2 or 3 close calls. 

So I think the fear and danger is still there, but it is harder for GM's
to inject it for a number of reasons. 

1. It is a lot harder to kill players these days. The changes to healer,
the prevailence of potions and high damage spells means the parties are
tougher. In order to give them a fright there has to be an increase in
the toughness (and often the wierdness) of bad guys in order to create
the threat. 

2. Some players are overly protective of their characters that they
avoid any possible chance of being in a dangerous situation, often to
the point of ruining the game for other players. While it may be fun to
play a character that avoids combat at all costs, lots of players like a
good fight now and then and cowardice is on the increase. 

Death actually hurts quite a bit once you hit medium+ items go missing,
talents dissapear, permenant lessers and greaters go away not to mention
the impact of dying on a characters personality. 

I think it is all down the the GM's you play with, some out there are
excellent at injecting fear and danger into their games and others run
fluffier sytles of game. 

Mandos
/s


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C628A9.3C141150
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

You have some good points here Mark,

 

Binary spells = I hate them. Ablative is the best way to go. As a GM is will
normally allow sleep to work, much to the surprise of the player <grin>

 

Boring high level = as you wrote, it comes down to the individual. I enjoy
Civ, the PC game, but find the early stuff really boring, and cannot wait to
get to railroads etc. Destroying caravels with a battleship is just good for
the ego.

 

Safe combats = it really comes down the GM. I haven't killed a PC
permanently for a while - if ever. Normally I will only kill for stupidity,
or combat effect. The GM can create an atmosphere of fear amongst the
players. Tension can be built, and they worry. The party probably wins or
runs, and I can feel the tension flow out of them (or us if I am playing).

 

Ludicrous damage = yup. As a GM I get a little jealous of the 28 damage many
PCs hand out, and the 22+ points of armour they carry. To threaten a party
with that much armour, requires spell damage or big weapons. Curse the
weapon with something nasty (and +lots damage) and the party doesn't get
loot, but the NPC is believable. And they curse you for transforming an item
of expected loot (the weapon has to be visible and flashy during the combat)
into a worthless and dangerous piece of cargo - no one is stupid enough to
leave a sword of slaying in the bushes.

 

One of my favourite combats (as a GM) was a two round fight. The NPC had an
item that meant he had the same magical defence as his opponent. So he never
bothered with magical defences. He won the first round, but on the second
the PC was in a zero magic area, and so had no magical defence, and creamed
him (well sliced thinly for the culinary pedants amongst us). The trick was
to have a bloody hard little bastard, with a flaw. The Player really felt
she had earnt the second win. And she had.

 

Ian

 

 

  _____  

From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz
Sent: 03 February 2006 09:38
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Boredom - Was [Fun]

 

 

There is a problem in a lot of systems that they start to break down a bit
at higher levels. For me D&D was best at levels 3-8, and quickly went down
hill from there. High level DQ doesn't appeal for similar reasons. Why? Well
combats take far too long for one, and have become far too regimented.
Everyone has ,by medium to high, got their own well defined role.  There are
less real choices to make (hmmm perhaps, E&E prep's/casts quickness, Wicca
prep's/cast hellfire etc.).  A pet peeve of mine is gm's building up a main
"Big Boss Baddie"  in a fight. He has most of the abilities of the
opposition, melee's for silly amounts of damage etc.  Many colleges, without
access to the "resist for half " damage spells, must revert to mental
attack/sleep etc. As a player, you just know there's no chance a bad guy
will fail to resist those spells in the first pulse or two of a fight. You
know even a very tough individual shouldn't have more than 60% resist chance
without counterspells, but the chance of him actually failing to resist in
pulse 2 is less than 1%. Partly that's the binary resist system, the GM cant
have the big baddie fall over in pulse 2 in what he planned to be the big
combat of the evening (that he spent an hour writing up), but it hurts
suspension of disbelief in a number of ways. You know the gm has had to
either  fudge the dice roll or to fudge the rules to give the npc godly
resistance. 

Another problem is the diminishing of or lack  of any real sense of danger
to the characters. When was the last time a character of medium to high
level was permanently (irresurrectably) killed? I don't blame gm's for this,
but the ease of resurrection and the only fairly minor penalty (1 point of
End i.e. 2500 exp) means death is a minor inconvenience. And even
ressurectible death is fairly rare. I can see why, and as a GM I wouldn't
want to be responsible for the permanent death of a character someone's been
playing for 10 years plus. Players have become very attached to those
characters. I also think the cliques also have something to do with it. If
you are mostly playing with the same players and GM(s) playing the same
characters ,  you get into a comfort zone which, while "comfortable", easily
becomes boring. 

 

 

 


------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C628A9.3C141150
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
h3
	{margin-top:12.0pt;
	margin-right:0cm;
	margin-bottom:3.0pt;
	margin-left:0cm;
	page-break-after:avoid;
	font-size:13.0pt;
	font-family:Arial;
	font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p
	{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0cm;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0cm;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
p.StyleHeading312pt, li.StyleHeading312pt, div.StyleHeading312pt
	{margin-top:12.0pt;
	margin-right:0cm;
	margin-bottom:3.0pt;
	margin-left:0cm;
	page-break-after:avoid;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:Arial;
	font-weight:bold;}
span.EmailStyle19
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:Arial;
	color:navy;}
@page Section1
	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
	margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>

</head>

<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>You have some good points here =
Mark,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Binary spells =3D I hate them. =
Ablative is
the best way to go. As a GM is will normally allow sleep to work, much =
to the
surprise of the player &lt;grin&gt;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Boring high level =3D as you wrote, =
it comes
down to the individual. I enjoy Civ, the PC game, but find the early =
stuff
really boring, and cannot wait to get to railroads etc. Destroying =
caravels
with a battleship is just good for the ego.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Safe combats =3D it really comes =
down the GM.
I haven&#8217;t killed a PC permanently for a while &#8211; if ever. =
Normally I
will only kill for stupidity, or combat effect. The GM can create an =
atmosphere
of fear amongst the players. Tension can be built, and they worry. The =
party
probably wins or runs, and I can feel the tension flow out of them (or =
us if I am
playing).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Ludicrous damage =3D yup. As a GM I =
get a
little jealous of the 28 damage many PCs hand out, and the 22+ points of =
armour
they carry. To threaten a party with that much armour, requires spell =
damage or
big weapons. Curse the weapon with something nasty (and +lots damage) =
and the
party doesn&#8217;t get loot, but the NPC is believable. And they curse =
you for
transforming an item of expected loot (the weapon has to be visible and =
flashy
during the combat) into a worthless and dangerous piece of cargo &#8211; =
no one
is stupid enough to leave a sword of slaying in the =
bushes.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>One of my favourite combats (as a =
GM) was
a two round fight. The NPC had an item that meant he had the same =
magical
defence as his opponent. So he never bothered with magical defences. He =
won the
first round, but on the second the PC was in a zero magic area, and so =
had no
magical defence, and creamed him (well sliced thinly for the culinary =
pedants
amongst us). The trick was to have a bloody hard little bastard, with a =
flaw.
The Player really felt she had earnt the second win. And she =
had.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Ian<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<div style=3D'border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm =
0cm 4.0pt'>

<div>

<div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font =
size=3D3
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>

<hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter tabindex=3D-1>

</span></font></div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font =
size=3D2
face=3DTahoma><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] <b><span =
style=3D'font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> 03 February 2006 =
09:38<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> [dq] Boredom - =
Was [Fun]</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>There is
a problem in a lot of systems that they start to break down a bit at =
higher
levels. For me D&amp;D was best at levels 3-8, and quickly went down =
hill from
there. High level DQ doesn't appeal for similar reasons. Why? Well =
combats take
far too long for one, and have become far too regimented. Everyone has =
,by
medium to high, got their own well defined role.&nbsp;&nbsp;There are =
less real
choices to make (hmmm perhaps, E&amp;E prep's/casts quickness, Wicca =
prep's/cast
hellfire etc.).&nbsp; A pet peeve of mine is gm's building up a main =
&quot;Big
Boss Baddie&quot;&nbsp; in a fight. He has most of the abilities of the
opposition, melee's for silly amounts of damage etc.&nbsp; Many =
colleges,
without access to the &quot;resist for half &quot; damage spells, must =
revert
to mental attack/sleep etc. As a player, you just know there's no chance =
a bad
guy will fail to resist those spells in the first pulse or two of a =
fight. You
know even a very tough individual shouldn't have more than 60% resist =
chance
without counterspells, but the chance of him actually failing to resist =
in
pulse 2 is less than 1%. Partly that's the binary resist system, the GM =
cant
have the big baddie fall over in pulse 2 in what he planned to be the =
big
combat of the evening (that he spent an hour writing up), but it hurts
suspension of disbelief in a number of ways. You know the gm has had to =
either
&nbsp;fudge the dice roll or to fudge the rules&nbsp;to give the npc =
godly
resistance. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>

<p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Another
problem is the diminishing of or lack&nbsp;&nbsp;of any real sense of =
danger to
the characters. When was the last time a character of medium to high =
level was
permanently (irresurrectably) killed? I don't blame gm's for this, but =
the ease
of resurrection and the only fairly minor penalty (1 point of End i.e. =
2500
exp) means death is a minor inconvenience. And even ressurectible death =
is
fairly rare. I can see why, and as a GM I wouldn't want to be =
responsible for
the permanent death of a character someone's been playing for 10 years =
plus.
Players have become very attached to those characters. I also think the =
cliques
also have something to do with it. If you are mostly playing with the =
same
players and GM(s)&nbsp;playing the same characters , &nbsp;you get into =
a
comfort zone which, while &quot;comfortable&quot;, easily becomes =
boring. </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

<p style=3D'margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C628A9.3C141150--


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

Hey guys, lets leave this particular thread here.

You have both made points, some of them hidden, so please no further
responses.

I am enjoying the posts. Even these ones...

Ian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
> Michael Scott
> Sent: 03 February 2006 09:54
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Fun? A change of discussion direction in the DQ List
> 
> 
> 
> Michael wrote;
> > > Are all players bored, I'm not but then I don't have med-high
> > > characters
> > > like everyone who seems to be bitchin' about being bored.
> > >
> > > Cowinkidink I think not
> >
> >Good idea, lets get rid of the medium-high aspect of the game because
> >Michael is not bored by playing on lows.
> 
> Yes Michael isn't bored on lows and throughly enjoyed the meds hes been on
> but where the hell do you get the idea I'm saying do away with med to high
> adventures?
> 
> >We should indeed bow low before the mastery of your idea and remove two
> >thirds of the characters from the game instead of adjusting the ruleset
> >that was never really intended to be played this long.
> 
> Firstly my point was we are only hearing form a minority of PCs not a
> broad
> x-section.
> Secondly that you should consider how the rules changes you want to
> impliment affect everyone so you don't nurf the low end games and turn off
> new players.
> 
> >No-one said they were bored, however aspects of the ruleset encourage
> >boredom and a lack of choice. As indicated by your Email you have not
> >played long enough to have experianced the issues being discussed, once
> >you have you might be taken more seriously.
> 
> Boredom has been cited over and over again in the posts check your glasses
> oldtimer, and yes I have been playing (DQ) for only six years so to that
> end
> while I feel I should have my say and maybe try to influance a game I love
> and intend to be playing in 20 years time, I leave the actual voting and
> tinkering to those whom I would think have more experiance if not wisdom
> (with the game).
> 
> Of corse judging from some of the petulent behavior I've seen on the lists
> lately I may have been mistaken.
> 
> TTFN
> Michael
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Become a fitness fanatic @  http://xtramsn.co.nz/health
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

> >We should indeed bow low before the mastery of your idea and 
> remove two 
> >thirds of the characters from the game instead of adjusting 
> the ruleset 
> >that was never really intended to be played this long.
> 
> Firstly my point was we are only hearing form a minority of 
> PCs not a broad x-section.
> Secondly that you should consider how the rules changes you want to 
> impliment affect everyone so you don't nurf the low end games 
> and turn off new players.

Not one of the recent suggested changes to the game has any negative
impact on the game at the low level. While the problems that are trying
to be resolved may occour at the medium plus level, all the levels in
the game are thought out by most of the GM's involved in the discussion.


> Boredom has been cited over and over again in the posts check 
> your glasses oldtimer, and yes I have been playing (DQ) for only six
years 
> so to that end while I feel I should have my say and maybe try to
influance 
> a game I love and intend to be playing in 20 years time, I leave the
actual 
> voting and tinkering to those whom I would think have more experiance
if 
> not wisdom (with the game).

Glasses appear fine and after running through all the posts with the
word bored in them so far all of them have been discussing effects that
create boredom, that remove choice, that encourage sameness. No one has
said they are bored, only that some things encourage boredom. One being
the precursor to the other. 

You should indeed have your say but you should also work a little harder
to have an actual understanding of the problems under discussion and add
something worthwhile instead of "I don't have an old character and Im
not bored so old characters must be the problem" <Paraphrased> which
adds nothing to the discussion at all. 

> Of corse judging from some of the petulent behavior I've seen 
> on the lists lately I may have been mistaken.

Pot to kettle, come in kettle. 

Mandos
/s


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

>The only litmus test of course is the players responses. (How was the
>last fight you were in?)

Intense. :)

Very quirky foes with plenty of unexpected abilites and approaches, which the party 
spent most of the time interpreting and adapting to.  Our early concentration on 
defense was rewarded amply and clearly affected the enemies tactics and 
effectiveness, though not out of proportion.  And in the end a bit of ingenuity and 
everything turned up roses.  Well, werewolves actually.


>The GM's whose fights I have enjoyed the most recently have been. 
>
>Ben Taberner - Always inventive, interesting and they flow fairly well. 
>Phil Judd - A bit slow and complex but given the 20-30 opposing mages
>using intellegent tactics and a wide range of spells I am amazed at how
>well the combat went. Very entertaining and I enjoyed every session of
>it (48 pulses over 3 nights)
>William Dymock - His balance in a combat is incredible. I gererally feel
>nervous at some point in every fight and the fear and adrenaline is
>terrific. 
>
>Would be good to hear what these guys do. 
>
>Mandos
>/s

Well, I'm glad the combats I've run have been interesting, as they often the "hard 
work" part of GM'ing for me.  I can't claim to have an absolute recall of the rules, 
so preparation is very important.  Even the act of writing down spell ranges, 
damages, and other effects just once can help speed things considerably.

I tend to only run 2-3 fights in any given game and I'm addicted to set-piece battles 
with a reasonable amount of build-up. I enjoy making the environments as varied and 
interesting as possible, without getting too cluttered or confusing.  This typically 
means maps are a necessity to allow the playesr to visualise what is transpiring and 
make their plans based on good (but never complete) information.

My biggest issue is with balancing opponents against a party's often widly 
asymmetrical abilities and provide them with a challange, whether they be high or 
low, scrappers, zappers, or supporters.  It's often best to use a variety of 
opponents, and allow the party the choice of which assets they match off against 
which and let them see the results of their choices.  I've also tried to provide 
myself with new colleges to try out and other goals during an encounter to keep my 
interest strong as well.  A recent experiment with Knock-out Gas worked grandly on a 
tactical (and story-telling) level, but removed enough of the party from the combat 
to absent it from future battles.

Also, I've quite accidently found a fair amount of interest can be generated by 
having events around the combat apparent and evolving with the fight.  It's also 
useful to extend the fight beyond the tac-map, present both sides with escape as an 
option, and excuse the occasional deus ex machina.  Combats that feel like they are 
taking place inside a small, sealed box with a bunch of cornered fanatics can be 
intense, but claustrophobic.  Setting the box alight as well?  Art.

I doubt these are revolutionary things, but there you are.



ben


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

I believe that currently it is not possible to apply extra stength to damage on bows and crossbows.
I think that this is reasonable, extra strength will make it easier to draw the bow but you can
only draw it so far and that is where the punching power comes from.

But I think that weaponsmiths should be able to make high strength bows that do more damage.

Under 50.2 Weaponsmith Benefits, add:
A Weaponsmith with Missile Weapons speciality may make bows and crossbows that require higher
strength to use.  For every increase of 5 to the strength requirement, the damage is increased by
1.


Effects...

Current Bows PS Req Damage (D+...):
Self 10 +0
Short 14 +2
Long 16 +4
Composite 17 +4
Giant 25 +7
Crossbow 14 +3
Heavy Xbow 20 +5

With this change you are still better off getting the biggest bow you can use than getting a
smaller bow and increasing the PS requirement.  Which is good (IMO).

Without magic most high PS PCs could get a bow that does one extra damage, or add up to 6 to
damage but have a bow they can only use when they have magically enhanced PS.
A maxed out human with a supply of Rk 20 WoS could use a D+10 long bow (46 PS Req), a lot but
probably not as much as they would be dealing out in melee.
This seems about right to me.

Cheers, Stephen.


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

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


> Another problem is the diminishing of or lack  of any real sense of danger to
> the characters. When was the last time a character of medium to high level
> was permanently (irresurrectably) killed? I don't blame gm's for this, but
> the ease of resurrection and the only fairly minor penalty (1 point of End
> i.e. 2500 exp) means death is a minor inconvenience. And even ressurectible
> death is fairly rare. I can see why, and as a GM I wouldn't want to be
> responsible for the permanent death of a character someone's been playing for
> 10 years plus. Players have become very attached to those characters. I also
> think the cliques also have something to do with it. If you are mostly
> playing with the same players and GM(s) playing the same characters ,  you
> get into a comfort zone which, while "comfortable", easily becomes boring.
>
>
Irressurrectible death doesn't worry me. If I decided that a character was dead
irressurectibly, then I'd take their character sheet away from the player, and
that would be it.

There is a baseline responsibility you have as a DM, and that is that you have
to maintain the viability of the game. That means that maintaining the
integrity of the game takes precedence over any part of the game you have
discretion over.

As a rule, however, I don't allow characters to be irressurrectible on a simple
die roll or a dumb game mechanic. They might still be dead, however.

As far as death being cheap, then I think that's unavoidable, because DQ
characters are extremely fragile. One of my reasons for getting rid of the FT
cap is to make pcs much more resilient and to hopefully reduce the death rate.

Jim.


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

Quoting "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>:

>
> GMing old characters can be more frustrating in general than GMing
> younger ones. The personality is set, which is nice, but they are
> generally fixed in their approaches, dependant on items and abilities
> rather than new ideas, unwiling to take risks on new approaches, and
> expect more consistency based on their history that the GM isn't always
> aware of.  The up-side is that players are often more comfortable in
> their roles, allowing the game to be more social while remaining in
> character, and that the players usually relax more as they are in their
> comfort zone. This allows a GM to concentrate more on other dynamics. Of
> course, if things go wrong, they get worst on "old" games, as the
> expectations of players are more fixed.

I don't believe a word of this, and it's not because I'm one of them.

The people who complain about keeping the game the same are new or young
players. The players who do different things in a game are the old ones. The
ones who are more critical of crap are the old ones. You would expect that.

>
> Of course, I explicitly exclude the group of "old" characters I am GMing
> currently, and every other set of "old" characters I've played with and
> GMed.

Really.

I don't believe a word of this, either.

Jim.


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

>
>
>There is a problem in a lot of systems that they start to break 
>down a bit at higher levels. For me D&D was best at levels 3-8, and quickly 
>went down hill from there. High level DQ doesn't appeal for similar reasons. 
>Why? Well combats take far too long for one, and have become far too regimented. 
>Everyone has ,by medium to high, got their own well defined 
>role.  There are less real choices to make (hmmm perhaps, E&E 
>prep's/casts quickness, Wicca prep's/cast hellfire etc.).  A pet peeve of 
>mine is gm's building up a main "Big Boss Baddie"  in a 
>fight. He has most of the abilities of the opposition, melee's for silly amounts 
>of damage etc.  Many colleges, without access to the "resist for half " 
>damage spells, must revert to mental attack/sleep etc. As a player, you just 
>know there's no chance a bad guy will fail to resist those spells in the first 
>pulse or two of a fight. You know even a very tough individual shouldn't have 
>more than 60% resist chance without counterspells, but the chance of him 
>actually failing to resist in pulse 2 is less than 1%. Partly that's the binary 
>resist system, the GM cant have the big baddie fall over in pulse 2 in what he 
>planned to be the big combat of the evening (that he spent an hour writing up), 
>but it hurts suspension of disbelief in a number of ways. You know the gm has 
>had to either  fudge the dice roll or to fudge the rules to give the 
>npc godly resistance. 

While I don't disagree with points you've made, my relatively short time as a GM has 
helped me get a different perspective on the "resist or snooze" situation.  The last 
party I GM'd were rash enought to stride into a "trap" (actually a dance hall/cult 
hideout, and they weren't the intended targets until they showed up) based around 
take-out spells.  I got some of them, but enough resisted (repeatedly, pulse after 
pulse) or had a discrete resistances to one of the forms of attack (KO gas, Mental 
Attack, Maze, Skin Change) to rally the rest and fight back.

And these are "merely" medium to medium-high charcters with 8 - 15 years of 
adventuring experience.  Special cases, one and all, but it'd be slightly be 
unbelievable if the Wiggly Adversary from the Dawn of Time was less well-prepared.

As an aside, I've purposely created "Boss-Monsters" who's abilities included the 
choice to arbitrarily decline to be affected by an incoming spell.  However, it was 
fairly showy, linked to his other abilities (Armour, magical Defence), and the poor 
bugger only got a limited number to use.  Once they ran out, the adventurers did for 
him.  Very sad.

>Another problem is the diminishing of or lack  of any 
>real sense of danger to the characters. When was the last time a character of 
>medium to high level was permanently (irresurrectably) killed? I don't blame 
>gm's for this, but the ease of resurrection and the only fairly minor penalty (1 
>point of End i.e. 2500 exp) means death is a minor inconvenience. And even 
>ressurectible death is fairly rare. I can see why, and as a GM I wouldn't want 
>to be responsible for the permanent death of a character someone's been playing 
>for 10 years plus. Players have become very attached to those characters. I also 
>think the cliques also have something to do with it. If you are mostly playing 
>with the same players and GM(s) playing the same characters ,  you get 
>into a comfort zone which, while "comfortable", easily becomes boring. 

I'm not sure that raising the stakes is necessarily the answer though.  If I offered 
to cut off a joint a player's little finger as an alternative repercussion to 
character death I wouldn't expect that people would be lining up to play in my 
games.  Other than Yakuza enthusiasts, of course.

Blade-runner style "retirement" probably isn't an option either, so characters in DQ 
are inevitably going to get collectively harder to kill.  And as the healers among 
them mature, they are, on average, going to spend less time being dead or 
incapacitated.

Personally, I wonder if parties fail often enough.  I can't remember an incident when 
a Scribe or Party leaders reports at the Guild meeting included "We screwed up.  The 
dragon ate most of the Royal familiy and our Healer kicked Prince Huffy in the yams.  
They didn't pay us and have added a nasty verse to their national anthem about the 
whole thing." That might just be spin, but it seems as long as a party drag their 
dead comrades over the finish line to collect the pay-cheque, they can pay for the 
potions, resurrections, and other healing and it's off to the next adventure.  

It's a very "eyes-on-the-prize" deal, which suits a high risk, high reward job, but 
if the rewards far out-weigh the inconvenience-scale risks and are reliably achieved 
if they party keeps on trying, the ultimate risk of perishing finally is a more of a 
goad to go harder than a deterant.

To be frank though, my last party were doing as sorts of unmentionable things to 
proverbial pooch, including nearly hanging up the "Closing Down" sign on reality, and 
they got away with some fines and community service.  Between pay and salvage it was 
a net gain for them, so I doubt that's chastened them at all.

But characters may respond to more convincing threats of penury, embarassement, and 
enforced humility more readily than than sweet, sweet obliviion.  Frankly, if a loony 
like me was running *my* life...



ben


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C628F4.24F93180
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If you expect anyone to read your posts I suggest you use a larger font =
than this one.

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz ; Mark (NZ)=20
  To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:38 AM
  Subject: [dq] Boredom - Was [Fun]




  There is a problem in a lot of systems that they start to break down a =
bit at higher levels. For me D&D was best at levels 3-8, and quickly =
went down hill from there. High level DQ doesn't appeal for similar =
reasons. Why? Well combats take far too long for one, and have become =
far too regimented. Everyone has ,by medium to high, got their own well =
defined role.  There are less real choices to make (hmmm perhaps, E&E =
prep's/casts quickness, Wicca prep's/cast hellfire etc.).  A pet peeve =
of mine is gm's building up a main "Big Boss Baddie"  in a fight. He has =
most of the abilities of the opposition, melee's for silly amounts of =
damage etc.  Many colleges, without access to the "resist for half " =
damage spells, must revert to mental attack/sleep etc. As a player, you =
just know there's no chance a bad guy will fail to resist those spells =
in the first pulse or two of a fight. You know even a very tough =
individual shouldn't have more than 60% resist chance without =
counterspells, but the chance of him actually failing to resist in pulse =
2 is less than 1%. Partly that's the binary resist system, the GM cant =
have the big baddie fall over in pulse 2 in what he planned to be the =
big combat of the evening (that he spent an hour writing up), but it =
hurts suspension of disbelief in a number of ways. You know the gm has =
had to either  fudge the dice roll or to fudge the rules to give the npc =
godly resistance.=20

  Another problem is the diminishing of or lack  of any real sense of =
danger to the characters. When was the last time a character of medium =
to high level was permanently (irresurrectably) killed? I don't blame =
gm's for this, but the ease of resurrection and the only fairly minor =
penalty (1 point of End i.e. 2500 exp) means death is a minor =
inconvenience. And even ressurectible death is fairly rare. I can see =
why, and as a GM I wouldn't want to be responsible for the permanent =
death of a character someone's been playing for 10 years plus. Players =
have become very attached to those characters. I also think the cliques =
also have something to do with it. If you are mostly playing with the =
same players and GM(s) playing the same characters ,  you get into a =
comfort zone which, while "comfortable", easily becomes boring.=20







------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C628F4.24F93180
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><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If you expect anyone to read your posts =
I suggest=20
you use a larger font than this one.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Michael</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
  <DIV=20
  style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
  <A title=3DSimpson@smtp.sig.net.nz=20
  href=3D"mailto:Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz">Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz</A> ; =
<A=20
  title=3DSimpsoM2@anz.com href=3D"mailto:SimpsoM2@anz.com">Mark =
(NZ)</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=3Ddq@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</A> </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, February 03, 2006 =
9:38=20
  AM</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [dq] Boredom - Was =
[Fun]</DIV>
  <DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT><BR>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>There is a problem in a lot of systems that they =
start to=20
  break down a bit at higher levels. For me D&amp;D was best at levels =
3-8, and=20
  quickly went down hill from there. High level DQ doesn't appeal for =
similar=20
  reasons. Why? Well combats take far too long for one, and have become =
far too=20
  regimented. Everyone has ,by medium to high, got their own well =
defined=20
  role.&nbsp;&nbsp;There are less real choices to make (hmmm perhaps, =
E&amp;E=20
  prep's/casts quickness, Wicca prep's/cast hellfire etc.).&nbsp; A pet =
peeve of=20
  mine is gm's building up a main "Big Boss Baddie"&nbsp;</FONT><FONT =
size=3D2> in=20
  a fight. He has most of the abilities of the opposition, melee's for =
silly=20
  amounts of damage etc.&nbsp; Many colleges, without access to the =
"resist for=20
  half " damage spells, must revert to mental attack/sleep etc. As a =
player, you=20
  just know there's no chance a bad guy will fail to resist those spells =
in the=20
  first pulse or two of a fight. You know even a very tough individual =
shouldn't=20
  have more than 60% resist chance without counterspells, but the chance =
of him=20
  actually failing to resist in pulse 2 is less than 1%. Partly that's =
the=20
  binary resist system, the GM cant have the big baddie fall over in =
pulse 2 in=20
  what he planned to be the big combat of the evening (that he spent an =
hour=20
  writing up), but it hurts suspension of disbelief in a number of ways. =
You=20
  know the gm has had to either &nbsp;fudge the dice roll or to fudge =
the=20
  rules&nbsp;to give the npc godly resistance. </FONT></P>
  <P><FONT size=3D2>Another problem is the diminishing of or =
lack&nbsp;&nbsp;of=20
  any real sense of danger to the characters. When was the last time a =
character=20
  of medium to high level was permanently (irresurrectably) killed? I =
don't=20
  blame gm's for this, but the ease of resurrection and the only fairly =
minor=20
  penalty (1 point of End i.e. 2500 exp) means death is a minor =
inconvenience.=20
  And even ressurectible death is fairly rare. I can see why, and as a =
GM I=20
  wouldn't want to be responsible for the permanent death of a character =

  someone's been playing for 10 years plus. Players have become very =
attached to=20
  those characters. I also think the cliques also have something to do =
with it.=20
  If you are mostly playing with the same players and GM(s)&nbsp;playing =
the=20
  same characters , &nbsp;you get into a comfort zone which, while=20
  "comfortable", easily becomes boring. </FONT></P>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT size=3D2>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <P><BR><BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C628F4.24F93180--


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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00F0_01C628FF.8B74D8A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

RE: [dq] Next Guild meeting*wades through the huge pile of email looking =
for anything vaguely looking like a response...

So, did you want me to ask? We have a meeting on Tuesday, and I could =
bring it up then.

Karen

  In the meantime, do you want me to ask the America committee about the =
possibility of booking rooms at Uni for the DQ Guild?
  Karen

------=_NextPart_000_00F0_01C628FF.8B74D8A0
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><TITLE>RE: [dq] Next Guild meeting</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>*wades through the huge pile of email =
looking for=20
anything vaguely looking like a response...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>So, did you want me to ask? We have a =
meeting on=20
Tuesday, and I could bring it up then.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Karen</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>In the meantime, do you want me to =
ask the=20
  America committee about the possibility of booking rooms at =
Uni&nbsp;for the=20
  DQ Guild?</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Karen</FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_00F0_01C628FF.8B74D8A0--


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

Thank you but no.

While the lower common room holds great nostalgic value, the practicalities of other venues
outweigh the fondness.

Those America members who are interested in long slow-development role-playing are always welcome
to join our campaign (just not en-masse, which we aren't setup to cope with), just as we hope
those of us who want to play different rpgs (I vaguely recall such things) would be welcome to
play in America run games.

Cheers, Stephen.

Menolly said:
> RE: [dq] Next Guild meeting*wades through the huge pile of email looking for anything vaguely
> looking like a response...
>
> So, did you want me to ask? We have a meeting on Tuesday, and I could bring it up then.
>
> Karen
>
>   In the meantime, do you want me to ask the America committee about the possibility of booking
> rooms at Uni for the DQ Guild? Karen


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

Me and my mate Odysseus agree :.-)


I believe that currently it is not possible to apply extra stength to damage
on bows and crossbows.
I think that this is reasonable, extra strength will make it easier to draw
the bow but you can
only draw it so far and that is where the punching power comes from.

But I think that weaponsmiths should be able to make high strength bows that
do more damage.


--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 27/01/2006


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

Takes a while to download as a warning.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521044027821122670

"...Sometimes the slower people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you win the race..."

__________________________________________________
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 --

Mandos wrote:
William Dymock - His balance in a combat is incredible. I gererally feel
nervous at some point in every fight and the fear and adrenaline is
terrific.

Would be good to hear what these guys do.

There is an awful lot of preparation and agonising. Each NPC or group has
their own sheet. In game a sheet tracking EN and FT works fine. The
agonising comes from trying to get the enemy to be able to cut through the
PCs like they were made of soft cheese without leaving them as outlines on
the wall.

Theres all sorts of ideas, hypothesises, delusions, self denials and
outright lies in my head about how I do this but it's not very coherant at
the moment and an admonition to 'use the Force' just isn't useful. I will
say that most of the agonising comes from worrying that I won't do enough
damage. In my experience PCs are harder to kill than giant radioactive
mutant cockroaches on PCP. Oh, and a party that doesn't have enogh combined
EN and FT to top up one PC makes for happy players. I sometimes think
roleplaying is an exercise in machocism. You have this identity that you are
strongly attached too and yet feel your only having fun when that identity
is in real danger of the ciggerete lighter.

William
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 27/01/2006


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

It is quite amusing, it is also a 20Mb 10 minute long .mov presented as an
interview with 2 roleplayers of dubious social skills and grasp on reality.

You can view it via streaming video from google as per the below link or for
those with slower links it is less frustrating to download it from here
http://media.revver.com/broadcast/11925/download and then watch it.

PG13 - contains a geeks bare chest, sexually explicit gestures, and bad
role-playing.

Cheers, Stephen.

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Zane Mendoza
Sent: Friday, 3 February 2006 9:52 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] {OT} Something AMusing


Takes a while to download as a warning.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521044027821122670

"...Sometimes the slower people think you are, the more surprised they're
going to be when you win the race..."

__________________________________________________
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 --