Messages for 21 February 2006

Subject	[dq] {Rulebook} Weaponsmith stuff needing vote
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:50:06 +1300
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_01C63656.D8F5E4DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello? Hello? Is this thing on? You know there are times when it's OK to post an email just saying 'Fine with me' or such like. This is one of them. (Yes, I know it's still early in the morning, and my post yesterday was at 4:20. But still.) Anyway, Weaponsmith. We'll have a vote at the meeting on each of the two issues below, actual resolution depending on feedback. http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Found_Issues#50_Weaponsmith First one, weaponsmiths do get the discount for being a higher-ranked armourer that is referred to in the Armourer skill, right? 31 Armourer (Ver 1.1) 31.1 Restrictions ... The skill is related to that of weaponsmith, and an armourer who is a more skilled weaponsmith expends only three quarters of the necessary Experience Points to acquire or improve this skill. The reverse is also true. ... If so, the inverse of this paragraph needs to be added to Weaponsmith (and probably a note on the EP table). If not, then it needs to be removed from Armourer. (Both Armourer and Weaponsmith would benefit from an introductory paragraph of the same type as what the other skills have, but we currently have other things to worry about). Secondly, the cost of Silvering (etc) weapons. I've written up a formula and examples so that the weaponsmith gets a discount on the list price of silvering (as discussed back in December). If people feel that that they shouldn't get the discount, say so, and we can write up both versions for voting on. (The whole area of armourer and weaponsmith costs would benefit from a revamp, but this week isn't the time to do it). Cheers Errol ------_=_NextPart_001_01C63656.D8F5E4DE 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>{Rulebook} Weaponsmith stuff needing vote</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hello? Hello? Is this thing on?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>You know there are times when it's OK to post an = email just saying 'Fine with me' or such like. This is one of = them.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>(Yes, I know it's still early in the morning, and my = post yesterday was at 4:20. But still.)</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Anyway, Weaponsmith.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>We'll have a vote at the meeting on each of the two = issues below, actual resolution depending on feedback.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2><A = HREF=3D"http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Found_Issues#50_W= eaponsmith" = TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Found_I= ssues#50_Weaponsmith</A></FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>First one, weaponsmiths do get the discount for being = a higher-ranked armourer that is referred to in the Armourer skill, = right? </FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>31 Armourer (Ver 1.1)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>31.1 Restrictions</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>...</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>The skill is related to that of weaponsmith, and = an</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>armourer who is a more skilled weaponsmith = expends</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>only three quarters of the necessary = Experience</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Points to acquire or improve this skill. The = reverse</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>is also true.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>...</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>If so, the inverse of this paragraph needs to be = added to Weaponsmith (and probably a note on the EP table).</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>If not, then it needs to be removed from = Armourer.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>(Both Armourer and Weaponsmith would benefit from an = introductory paragraph of the same type as what the other skills have, = but we currently have other things to worry about).</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Secondly, the cost of Silvering (etc) weapons.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I've written up a formula and examples so that the = weaponsmith gets a discount on the list price of silvering (as = discussed back in December).</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>If people feel that that they shouldn't get the = discount, say so, and we can write up both versions for voting = on.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>(The whole area of armourer and weaponsmith costs = would benefit from a revamp, but this week isn't the time to do = it).</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C63656.D8F5E4DE-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Weaponsmith stuff needing vote
From	Struan Judd
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:00:09 +1300
Fine with me TTFN On 2/21/06, Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> wrote: > > > Hello? Hello? Is this thing on? > You know there are times when it's OK to post an email just saying 'Fine > with me' or such like. This is one of them. > (Yes, I know it's still early in the morning, and my post yesterday was at > 4:20. But still.) > > Anyway, Weaponsmith. > We'll have a vote at the meeting on each of the two issues below, actual > resolution depending on feedback. > > http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Found_Issues#50_Weaponsmith > > First one, weaponsmiths do get the discount for being a higher-ranked > armourer that is referred to in the Armourer skill, right? > > 31 Armourer (Ver 1.1) > 31.1 Restrictions > ... > The skill is related to that of weaponsmith, and an > armourer who is a more skilled weaponsmith expends > only three quarters of the necessary Experience > Points to acquire or improve this skill. The reverse > is also true. > ... > > If so, the inverse of this paragraph needs to be added to Weaponsmith (and > probably a note on the EP table). > If not, then it needs to be removed from Armourer. > > (Both Armourer and Weaponsmith would benefit from an introductory paragraph > of the same type as what the other skills have, but we currently have other > things to worry about). > > Secondly, the cost of Silvering (etc) weapons. > > I've written up a formula and examples so that the weaponsmith gets a > discount on the list price of silvering (as discussed back in December). > > If people feel that that they shouldn't get the discount, say so, and we can > write up both versions for voting on. > (The whole area of armourer and weaponsmith costs would benefit from a > revamp, but this week isn't the time to do it). > > Cheers > Errol -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Rulebook stuff needing vote
From	Andrew\ Withy\ \(DSL\ AK\)
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:01:44 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C63658.78F4C938 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Gievn these all appear to be minor clarifications, why don't we just say "If no one has any objections, these will be included in the rulebook", except maybe the weaponsmith formula tweak, where we did explicitly vote in a formula, even if it was wrong. This means most everything can be put in the rulebook now. =20 If we change our minds in 6 months, we can always rough you up, as per your offer, and then get back to the game. =20 Andrew -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Errol Cavit Sent: Monday, 20 February 2006 4:20 p.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: [dq] Rulebook stuff needing vote =09 =09 Hello everyone=20 Various issues have come up while putting together the Rulebook that I feel need a vote. Many are quite minor, but I don't want to change them without confirmation as it would set a bad precedent. Many have such a small impact on the game in practice that they can be left out for now (although addressing them as a block soon will save them still being an issue next time). The more important/urgent ones I will do separate posts for this week (starting tonight).=20 If I get a clear indication of the group's consensus on the posted issues, I'll include them in the pdf to be available at the meeting. I'm not comfortable with spending money in anticipation of vote results, so bound copies will NOT be available at the meeting. I think we should be able to get printed copies to those playing within two weeks of the meeting. If people think that we should delay publication because of this, please say so now.=20 or not, as you tell me the Rulebook can't be issued with unauthorised changes, and rough me up a bit.=20 I've put all the issues I've identified at=20 http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Found_Issues=20 Note that the Wiki has one discussion page per main page, NOT section, so setting up a sub-page for issues likely to spark discussions/edits is useful (e.g. the Namer Ranking). By no means all of them are show-stoppers.=20 Please DON'T reply to this email with discussion of the specifics of the points raised below, save it for my later posts. The ones that I think are urgent are:=20 50 Weaponsmith: The voted-in formula gave silly results, and there was some discussion about what should be there instead. 50 Weaponsmith: Do they get the discount for being higher ranked Armourers that Armourer says they do?=20 26 Rune College warning: My feeling is that a stronger warning than normal would be best, please discuss=20 46 Spy: Clarify that they get to choose an optional ability at Rank 0=20 51 Grievous Injury Table: Does mentioning alternatives specifically for this table add anything useful?=20 Things that I think are 99% clear and just need better words to make them obvious (confirm as one vote?):=20 6 Ranking Names (non-Namers don't get an additional name while ranking)=20 13 Binder (Golems have MA:None)=20 25 Necro (Stream of Corruption affects all entities)=20 Cheers=20 Errol=20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C63658.78F4C938 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=3D284155919-20022006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>Gievn=20 these all appear to be minor clarifications, why don't we just say "If = no one=20 has any objections, these will be included in the rulebook", except = maybe the=20 weaponsmith formula tweak, where we did explicitly vote in a formula, = even if it=20 was wrong. This means most everything can be put in the rulebook=20 now.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D284155919-20022006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D284155919-20022006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>If we=20 change our minds in 6 months, we can always rough you up, as per your = offer, and=20 then get back to the game.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D284155919-20022006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D284155919-20022006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>Andrew</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr = align=3Dleft><FONT=20 face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20 dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] <B>On Behalf Of = </B>Errol=20 Cavit<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, 20 February 2006 4:20 p.m.<BR><B>To:</B> = dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> [dq] Rulebook stuff needing=20 vote<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <P><FONT size=3D2>Hello everyone</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>Various issues have come up while putting together = the=20 Rulebook that I feel need a vote. Many are quite minor, but I don't = want to=20 change them without confirmation as it would set a bad precedent. = Many have=20 such a small impact on the game in practice that they can be left out = for now=20 (although addressing them as a block soon will save them still being = an issue=20 next time).</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3D2>The more important/urgent ones I will do separate = posts for=20 this week (starting tonight).</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>If I get a = clear=20 indication of the group's consensus on the posted issues, I'll include = them in=20 the pdf to be available at the meeting. I'm not comfortable with = spending=20 money in anticipation of vote results, so bound copies will NOT be = available=20 at the meeting. I think we should be able to get printed copies to = those=20 playing within two weeks of the meeting.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3D2>If people think that we should delay publication = because of=20 this, please say so now.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>or not, as you tell me the Rulebook can't be issued = with=20 unauthorised changes, and rough me up a bit.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>I've put all the issues I've identified at</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2><A = href=3D"http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Found_Issues"=20 = target=3D_blank>http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Found_Issu= es</A></FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>Note that the Wiki has one discussion page per main = page, NOT=20 section, so setting up a sub-page for issues likely to spark = discussions/edits=20 is useful (e.g. the Namer Ranking).</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3D2>By no means all of them are show-stoppers.</FONT> = </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>Please DON'T reply to this email with discussion of = the=20 specifics of the points raised below, save it for my later=20 posts.</FONT></P><BR> <P><FONT size=3D2>The ones that I think are urgent are:</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>50 Weaponsmith: The voted-in formula gave silly = results, and=20 there was some discussion about what should be there = instead.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3D2>50 Weaponsmith: Do they get the discount for being = higher=20 ranked Armourers that Armourer says they do?</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>26 Rune College warning: My feeling is that a = stronger warning=20 than normal would be best, please discuss</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>46 Spy: Clarify that they get to choose an optional = ability at=20 Rank 0</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=3D2>51 Grievous Injury Table: Does mentioning = alternatives=20 specifically for this table add anything useful?</FONT> </P><BR> <P><FONT size=3D2>Things that I think are 99% clear and just need = better words=20 to make them obvious (confirm as one vote?):</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>6 Ranking=20 Names (non-Namers don't get an additional name while ranking)</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>13 Binder (Golems have MA:None)</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>25 = Necro=20 (Stream of Corruption affects all entities)</FONT> </P><BR> <P><FONT size=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>Errol</FONT>=20 </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> =00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C63658.78F4C938-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language
From	Keith Smith
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:04:37 +1300
>I think let Keith and Jaquic do it as they run games which are more >along the line of Merfolk stuff. Personally I'd say 10 as they are an intelligent magic using species with a complex culture and history. Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language
From	Andrew\ Withy\ \(DSL\ AK\)
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:13:11 +1300
You want to tell us that some fish are smarter than drow and humans? :) Drow and Common only go to 9. Only some elvish, dragon, Ellenic (ancient greek) and (probably because it borrows from Elvish) Lalange go to 10. Most of the fae languages go to 7, except the other fish languages (Nixie, Fossegrim) at 6. I thought 8 was fairer given your work on the merfolk culture - otherwise, 7 like other fae has got to be the default. Not 10, unless we use real-world linguistics, as per Jim's thread, and set everything to 10 (or 4). Andrew -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Keith Smith Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 9:05 a.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language >I think let Keith and Jaquic do it as they run games which are more >along the line of Merfolk stuff. Personally I'd say 10 as they are an intelligent magic using species with a complex culture and history. Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Rulebook stuff needing vote
From	William Dymock
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:34:09 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C636C9.F7AB1A70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message If we change our minds in 6 months, we can always rough you up, as per your offer, and then get back to the game. Why can't we just rough him up anyway? Some of us may enjoy the violence inherent in the system :.-) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.11/264 - Release Date: 17/02/2006 ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C636C9.F7AB1A70 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><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft> <DIV><SPAN class=3D284155919-20022006><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></DIV><SPAN class=3D284155919-20022006><FONT = face=3DArial=20 color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D284155919-20022006><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>If=20 we change our minds in 6 months, we can always rough you up, as per = your=20 offer, and then get back to the game.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D284155919-20022006><FONT face=3DArial = color=3D#0000ff=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D284155919-20022006><SPAN = class=3D077503020-20022006><FONT=20 face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Why can't we just rough him up = anyway? Some of=20 us may enjoy the violence inherent in the system=20 :.-)</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C636C9.F7AB1A70-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Rulebook stuff needing vote
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:28:44 +1300
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_01C6365C.3EC127D8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" If 15+ people who promise to turn up and vote to confirm say so, and no-one objects, I'll consider it. (Swapping out a page in 20-40 comb-bound copies would be tedious, but probably do-able with equipment in my office). On previous performance, this seems unlikely (but certainly not impossible) Cheers Errol -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 09:02 To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Rulebook stuff needing vote Gievn these all appear to be minor clarifications, why don't we just say "If no one has any objections, these will be included in the rulebook", except maybe the weaponsmith formula tweak, where we did explicitly vote in a formula, even if it was wrong. This means most everything can be put in the rulebook now. If we change our minds in 6 months, we can always rough you up, as per your offer, and then get back to the game. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Errol Cavit Sent: Monday, 20 February 2006 4:20 p.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: [dq] Rulebook stuff needing vote Hello everyone Various issues have come up while putting together the Rulebook that I feel need a vote. Many are quite minor, but I don't want to change them without confirmation as it would set a bad precedent. Many have such a small impact on the game in practice that they can be left out for now (although addressing them as a block soon will save them still being an issue next time). The more important/urgent ones I will do separate posts for this week (starting tonight). If I get a clear indication of the group's consensus on the posted issues, I'll include them in the pdf to be available at the meeting. I'm not comfortable with spending money in anticipation of vote results, so bound copies will NOT be available at the meeting. I think we should be able to get printed copies to those playing within two weeks of the meeting. If people think that we should delay publication because of this, please say so now. or not, as you tell me the Rulebook can't be issued with unauthorised changes, and rough me up a bit. I've put all the issues I've identified at http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Found_Issues <http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Found_Issues> Note that the Wiki has one discussion page per main page, NOT section, so setting up a sub-page for issues likely to spark discussions/edits is useful (e.g. the Namer Ranking). By no means all of them are show-stoppers. Please DON'T reply to this email with discussion of the specifics of the points raised below, save it for my later posts. The ones that I think are urgent are: 50 Weaponsmith: The voted-in formula gave silly results, and there was some discussion about what should be there instead. 50 Weaponsmith: Do they get the discount for being higher ranked Armourers that Armourer says they do? 26 Rune College warning: My feeling is that a stronger warning than normal would be best, please discuss 46 Spy: Clarify that they get to choose an optional ability at Rank 0 51 Grievous Injury Table: Does mentioning alternatives specifically for this table add anything useful? Things that I think are 99% clear and just need better words to make them obvious (confirm as one vote?): 6 Ranking Names (non-Namers don't get an additional name while ranking) 13 Binder (Golems have MA:None) 25 Necro (Stream of Corruption affects all entities) Cheers Errol ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6365C.3EC127D8 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"> <TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=203381120-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>If 15+ people who promise to turn up and vote to confirm say so, and no-one objects, I'll consider it.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=203381120-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>(Swapping out a page in 20-40 comb-bound copies would be tedious, but probably do-able with equipment in my office).</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=203381120-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=203381120-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>On previous performance, this seems unlikely (but certainly not impossible)</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=203381120-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=203381120-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=203381120-20022006><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 dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, 21 February 2006 09:02<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Rulebook stuff needing vote<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=284155919-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Gievn these all appear to be minor clarifications, why don't we just say "If no one has any objections, these will be included in the rulebook", except maybe the weaponsmith formula tweak, where we did explicitly vote in a formula, even if it was wrong. This means most everything can be put in the rulebook now.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=284155919-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=284155919-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>If we change our minds in 6 months, we can always rough you up, as per your offer, and then get back to the game.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=284155919-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=284155919-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Andrew</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us 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>Errol Cavit<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, 20 February 2006 4:20 p.m.<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> [dq] Rulebook stuff needing vote<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <P><FONT size=2>Hello everyone</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>Various issues have come up while putting together the Rulebook that I feel need a vote. Many are quite minor, but I don't want to change them without confirmation as it would set a bad precedent. Many have such a small impact on the game in practice that they can be left out for now (although addressing them as a block soon will save them still being an issue next time).</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>The more important/urgent ones I will do separate posts for this week (starting tonight).</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>If I get a clear indication of the group's consensus on the posted issues, I'll include them in the pdf to be available at the meeting. I'm not comfortable with spending money in anticipation of vote results, so bound copies will NOT be available at the meeting. I think we should be able to get printed copies to those playing within two weeks of the meeting.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>If people think that we should delay publication because of this, please say so now.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>or not, as you tell me the Rulebook can't be issued with unauthorised changes, and rough me up a bit.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>I've put all the issues I've identified at</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><A href="http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Found_Issues" target=_blank>http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Found_Issues</A></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Note that the Wiki has one discussion page per main page, NOT section, so setting up a sub-page for issues likely to spark discussions/edits is useful (e.g. the Namer Ranking).</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>By no means all of them are show-stoppers.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>Please DON'T reply to this email with discussion of the specifics of the points raised below, save it for my later posts.</FONT></P><BR> <P><FONT size=2>The ones that I think are urgent are:</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>50 Weaponsmith: The voted-in formula gave silly results, and there was some discussion about what should be there instead.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>50 Weaponsmith: Do they get the discount for being higher ranked Armourers that Armourer says they do?</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>26 Rune College warning: My feeling is that a stronger warning than normal would be best, please discuss</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>46 Spy: Clarify that they get to choose an optional ability at Rank 0</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>51 Grievous Injury Table: Does mentioning alternatives specifically for this table add anything useful?</FONT> </P><BR> <P><FONT size=2>Things that I think are 99% clear and just need better words to make them obvious (confirm as one vote?):</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>6 Ranking Names (non-Namers don't get an additional name while ranking)</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>13 Binder (Golems have MA:None)</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>25 Necro (Stream of Corruption affects all entities)</FONT> </P><BR> <P><FONT size=2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Errol</FONT> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6365C.3EC127D8-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Guild Poem
From	Keith Smith
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:31:59 +1300
> ><From Guild Security> > >This poem was recently received on the 5th of Meadow by a Woman who >left it at the Guild and then departed quickly before she could be >questioned. (snip) Do I have the author's permission to put this in the Seagate Times? Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] Money, Conversion and other useless info.
From	Mandos Mitchinson
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:36:03 +1300
Does anyone have a conversion for Haann money into DQ money? I am working on a spreadsheet to detail the costs/lands/people for holdings ranging from a farm to a fief. I have a number of Haarnic spreadhsset that provide a good basic document but I need some way to recalculate the monetary side of things. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Weaponsmith stuff needing vote
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:42:53 +1300 (NZDT)
The first one is not a change, it is simply replicating the same rule to other places you'd expect to find it. Make the change! The second, I lost track and don't care anymore. I trust you so, hell yeah, go for it. Cheers, Stephen. Errol Cavit said: > Hello? Hello? Is this thing on? > You know there are times when it's OK to post an email just saying 'Fine with me' or such like. > This is one of them. > (Yes, I know it's still early in the morning, and my post yesterday was at 4:20. But still.) > > Anyway, Weaponsmith. > We'll have a vote at the meeting on each of the two issues below, actual resolution depending on > feedback. > > http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Found_Issues#50_Weaponsmith > > First one, weaponsmiths do get the discount for being a higher-ranked armourer that is referred > to in the Armourer skill, right? > > 31 Armourer (Ver 1.1) > 31.1 Restrictions > ... > The skill is related to that of weaponsmith, and an > armourer who is a more skilled weaponsmith expends > only three quarters of the necessary Experience > Points to acquire or improve this skill. The reverse > is also true. > ... > > If so, the inverse of this paragraph needs to be added to Weaponsmith (and probably a note on > the EP table). > If not, then it needs to be removed from Armourer. > > (Both Armourer and Weaponsmith would benefit from an introductory paragraph of the same type as > what the other skills have, but we currently have other things to worry about). > > Secondly, the cost of Silvering (etc) weapons. > > I've written up a formula and examples so that the weaponsmith gets a discount on the list price > of silvering (as discussed back in December). If people feel that that they shouldn't get the > discount, say so, and we can write up both versions for voting on. > (The whole area of armourer and weaponsmith costs would benefit from a revamp, but this week > isn't the time to do it). > > Cheers > Errol -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Money, Conversion and other useless info.
From	Andrew\ Withy\ \(DSL\ AK\)
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:49:39 +1300
Cost of a beer and a week's wages, should provide a quick conversion for PPP. In DQ, beer - 2cf, weeks wages for a master artisan is ~ 100sp. Can't find a quick reference for Harn price lists on the web, but you should be able to work out a PPP conversion. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Mandos Mitchinson Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 9:36 a.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: [dq] Money, Conversion and other useless info. Does anyone have a conversion for Haann money into DQ money? I am working on a spreadsheet to detail the costs/lands/people for holdings ranging from a farm to a fief. I have a number of Haarnic spreadhsset that provide a good basic document but I need some way to recalculate the monetary side of things. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] DQ ownership?
From	Keith Smith
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:50:51 +1300
>What would be involved if we wanted to "own" DQ, if no-one else has >it atm? If RedBrick (small NZ group) can get rights to EarthDawn >(another rping game), we could try and get DQ permanently... I feel I should point out that we're not the only group playing DQ .. there are other groups out there who could lclaim the same thing. Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language
From	Keith Smith
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:55:52 +1300
>You want to tell us that some fish are smarter than drow and humans? :) > >Drow and Common only go to 9. >Only some elvish, dragon, Ellenic (ancient greek) and (probably because >it borrows from Elvish) Lalange go to 10. >Most of the fae languages go to 7, except the other fish languages >(Nixie, Fossegrim) at 6. I thought 8 was fairer given your work on the >merfolk culture - otherwise, 7 like other fae has got to be the default. > >Not 10, unless we use real-world linguistics, as per Jim's thread, and >set everything to 10 (or 4). This is what I get for posting without the rulebook handy. I was thinking of an equivalent rank to Common .. which I thought was 10. So yeah .. I'm happy with either 8 or 9. Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] =?US-ASCII?B?UmU6IFtkcV0gRFEgb3duZXJzaGlwPw==?=
From	=?US-ASCII?B?Q29zbW8=?=
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:21:09 +1300
> >I feel I should point out that we're not the only group playing DQ .. >there are other groups out there who could lclaim the same thing. > I fear it'd be a rather different world if this sort of thing was awarded on merit, eh? Besides, whoever claims it could benevolently extend it as open source to whomsoever wished to use it, meaning the only change from the status quo is that the possibility of an entity with platoons of lawyers absorbing it is lessened or removed. But my dim recollection of previous conversations on the topic is that obtaining the right would involve incorporating a company/whatever and other onerous things, that would affect the groups not-for-profit nature. ..or was the copyright question why incorporating was problematical? ben -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] DQ ownership?
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:44:37 +1300
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_01C63666.D875FAD4 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 > Cosmo > Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 10:21 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: [dq] Re: [dq] DQ ownership? > > > > > >I feel I should point out that we're not the only group > playing DQ .. > >there are other groups out there who could lclaim the same thing. > > > > I fear it'd be a rather different world if this sort of thing > was awarded on merit, > eh? Besides, whoever claims it could benevolently extend it > as open source to > whomsoever wished to use it, meaning the only change from the > status quo is that the > possibility of an entity with platoons of lawyers absorbing > it is lessened or removed. > > But my dim recollection of previous conversations on the > topic is that obtaining the > right would involve incorporating a company/whatever and > other onerous things, that > would affect the groups not-for-profit nature. > > ..or was the copyright question why incorporating was problematical? > Copyright didn't come up in relation to incorporating ("The DQ Club", March 03) The issue with becoming an Incorporated Society is that there would be, in addition to any set up costs, an ongoing cost of audited accounts (or even registering the fact that we decided not to have accounts audited). I'm fairly sure that a non-profit society can hold a trademark, but I expect that it has to be Incorporated. Impact of this on Auckland City's attitude to us as a community group deserving of discount is unknown. I am sure doing anything will involve [shudder] lawyers. Cheers Errol ------_=_NextPart_001_01C63666.D875FAD4 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] Re: [dq] DQ ownership?</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <BR> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 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>> Cosmo</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 10:21</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: [dq] Re: [dq] DQ ownership?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >I feel I should point out that we're not = the only group </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> playing DQ .. </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >there are other groups out there who could = lclaim the same thing.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> I fear it'd be a rather different world if this = sort of thing </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> was awarded on merit, </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> eh?  Besides, whoever claims it could = benevolently extend it </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> as open source to </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> whomsoever wished to use it, meaning the only = change from the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> status quo is that the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> possibility of an entity with platoons of = lawyers absorbing </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> it is lessened or removed.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> But my dim recollection of previous = conversations on the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> topic is that obtaining the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> right would involve incorporating a = company/whatever and </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> other onerous things, that </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> would affect the groups not-for-profit = nature.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ..or was the copyright question why = incorporating was problematical?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Copyright didn't come up in relation to incorporating = ("The DQ Club", March 03)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>The issue with becoming an Incorporated Society is = that there would be, in addition to any set up costs, an ongoing cost = of audited accounts (or even registering the fact that we decided not = to have accounts audited).</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'm fairly sure that a non-profit society can hold a = trademark, but I expect that it has to be Incorporated.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Impact of this on Auckland City's attitude to us as = a community group deserving of discount is unknown.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I am sure doing anything will involve [shudder] = lawyers.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C63666.D875FAD4-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Rulebook stuff needing vote
From
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:50:30 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=____1140472230662_K8e6b8ZpiA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It is all about precedence and transparent, forewarned changes to the official rules. Each and every change should be supported by a vote, preferably _before_ the rules are changed. may seem silly, but not all of us trust all the editors... Ian > > From: "Andrew\ Withy\ \(DSL\ AK\)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> > Date: 2006/02/21 Tue AM 09:01:44 GMT+13:00 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Rulebook stuff needing vote > > Gievn these all appear to be minor clarifications, why don't we just say > "If no one has any objections, these will be included in the rulebook", > except maybe the weaponsmith formula tweak, where we did explicitly vote > in a formula, even if it was wrong. This means most everything can be > put in the rulebook now. > > If we change our minds in 6 months, we can always rough you up, as per > your offer, and then get back to the game. > > Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On > Behalf Of Errol Cavit > Sent: Monday, 20 February 2006 4:20 p.m. > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: [dq] Rulebook stuff needing vote > > > > Hello everyone > > Various issues have come up while putting together the Rulebook > that I feel need a vote. Many are quite minor, but I don't want to > change them without confirmation as it would set a bad precedent. Many > have such a small impact on the game in practice that they can be left > out for now (although addressing them as a block soon will save them > still being an issue next time). > > The more important/urgent ones I will do separate posts for this > week (starting tonight). > If I get a clear indication of the group's consensus on the > posted issues, I'll include them in the pdf to be available at the > meeting. I'm not comfortable with spending money in anticipation of vote > results, so bound copies will NOT be available at the meeting. I think > we should be able to get printed copies to those playing within two > weeks of the meeting. > > If people think that we should delay publication because of > this, please say so now. > > or not, as you tell me the Rulebook can't be issued with > unauthorised changes, and rough me up a bit. > > I've put all the issues I've identified at > http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Found_Issues > Note that the Wiki has one discussion page per main page, NOT > section, so setting up a sub-page for issues likely to spark > discussions/edits is useful (e.g. the Namer Ranking). > > By no means all of them are show-stoppers. > > Please DON'T reply to this email with discussion of the > specifics of the points raised below, save it for my later posts. > > > The ones that I think are urgent are: > > 50 Weaponsmith: The voted-in formula gave silly results, and > there was some discussion about what should be there instead. > > 50 Weaponsmith: Do they get the discount for being higher ranked > Armourers that Armourer says they do? > > 26 Rune College warning: My feeling is that a stronger warning > than normal would be best, please discuss > > 46 Spy: Clarify that they get to choose an optional ability at > Rank 0 > > 51 Grievous Injury Table: Does mentioning alternatives > specifically for this table add anything useful? > > > Things that I think are 99% clear and just need better words to > make them obvious (confirm as one vote?): > 6 Ranking Names (non-Namers don't get an additional name while > ranking) > 13 Binder (Golems have MA:None) > 25 Necro (Stream of Corruption affects all entities) > > > Cheers > Errol > > > ------=____1140472230662_K8e6b8ZpiA Content-Type: text/html; name="reply" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="reply" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=284155919-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Gievn these all appear to be minor clarifications, why don't we just say "If no one has any objections, these will be included in the rulebook", except maybe the weaponsmith formula tweak, where we did explicitly vote in a formula, even if it was wrong. This means most everything can be put in the rulebook now.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=284155919-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=284155919-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>If we change our minds in 6 months, we can always rough you up, as per your offer, and then get back to the game.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=284155919-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=284155919-20022006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Andrew</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us 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>Errol Cavit<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, 20 February 2006 4:20 p.m.<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> [dq] Rulebook stuff needing vote<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <P><FONT size=2>Hello everyone</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>Various issues have come up while putting together the Rulebook that I feel need a vote. Many are quite minor, but I don't want to change them without confirmation as it would set a bad precedent. Many have such a small impact on the game in practice that they can be left out for now (although addressing them as a block soon will save them still being an issue next time).</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>The more important/urgent ones I will do separate posts for this week (starting tonight).</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>If I get a clear indication of the group's consensus on the posted issues, I'll include them in the pdf to be available at the meeting. I'm not comfortable with spending money in anticipation of vote results, so bound copies will NOT be available at the meeting. I think we should be able to get printed copies to those playing within two weeks of the meeting.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>If people think that we should delay publication because of this, please say so now.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>or not, as you tell me the Rulebook can't be issued with unauthorised changes, and rough me up a bit.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>I've put all the issues I've identified at</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2><A href="http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Found_Issues" target=_blank>http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Found_Issues</A></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Note that the Wiki has one discussion page per main page, NOT section, so setting up a sub-page for issues likely to spark discussions/edits is useful (e.g. the Namer Ranking).</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>By no means all of them are show-stoppers.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>Please DON'T reply to this email with discussion of the specifics of the points raised below, save it for my later posts.</FONT></P><BR> <P><FONT size=2>The ones that I think are urgent are:</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>50 Weaponsmith: The voted-in formula gave silly results, and there was some discussion about what should be there instead.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=2>50 Weaponsmith: Do they get the discount for being higher ranked Armourers that Armourer says they do?</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>26 Rune College warning: My feeling is that a stronger warning than normal would be best, please discuss</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>46 Spy: Clarify that they get to choose an optional ability at Rank 0</FONT> </P> <P><FONT size=2>51 Grievous Injury Table: Does mentioning alternatives specifically for this table add anything useful?</FONT> </P><BR> <P><FONT size=2>Things that I think are 99% clear and just need better words to make them obvious (confirm as one vote?):</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>6 Ranking Names (non-Namers don't get an additional name while ranking)</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>13 Binder (Golems have MA:None)</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>25 Necro (Stream of Corruption affects all entities)</FONT> </P><BR> <P><FONT size=2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>Errol</FONT> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=____1140472230662_K8e6b8ZpiA-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] DQ ownership?
From	Michael Scott
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:18:55 +1300
>From: Keith Smith <phaeton@ihug.co.nz> >Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >Subject: Re: [dq] DQ ownership? >Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:50:51 +1300 > > >>What would be involved if we wanted to "own" DQ, if no-one else has it >>atm? If RedBrick (small NZ group) can get rights to EarthDawn (another >>rping game), we could try and get DQ permanently... > >I feel I should point out that we're not the only group playing DQ .. there >are other groups out there who could lclaim the same thing. > >Keith > So shouldn't we lay claim to it before they think to. It is easyer to come to an agreement if you hold all the power. TTFN Michael _________________________________________________________________ Shop �til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping http://shopping.xtramsn.co.nz/home/ -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] DQ ownership?
From	Mandos Mitchinson
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:36:40 +1300
> So shouldn't we lay claim to it before they think to. It is > easyer to come > to an agreement if you hold all the power. There really isn't a lot of point in this discussion. Either someone from the group will do the investigation, leg work and associated bother and come back and tell the rest of us lazy bastards that they have the copyright or what the group needs to do to get it or We waffle on the list for a while until the topic goes away. Either way this requires no discussion, if people think we (or they) should hold the copyright then the keen folks who want it should go and get it. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] DQ ownership?
From	Struan Judd
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:39:57 +1300
On 2/21/06, Michael Scott <big_mac_kd@hotmail.com> wrote: > >From: Keith Smith <phaeton@ihug.co.nz> > >>What would be involved if we wanted to "own" DQ, if no-one else has it > >>atm? If RedBrick (small NZ group) can get rights to EarthDawn (another > >>rping game), we could try and get DQ permanently... > > > >I feel I should point out that we're not the only group playing DQ .. there > >are other groups out there who could lclaim the same thing. > > > >Keith > > > So shouldn't we lay claim to it before they think to. It is easyer to come > to an agreement if you hold all the power. Remember the quote about History? Plus why the heck would we want to own DQ any more than we already do? TTFN, Struan. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:53:26 +1300
This 'language' business is a stupid convention, and I won't apply rules based on it. You might have a point if you were talking about a formal language, but natural languages don't work the way your model suggests, nor are they limited in their ability to express abstractions. People have explained quantum mechanics to Kalihari Bushmen using Xhosa, for God's sake. There is no evidence that you are more or less able to express yourself in one language or another. The only thing there is any evidence of is that some of the austronesian languages have a different way of referring to direction, and as a result they seem not to be able to lose their bearings. Well, certainly not from age 6 onwards. So, it would seem that there is some justification for the Ranger's bump of direction, just that it's a function of language, and not a language that any of us speak. Jim Quoting "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>: > > You want to tell us that some fish are smarter than drow and humans? :) > > Drow and Common only go to 9. > Only some elvish, dragon, Ellenic (ancient greek) and (probably because > it borrows from Elvish) Lalange go to 10. > Most of the fae languages go to 7, except the other fish languages > (Nixie, Fossegrim) at 6. I thought 8 was fairer given your work on the > merfolk culture - otherwise, 7 like other fae has got to be the default. > > Not 10, unless we use real-world linguistics, as per Jim's thread, and > set everything to 10 (or 4). > > Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of > Keith Smith > Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 9:05 a.m. > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language > > > > >I think let Keith and Jaquic do it as they run games which are more > >along the line of Merfolk stuff. > > Personally I'd say 10 as they are an intelligent magic using species > with a complex culture and history. > > Keith > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language
From	Andrew\ Withy\ \(DSL\ AK\)
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:04:04 +1300
We either chunk away all the different language ranks to satisfy Jim & real world linguistics, or we just agree the merfolk language goes to an (arbitrary) Rank, and Jim moves his language rant to a thread on changing language Ranks to whatever he proposes. Lets not confound the two issues. Andrew -----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, 21 February 2006 12:53 p.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language This 'language' business is a stupid convention, and I won't apply rules based on it. You might have a point if you were talking about a formal language, but natural languages don't work the way your model suggests, nor are they limited in their ability to express abstractions. People have explained quantum mechanics to Kalihari Bushmen using Xhosa, for God's sake. There is no evidence that you are more or less able to express yourself in one language or another. The only thing there is any evidence of is that some of the austronesian languages have a different way of referring to direction, and as a result they seem not to be able to lose their bearings. Well, certainly not from age 6 onwards. So, it would seem that there is some justification for the Ranger's bump of direction, just that it's a function of language, and not a language that any of us speak. Jim Quoting "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>: > > You want to tell us that some fish are smarter than drow and humans? > :) > > Drow and Common only go to 9. > Only some elvish, dragon, Ellenic (ancient greek) and (probably > because it borrows from Elvish) Lalange go to 10. Most of the fae > languages go to 7, except the other fish languages (Nixie, Fossegrim) > at 6. I thought 8 was fairer given your work on the merfolk culture - > otherwise, 7 like other fae has got to be the default. > > Not 10, unless we use real-world linguistics, as per Jim's thread, and > set everything to 10 (or 4). > > Andrew > -----Original Message----- > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf > Of Keith Smith > Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 9:05 a.m. > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language > > > > >I think let Keith and Jaquic do it as they run games which are more > >along the line of Merfolk stuff. > > Personally I'd say 10 as they are an intelligent magic using species > with a complex culture and history. > > Keith > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:15:11 +1300
------=_Part_14355_10038345.1140480911076 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 2/20/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > > The notion of languages having differing maximum ranks is complete crap, > so why > bother. Interesting. Historically there are examples of languages with fewer distinct words for colours, or no words for a checkerboard pattern, or whatever. (Cecil Adams discussed the "relative poverty of color terminology among ancient peoples" in an old Straight Dope column<http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_168b.html> ). This would suggest easier / quicker to learn, but less ability for subtle shades of communication, at least in that area -- wouldn't that correspond to DQ's concept of Max Rank? If there were a language where you could increase the rate at > which you communicated by as little as 10%, then we'd all be speaking it. Not having much experience of language theory but when laying out computer user interfaces that will be localized the general recommendation is to leave 30% more space for romance languages than for English; a terse language that users fewer words to communicate the same concept. To be fair a logographic language will use even less space, but that is not a useful comparision -- two character based languages that use a different number of characters for the same concept however are encoding the same information more or less efficiently. Cheers, Martin ------=_Part_14355_10038345.1140480911076 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 2/20/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"><a href=3D"mailto:raro002@ec.auck= land.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a></b> <<a href=3D"mailto:raro002= @ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</a>> 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;">The notion= of languages having differing maximum ranks is complete crap, so why<br>bo= ther. </blockquote><div><br>Interesting. Historically there are examples of langu= ages with fewer distinct words for colours, or no words for a checkerboard = pattern, or whatever.<br><br>(Cecil Adams discussed the "relative pove= rty of color terminology among ancient peoples" in an=20 <a href=3D"http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_168b.html">old Straight = Dope column</a>).<br><br>This would suggest easier / quicker to learn, but = less ability for subtle shades of communication, at least in that area -- w= ouldn't that correspond to DQ's concept of Max Rank? <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;">If = there were a language where you could increase the rate at<br>which you com= municated by as little as 10%, then we'd all be speaking it. </blockquote><div><br>Not having much experience of language theory but whe= n laying out computer user interfaces that will be localized the general re= commendation is to leave 30% more space for romance languages than for English; a terse language that users fewer words to communicate the same concept.<br><br>To be fair a= logographic language will use even less space, but that is not a useful co= mparision -- two character based languages that use a different number of c= haracters for the same concept however are encoding the same information mo= re or less efficiently. <br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br> ------=_Part_14355_10038345.1140480911076-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Language Issues
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:27:52 +1300
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_01C6367D.A6A94B84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Quite. If a thread becomes about something that isn't going to impact the next rulebook, please remove {Rulebook} from the subject. Cheers Errol > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz] > Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 13:04 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language > > > We either chunk away all the different language ranks to satisfy Jim & > real world linguistics, or we just agree the merfolk language > goes to an > (arbitrary) Rank, and Jim moves his language rant to a thread on > changing language Ranks to whatever he proposes. > > Lets not confound the two issues. > > Andrew > > -----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, 21 February 2006 12:53 p.m. > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language > > > This 'language' business is a stupid convention, and I won't > apply rules > based on it. > > You might have a point if you were talking about a formal > language, but > natural languages don't work the way your model suggests, nor are they > limited in their ability to express abstractions. People have > explained > quantum mechanics to Kalihari Bushmen using Xhosa, for God's sake. > > There is no evidence that you are more or less able to > express yourself > in one language or another. The only thing there is any evidence of is > that some of the austronesian languages have a different way of > referring to direction, and as a result they seem not to be > able to lose > their bearings. Well, certainly not from age 6 onwards. > > So, it would seem that there is some justification for the > Ranger's bump > of direction, just that it's a function of language, and not > a language > that any of us speak. > > Jim > > Quoting "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>: > > > > > You want to tell us that some fish are smarter than drow > and humans? > > :) > > > > Drow and Common only go to 9. > > Only some elvish, dragon, Ellenic (ancient greek) and (probably > > because it borrows from Elvish) Lalange go to 10. Most of the fae > > languages go to 7, except the other fish languages (Nixie, > Fossegrim) > > at 6. I thought 8 was fairer given your work on the merfolk > culture - > > otherwise, 7 like other fae has got to be the default. > > > > Not 10, unless we use real-world linguistics, as per Jim's > thread, and > > > set everything to 10 (or 4). > > > > Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] > On Behalf > > Of Keith Smith > > Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 9:05 a.m. > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > Subject: Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language > > > > > > > > >I think let Keith and Jaquic do it as they run games which > are more > > >along the line of Merfolk stuff. > > > > Personally I'd say 10 as they are an intelligent magic > using species > > with a complex culture and history. > > > > Keith > > > > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > > > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6367D.A6A94B84 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] Language Issues</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Quite.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>If a thread becomes about something that isn't going = to impact the next rulebook, please remove {Rulebook} from the = subject.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz">mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz</A>]<= /FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 13:04</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk = Language</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> We either chunk away all the different language = ranks to satisfy Jim &</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> real world linguistics, or we just agree the = merfolk language </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> goes to an</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> (arbitrary) Rank, and Jim moves his language = rant to a thread on</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> changing language Ranks to whatever he = proposes.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Lets not confound the two issues.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Andrew</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 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>] = On </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Behalf Of</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 12:53 = p.m.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk = Language</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> This 'language' business is a stupid = convention, and I won't </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> apply rules</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> based on it.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> You might have a point if you were talking = about a formal </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> language, but</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> natural languages don't work the way your model = suggests, nor are they</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> limited in their ability to express = abstractions. People have </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> explained</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> quantum mechanics to Kalihari Bushmen using = Xhosa, for God's sake.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> There is no evidence that you are more or less = able to </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> express yourself</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> in one language or another. The only thing = there is any evidence of is</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> that some of the austronesian languages have a = different way of</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> referring to direction, and as a result they = seem not to be </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> able to lose</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> their bearings. Well, certainly not from age 6 = onwards.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> So, it would seem that there is some = justification for the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Ranger's bump</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> of direction, just that it's a function of = language, and not </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> a language</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> that any of us speak.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Jim</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Quoting "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" = <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > You want to tell us that some fish are = smarter than drow </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> and humans? </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > :)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Drow and Common only go to 9.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Only some elvish, dragon, Ellenic (ancient = greek) and (probably </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > because it borrows from Elvish) Lalange go = to 10. Most of the fae </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > languages go to 7, except the other fish = languages (Nixie, </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Fossegrim) </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > at 6. I thought 8 was fairer given your = work on the merfolk </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> culture - </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > otherwise, 7 like other fae has got to be = the default.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Not 10, unless we use real-world = linguistics, as per Jim's </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> thread, and</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > set everything to 10 (or 4).</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Andrew</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > 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>] = </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> On Behalf </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Of Keith Smith</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 9:05 = a.m.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Subject: Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk = Language</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >I think let Keith and Jaquic do it as = they run games which </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> are more </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >along the line of Merfolk = stuff.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Personally I'd say 10 as they are an = intelligent magic </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> using species </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > with a complex culture and history.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Keith</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > -- to unsubscribe notify <A = HREF=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</= A> --</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -- to unsubscribe notify <A = HREF=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</= A> --</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6367D.A6A94B84-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	Michael Parkinson
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:35:36 +1300
Jim -- READ THE RULES before you start ranting. Think. Then start typing. There is a reason why there are different max ranks and the languages section says what you can do at various ranks. Indeed it varies from the original SPI(?) rules, which really were stupid. The reasons may not be perfect, but you can't just throw out large chunks of rules if you're in a multi-GM/multi-player enviornment -- it is unfair to ALL the players and ruins the game for anyone. Why don't you throw out maximum rank in weapons while you're at it. If you're doing anything weird -- as on my current game & some older ones (e.g.,Purple)-- then 1. the players have a right to know about it beforehand 2. & have a chance to excuse themselves if it will 3. it should be something that makes the game enjoyable > This 'language' business is a stupid convention, and I won't > apply rules based > on it. > > You might have a point if you were talking about a formal > language, but natural > languages don't work the way your model suggests, nor are > they limited in their > ability to express abstractions. People have explained > quantum mechanics to > Kalihari Bushmen using Xhosa, for God's sake. Gee! I guess that's why almost every HUMAN language are Ranks 8 or 9 -- and there is a reason for the distinction in each case. Now, could you rephrase your comment in Sasquatch, Wyveryn, or Kobald? We are playing a fantasy game with many things imposed on us. The languages do reflect some of the real features of natural & artificial languages -- as well as totally including the concept of Generic Names & intrinsic languages; long-lived, even immortal, beings; a multituted of sentient races of MANY differing levels of intelligence, culture, and interation/tolerance of other sentient genera/species. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:36:19 +1300
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_01C6367E.D54B698A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 8 it is. PCs need to be Rk8 + literate in a language to learn a college. Do we care enough about this to give them an alphabet (presumably new, or maybe e)? Cop out by saying (orthographic)? Cheers Errol > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Smith [mailto:phaeton@ihug.co.nz] > Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 09:56 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language > > > > >You want to tell us that some fish are smarter than drow and > humans? :) > > > >Drow and Common only go to 9. > >Only some elvish, dragon, Ellenic (ancient greek) and > (probably because > >it borrows from Elvish) Lalange go to 10. > >Most of the fae languages go to 7, except the other fish languages > >(Nixie, Fossegrim) at 6. I thought 8 was fairer given your > work on the > >merfolk culture - otherwise, 7 like other fae has got to be > the default. > > > >Not 10, unless we use real-world linguistics, as per Jim's > thread, and > >set everything to 10 (or 4). > > This is what I get for posting without the rulebook handy. > > I was thinking of an equivalent rank to Common .. which I thought was > 10. So yeah .. I'm happy with either 8 or 9. > > Keith > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6367E.D54B698A 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] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>8 it is.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>PCs need to be Rk8 + literate in a language to learn = a college.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Do we care enough about this to give them an alphabet = (presumably new, or maybe e)? Cop out by saying (orthographic)?</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> From: Keith Smith [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:phaeton@ihug.co.nz">mailto:phaeton@ihug.co.nz</A>]</FONT>= <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2006 09:56</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk = Language</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >You want to tell us that some fish are = smarter than drow and </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> humans? :)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >Drow and Common only go to 9.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >Only some elvish, dragon, Ellenic (ancient = greek) and </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> (probably because</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >it borrows from Elvish) Lalange go to = 10.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >Most of the fae languages go to 7, except = the other fish languages</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >(Nixie, Fossegrim) at 6. I thought 8 was = fairer given your </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> work on the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >merfolk culture - otherwise, 7 like other = fae has got to be </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> the default.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >Not 10, unless we use real-world = linguistics, as per Jim's </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> thread, and</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >set everything to 10 (or 4).</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> This is what I get for posting without the = rulebook handy.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> I was thinking of an equivalent rank to Common = .. which I thought was </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 10. So yeah .. I'm happy with either 8 or = 9.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Keith</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -- to unsubscribe notify <A = HREF=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</= A> --</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6367E.D54B698A-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	Michael Parkinson
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:49:35 +1300
Dear Jim & all, Sorry about the misspellings in my last message -- it escaped before I could check it. Which brings up the concept of CONVENTION. Theoretically there should be multiple rules for written languages -- it is quite easy to misspell a Spanish word, but almost impossible to misspell an italian one ... yet they are very closely related. And everyone know how awkward English is to spell. But we had to simplify things a bit for the game. I think the maximum language ranks are another convention that we have got roughly right. Yes, "Language" is NOT an important factor in how well one's character swings a sword (although illiteracy or an inability to communicate might be), but it adds to the flavour of the shared campaign world & the characters that dwell in it ... and has been significant to the way some characters have developed. I thought you liked characterisation & flavour, Jim. regards, michael -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:58:57 +1300
Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>: > On 2/20/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > > > > The notion of languages having differing maximum ranks is complete crap, > > so why > > bother. > > > Interesting. Historically there are examples of languages with fewer > distinct words for colours, or no words for a checkerboard pattern, or > whatever. There are languages where there are different numbers of colour terms. English is a 9 colour term language from memory, although it could be 11, Maori is, again from memroy, a 3 colour term language. It doesn't make people who use the language incapable of describing colours. They simply use different words to get what they mean accross. > > (Cecil Adams discussed the "relative poverty of color terminology among > ancient peoples" in an old Straight Dope > column<http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_168b.html> > ). > > This would suggest easier / quicker to learn, but less ability for subtle > shades of communication, at least in that area -- wouldn't that correspond > to DQ's concept of Max Rank? No, not at all. It has no bearing on the ability to describe colour at all, it's just that there is no discrete term for a given colour. Chinese, for example, has no colour term for green or blue, one of them. It doesn't stop them describing things that are green or blue in the same degree of richness that you get in English, which has both colour terms. It doesn't even slow the buggers down. Just because you don't have a word in your language doesn't make concepts harder to communicate. Even if you have a lot of terms for something in your language, it doesn't make it any better at describing stuff. There used to be some discussion about the languages of various Eskimo who had doezens of terms for snow, and that they were therefore better at describing snow. It was definitely true that there is a language where there are 22 terms for snow. But, Inuit has only 3, which is about as many as an English speaker has, and they don't seem unable to describe snow. > > If there were a language where you could increase the rate at > > which you communicated by as little as 10%, then we'd all be speaking it. > > > Not having much experience of language theory but when laying out computer > user interfaces that will be localized the general recommendation is to > leave 30% more space for romance languages than for English; a terse > language that users fewer words to communicate the same concept. No, English is no more terse than any other Romance language. It's just that there's a culture of using English with computers because it's the 'language of the Internet' and also because most of the software comes from English speakers. > > To be fair a logographic language will use even less space, but that is not > a useful comparision -- two character based languages that use a different > number of characters for the same concept however are encoding the same > information more or less efficiently. Information written in Chinese characters take up less space on a line. They take more time to encode. On a computer, you only need a byte to express a letter of the Roman alphabet. Chinese is much more complicated than that, and it can only be expressed in unicode. Oddly enough, or not oddly at all, when you think about it, the rate of information transferred in English or Chinese is about the same. A person reading a technical manual in Chinese will get through it in about the same time as someone reading it in English, so long as they are native speakers. This suggests that the process of un-encoding Chinese characters is more taxing per symbol. Also, the degree of ambiguity is much higher in Chinese, because it is much more metaphorical in nature, so space saved initially is then lost in disambiguation. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] {Rulebook} Merfolk Language
From	Keith Smith
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:04:05 +1300
>8 it is. > >PCs need to be Rk8 + literate in a language to learn a college. > >Do we care enough about this to give them an alphabet (presumably >new, or maybe e)? Cop out by saying *(orthographic)? They've either got their own or a derivation of one of the older languages .. elven I suspect. Personally I'd rather not have orthographic as that's a separate ranking but .. I'll go with what is decided. Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:21:21 +1300
Quoting Michael Parkinson <m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz>: > Jim -- READ THE RULES before you start ranting. Think. Then start typing. > There is a reason why there are different max ranks and the languages section > says what you can do at various ranks. Indeed it varies from the original > SPI(?) rules, which really were stupid. The reasons may not be perfect, but > you can't just throw out large chunks of rules if you're in a > multi-GM/multi-player enviornment -- it is unfair to ALL the players and > ruins the game for anyone. Why don't you throw out maximum rank in weapons > while you're at it. I have read the rules, and they are crap. They don't model the behaviour of a language at all. I am prepared to accept that skill in a language can reflect the sorts of concepts that you can communicate, because that's what happens when people are good at communicating. I am not prepared to countenance that you can only advance to some arbitrary point in a language and then stop, simply because someone has a reasonably poor notion of what a language is. And, yes, as it happens, I can throw out huge chunks of the rules when they seem stupid or to interfere with the nature of the game, because that's what being a DM is about. If DMing were a function of administrating rules, I would have already built a computer DM by now. If you take the time to look at what makes for a good DM and what makes for a bad one, then there a couple of simple maxims to be observed: A good DM predicts what their players think he is meaning. A good DM adjusts the rules so that their understanding is reflected by the current game. > > If you're doing anything weird -- as on my current game & some older ones > (e.g.,Purple)-- then > 1. the players have a right to know about it beforehand What part of 'This 'language' business is a stupid convention, and I won't apply rules based on it.' is not letting players know about it beforehand? > 2. & have a chance to excuse themselves if it will There aren't any to be excused. > 3. it should be something that makes the game enjoyable I am not too fussed about accurate models, but stupidly flawed ones like this are dumb and add nothing of value to the game. What is it supposed to reflect? That there are just some things you can't say to an Orc? That for an orc to understand them, they need to learn them in a foreign language? Come ON! I am not saying that you might not have some weird entity with a limited language range. A talking animal might be able to communicate in Common, but it might not be saying anything more engaging than that it's hungry or it's thinking about settling down for a bit of procreation. It is unlikely to ponder its place in the cosmos and what it is here for. But, anything with a culture, where people gather together in groups is seriously complicated. Language is more than just the way you order your groceries. It has a major impact on your thinking processess. Feral children who are taught language after they are 13 never have behaviour the rest of us really understands, and they almost always get into trouble with the law as a result of it. > > > > This 'language' business is a stupid convention, and I won't > > apply rules based > > on it. > > > > You might have a point if you were talking about a formal > > language, but natural > > languages don't work the way your model suggests, nor are > > they limited in their > > ability to express abstractions. People have explained > > quantum mechanics to > > Kalihari Bushmen using Xhosa, for God's sake. > > Gee! I guess that's why almost every HUMAN language are Ranks 8 or 9 -- and > there is a reason for the distinction in each case. Why is there any difference at all? What can you discuss in one language that you can't discuss in another? > Now, could you rephrase your comment in Sasquatch, Wyveryn, or Kobald? We > are playing a fantasy game with many things imposed on us. The languages > do reflect some of the real features of natural & artificial languages -- > as well as totally including the concept of Generic Names & intrinsic > languages; long-lived, even immortal, beings; a multituted of sentient races > of MANY differing levels of intelligence, culture, and interation/tolerance > of other sentient genera/species. Maybe, and I don't have an objection to it if it were the languages of entities that just magically have a language without any kind of culture to learn it in. So, sure, there might be a point in a language variation between Sasquatch or even Kobold, if you are prepared to say that there is something very odd going on in their brains. I don't have a problem with that at all. I do have a problem when you describe a PC race as having languages that are more or less capable of expression, when that's 1) unplayable, and 2) nonsensical. Jim -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:32:09 +1300
Quoting Michael Parkinson <m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz>: > Dear Jim & all, > Yes, "Language" is NOT an important factor in how well one's character swings > a sword (although illiteracy or an inability to communicate might be), but it > adds to the flavour of the shared campaign world & the characters that dwell > in it ... and has been significant to the way some characters have developed. > I thought you liked characterisation & flavour, Jim. I do. Language is not flavour that a player has any real control over, in pretty much the same sort of way that the ground isn't something they have control over. You don't play a language in the same way that you don't play being stuck to the ground. You might, occasionally, play not being stuck to the ground. But aside from that, this stupid rule doesn't create anything useful that makes things individual. What flavour is it trying to express? What opportunities does it provide? Language has a major effect in the execution of play, because if only one of the party has a required language, then the gameplay is funnelled through that player, and it gets pretty dull for the others. Or, the DM decides that it's too tedious and wearying to deal with only one player, and presumes that they are a superb translator and the game moves on as if everyone had the language. By and large, anyone with Rank 4 in a language is about what a DM will accept as good enough not to worry about any more, and so that is the critical value of this language skill. Ranks above 4 are good for...What? People that don't like the shape of the number 4, I suppose. Beyond the execution of play, having a high rank is supposed to have an impact on your ability to express an idea. So, exactly how did you want people to be inhibited from expressing themselves? It's hard enough to get them to say something interesting in the first place. And, now, you want them to check against their language skill to see if they're allowed to have it? I don't think you know what you want for a language skill, Michael, except that you'd like to have all different numbers and that there be an hierarchy for people to feel snobbish about. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	Struan Judd
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:56:53 +1300
Jim, On 2/21/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > By and large, anyone with Rank 4 in a language is about what a DM will accept as > good enough not to worry about any more, and so that is the critical value of > this language skill. Ranks above 4 are good for...What? People that don't like > the shape of the number 4, I suppose. > > I don't think you know what you want for a language skill, Michael, except that > you'd like to have all different numbers and that there be an hierarchy for > people to feel snobbish about. > > Jim. This is exactly why I want a Language skill. At below a certain Rank (and 4 does seem good) a character will be struggling to understand and be understood. When in a land where they can't speak the local tongue sufficiently they need to rely on translators and the attendant issues of information control and being cheated Above that it is all about the snobbishness and a hierarchy. Well and the Rank 8 and literate requirenment to be a mage. TTFN, Struan. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] Land Use.
From	Mandos Mitchinson
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:26:32 +1300
The web is letting me down, or more realistically I am unable to put together a coherant search. Does anyone have a web reference or a reasonable guess at the numbers of Cottars, Villeins and Half-Villeins that would be reasonable in say 1000 acres? I have rough figures on how much land the varing types would own/rent/use but no idea of the relationship between tennant lands and demense lands nor the volumes of each of the types of serf relative to each other. Any and all help appreciated. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages a compromise.
From	Mandos Mitchinson
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:33:51 +1300
Who not simply make all sentient languages top out at 10, barely sentient languages at 6 and non sentient languages at 4. That covers Jim's points, gives Struan a sliding snobbery scale and the covers the oddities a magical universe creates. The rest of us can go back to not really caring about language, for all the reasons presented in the past discussion. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages a compromise.
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:38:33 +1300
Quoting Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz>: > > Who not simply make all sentient languages top out at 10, barely > sentient languages at 6 and non sentient languages at 4. I don't know, either. Because some people think some languages are inherently more beautiful and grandiloquent than others, I suspect. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	Michael Parkinson
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:41:19 +1300
Sorry about the delay in replying ... had to wait until I wasn't on work time. Even now I'm attempting to enlighten Jim instead of having a coffee break. (Have you tasted our staff-room coffee?) > They don't model > the behaviour of a > language at all. You missed the point, again. You are still thinking HUMAN languages -- there are a multitude of sentient races of MANY differing levels of intelligence, culture, life-span and interation/tolerance of other sentient genera/species. Hence there WILL be different maximum ranks. What part of that don't you get? Some languages WILL have the ability to express ALIEN concepts (be it numbers greater than two, grokking, or something as simple as 42 shades of green. And there WILL be languages thar are INincapable of expressing many alien concepts) > I am not prepared to countenance that you can only advance to > some arbitrary point in a language and then stop, There are concepts that a chimpanzee can understand that a baboon cannot. If (fantasy game, remember) they could speak, then CLEARLY Baboon would have a lower maximum rank Again, why do we have maximum ranks of weapons? To reflect the desired (or accepted) game mechanic that a superb fighter will always be better (Higher base chance) with some weapons than others. > What part of 'This 'language' business is a stupid > convention, and I won't apply > rules based on it.' is not letting players know about it beforehand? Well NOW I know. But as a player, I know it can be irritating if the GM deliberately misplays rules out of arrogance because they don't think a standard skill or spell should be in the game and they don't advise you beforehand ... or unexpectedly "play-tests" something that disrupts how your character normally functions. > I have read the rules, [...] What is it supposed to reflect? > That there are just some things you can't say to an Orc? That > for an orc to > understand them, they need to learn them in a foreign language? [Refrain: "Read the rules"] Actually you can say anything to an orc .... even alien concepts that will piss them of -- in orcish, even! At rank 8, a character <qoute>"can express any conceivable thought" </quote> But, as previous explained, there should be some species that can't understand a concept ... thus <qoute>"Note that some languages are very limited. For example, many concepts or emotions cannot be articulated in Troll." </quote> [All together: "Read the rules"] > But, anything with a culture, where people gather together in > groups is seriously complicated. You're thinking HUMAN ("people"), again. Baboon & chimpanzees have "culture" but would be UNable to understand certain concepts. Remember ... language is cultural and is ALSO intrinsic to the species, which was a key point decided on by the Gods when the rules were originally written -- hence the family groups. > > Gee! I guess that's why almost every HUMAN language are > Ranks 8 or 9 -- and > > there is a reason for the distinction in each case. > > Why is there any difference at all? What can you discuss in > one language that > you can't discuss in another? Yes. In the first part, it's a flavour thing... Some cultures are linguistically isolationist and resist (for a variety of reasons) alien concepts. But the other does reflect cultural infiltration ... be it by contingency, trade, conquest, or even theft. E.g., Destinian is Rank 8 because that's all they need to say ANYTHING. Conversely orcs have many tribes worldwide with nuances not appreciated by non-orcs ... they will have many words for the same thing (Bach/Crib/etc) that reflect their origins, moreover they will eagerly appropriate foreign things (including words) if they're useful. > I do have a problem when you describe a PC race as having > languages that are > more or less capable of expression, when that's 1) unplayable, and 2) > nonsensical. One last time ... "Read the rules". EVERY PC race & culture <qoute>"can express any conceivable thought" </quote> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:55:57 +1300
Quoting Michael Parkinson <m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz>: > Sorry about the delay in replying ... had to wait until I wasn't on work > time. Even now I'm attempting to enlighten Jim instead of having a coffee > break. (Have you tasted our staff-room coffee?) > > > They don't model > > the behaviour of a > > language at all. > > You missed the point, again. You are still thinking HUMAN languages -- there > are a multitude of sentient races of MANY differing levels of intelligence, > culture, life-span and interation/tolerance of other sentient genera/species. > Hence there WILL be different maximum ranks. What part of that don't you > get? Some languages WILL have the ability to express ALIEN concepts (be it > numbers greater than two, grokking, or something as simple as 42 shades of > green. And there WILL be languages thar are INincapable of expressing many > alien concepts) Okay, I'll change HUMAN to NATURAL and that problem goes away. Language is much less about culture than it is about actually thinking. It is not a logical process. If there is any behaviour that it models, it is evolutionary, although much faster than that. You cannot make the assertion that the different creatures WILL definitely have a different mental construct to ours, because if that were the case we would be dealing with them in a way that isn't anything at like the way characters interact with each other. When you can explain to me something in one language that you can't in another, then I might be convinced. What you are offering is simply a hope of what languages might be like, and it is distant from any experience that we have of them. > > > I am not prepared to countenance that you can only advance to > > some arbitrary point in a language and then stop, > > There are concepts that a chimpanzee can understand that a baboon cannot. If > (fantasy game, remember) they could speak, then CLEARLY Baboon would have a > lower maximum rank Really? What are these concepts? I and much of the psycho-zoological fraternity are clamouring for your insight, here. > > Again, why do we have maximum ranks of weapons? To reflect the desired (or > accepted) game mechanic that a superb fighter will always be better (Higher > base chance) with some weapons than others. > > > What part of 'This 'language' business is a stupid > > convention, and I won't apply > > rules based on it.' is not letting players know about it beforehand? > > Well NOW I know. But as a player, I know it can be irritating if the GM > deliberately misplays rules out of arrogance because they don't think a > standard skill or spell should be in the game and they don't advise you > beforehand ... or unexpectedly "play-tests" something that disrupts how your > character normally functions. Tough. Get used to it. It's a dynamic world, the DM is there to interpret the world and create a world for you to enjoy. And, further, I enjoy the privilge of being arrogant because I'm right on this matter. > > > I have read the rules, [...] What is it supposed to reflect? > > That there are just some things you can't say to an Orc? That > > for an orc to > > understand them, they need to learn them in a foreign language? > > [Refrain: "Read the rules"] > Actually you can say anything to an orc .... even alien concepts that will > piss them of -- in orcish, even! > At rank 8, a character <qoute>"can express any conceivable thought" </quote> > But, as previous explained, there should be some species that can't > understand a concept ... thus > <qoute>"Note that some languages are very limited. For example, > many concepts or emotions cannot be articulated in Troll." </quote> > [All together: "Read the rules"] > > > But, anything with a culture, where people gather together in > > groups is seriously complicated. > > You're thinking HUMAN ("people"), again. Baboon & chimpanzees have "culture" > but would be UNable to understand certain concepts. Remember ... language > is cultural and is ALSO intrinsic to the species, which was a key point > decided on by the Gods when the rules were originally written -- hence the > family groups. I am thinking SOCIAL, as the term refers to people who develop lanuguage. Chimpanzees and baboons might have a culture, and even social structures, but they don't have language. > > > > Gee! I guess that's why almost every HUMAN language are > > Ranks 8 or 9 -- and > > > there is a reason for the distinction in each case. > > > > Why is there any difference at all? What can you discuss in > > one language that > > you can't discuss in another? > > Yes. In the first part, it's a flavour thing... Some cultures are > linguistically isolationist and resist (for a variety of reasons) alien > concepts. But the other does reflect cultural infiltration ... be it by > contingency, trade, conquest, or even theft. > > E.g., Destinian is Rank 8 because that's all they need to say ANYTHING. > Conversely orcs have many tribes worldwide with nuances not appreciated by > non-orcs ... they will have many words for the same thing (Bach/Crib/etc) > that reflect their origins, moreover they will eagerly appropriate foreign > things (including words) if they're useful. Drivel. A language is a language is a language. They are expressive, by their nature. > > > I do have a problem when you describe a PC race as having > > languages that are > > more or less capable of expression, when that's 1) unplayable, and 2) > > nonsensical. > > One last time ... "Read the rules". > EVERY PC race & culture <qoute>"can express any conceivable thought" </quote> So, what is the higher rank doing? What does it hope to reflect? And, as for enlightenment, Michael, you might try reading a book. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	Michael Parkinson
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:58:46 +1300
> Language has a major effect in the execution of play, because > if only one of the > party has a required language, then the gameplay is funnelled > through that > player, and it gets pretty dull for the others. Not the players' fault ... it's the GMs. If you want people to speak a commonly understood language (even "Common"). Andrew ran a great game where the entire party could NOT speak the language at first -- as he intended. Later, we picked up enough to get by ... mostly. There were still misunderstandings -- as the GM intended > Or, the DM decides that it's > too tedious and wearying to deal with only one player, and > presumes that they > are a superb translator and the game moves on as if everyone > had the language. Well Duh! I've played in & run games where only one or two players have the language. The GAME mechanism is that Guildmember A-- (aware of their guild obligations) translates to & fro ... except when they say "I'm not translating that" or whatever. > I don't think you know what you want for a language skill, > Michael, except that you'd like to have all different numbers and that there be an > hierarchy for people to feel snobbish about. Again ... it was a design parameter from the Gods. But thanks for that stunning psychoanalysis, I see you can be relied upon to use a personal insult when logical debate is too hard </sarcasm>. Having said that, I'm sure that Elves even if they didn't live three-thousand people lifetimes would invent just the right word. Conversely Destinians act snobbish by ignoring words they don't need ... no matter how useful. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:03:41 +1300
Quoting Michael Parkinson <m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz>: > > Again ... it was a design parameter from the Gods. But thanks for that > stunning psychoanalysis, I see you can be relied upon to use a personal > insult when logical debate is too hard </sarcasm>. I see you have no problem with sarcasm, Michael. Perhaps it was also gifted to you by thes Gods. It is, after all, the underpinning of your argument. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:18:56 +1300
Quoting Michael Parkinson <m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz>: > > Language has a major effect in the execution of play, because > > if only one of the > > party has a required language, then the gameplay is funnelled > > through that > > player, and it gets pretty dull for the others. > > Not the players' fault ... it's the GMs. If you want people to speak a > commonly understood language (even "Common"). Andrew ran a great game where > the entire party could NOT speak the language at first -- as he intended. > Later, we picked up enough to get by ... mostly. There were still > misunderstandings -- as the GM intended I'm not assigning blame, I'm simply point out what it does, and that it is not a good thing in general. Specific cases may be different. > > > Or, the DM decides that it's > > too tedious and wearying to deal with only one player, and > > presumes that they > > are a superb translator and the game moves on as if everyone > > had the language. > > Well Duh! I've played in & run games where only one or two players have the > language. The GAME mechanism is that Guildmember A-- (aware of their guild > obligations) translates to & fro ... except when they say "I'm not > translating that" or whatever. And? > > Having said that, I'm sure that Elves even if they didn't live three-thousand > people lifetimes would invent just the right word. Conversely Destinians > act snobbish by ignoring words they don't need ... no matter how useful. It's not about vocabulary, or syntax or even the grammars involved. I doubt that elves would have a language that was very useful, as it happens. The ONLY factor that makes a big impact on how expressive a language is the number of influences it has. And, it's not about historical influences, I mean current, ongoing influences. New Zealand English has increased in its expressiveness because of an interest in this country of using Maori words and phrases. American English is much more expressive than our language, because it is subject to even more influences, some of them the result of other cultures, others more to do with social strata. Classical languages like Greek and Latin are inexpressive. In Maori, there are words or phrases for things like aeroplane or email. What is the Latin for laser? What did the Greeks call 'influenza'? American English appears to change somewhat in form, measurably over periods of twenty years, and most people think that this is a function of each new generation adding to the language. Elves don't procreate like that and would presumably not change anything like as swiftly. And, if elven were given to elves by the Gods, then they almost certainly would not be adding new words to it. That might be sacrilege, after all. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	Michael Scott
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:43:40 +1300
>From: Michael Parkinson <m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz> > > This 'language' business is a stupid convention, and I won't > > apply rules based > > on it. > > > > You might have a point if you were talking about a formal > > language, but natural > > languages don't work the way your model suggests, nor are > > they limited in their > > ability to express abstractions. People have explained > > quantum mechanics to > > Kalihari Bushmen using Xhosa, for God's sake. > >Gee! I guess that's why almost every HUMAN language are Ranks 8 or 9 -- and >there is a reason for the distinction in each case. >Now, could you rephrase your comment in Sasquatch, Wyveryn, or Kobald? We >are playing a fantasy game with many things imposed on us. The languages >do reflect some of the real features of natural & artificial languages -- >as well as totally including the concept of Generic Names & intrinsic >languages; long-lived, even immortal, beings; a multituted of sentient >races of MANY differing levels of intelligence, culture, and >interation/tolerance of other sentient genera/species. Are not the ranks be a reflection of understanding an alien culture. It may simply be that we humans (or dwarves, or elves etc) are not phyiscally capible of comunicating at rk 10 in a language you need gills to proberly pronounce. Just a thought TTFN Michael _________________________________________________________________ Discover fun and games at @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/kids -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	Michael Parkinson
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:54:49 +1300
Nature, Evolution ... you are aware this is a fantasy game? > You cannot make the assertion that the different creatures > WILL definitely have > a different mental construct to ours, No exactly ... But it is consistent that difference exist because not every sentient thinks the same -- not to mention differences that arise from being species -- something for which there is NO real world parallel, without elevating the cries of [non-sentient] animals to a language. > When you can explain to me something in one language that you > can't in another, > then I might be convinced. I cant becasue i'm a HUMAN -- and I only speak one language fluently. The difference between the real world & DQ being not just the multiplicity of sentient species, but the "rules" of the world & magic. > > There are concepts that a chimpanzee can understand that a > baboon cannot. If > > (fantasy game, remember) they could speak, then CLEARLY > Baboon would have a > > lower maximum rank > > Really? What are these concepts? I and much of the > psycho-zoological fraternity > are clamouring for your insight, here. The one difference I can remember Gary Tunnel mentioning was that Chimpanzees can see their reflection in a mirror and quickly realise what it is; a baboon can't. A [real-world] chimp is close to a [real-world] baboon. I believe a [DQ] wyvern cannot understand, hence cannot translate to its own language, ALL the concepts that a [DQ] dragon can -- many, yes. That is a Game Concept which (befeore today) I would have thought all DQers accepted. Admittedly there is no real reason why it is Rank 4 rather than 3 or 5; but 6 (by its description) would seem to high personally. One other design criterion was that the different ranks SHOULD have some flavour ... so that there was a purpose for advancing. The only absolute criterion was that Rank 8 is the necessary rank for magic use. > > You're thinking HUMAN ("people"), again. Baboon & > chimpanzees have "culture" > > but would be UNable to understand certain concepts. > Remember ... language > > is cultural and is ALSO intrinsic to the species, which was > a key point > > decided on by the Gods when the rules were originally > written -- hence the > > family groups. > > I am thinking SOCIAL, as the term refers to people who > develop lanuguage. > Chimpanzees and baboons might have a culture, and even social > structures, but > they don't have language. for the last time you are absolutely equating "people" with "Language-users" The Gods decided that all sentient races have their own language ... the rest follows from the perception that not all sentients ahve the same level of intelligence or cultural experiences. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:00:04 +1300
Quoting Michael Scott <big_mac_kd@hotmail.com>: > > Are not the ranks be a reflection of understanding an alien culture. > It may simply be that we humans (or dwarves, or elves etc) are not > phyiscally capible of comunicating at rk 10 in a language you need gills to > proberly pronounce. > There are deaf people whose language skills are highly polished. Physical impediments might have an impact, of course, but I don't think what is permissable is so hard and fast as to be complete denial. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:14:22 +1300
Quoting Michael Parkinson <m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz>: > Nature, Evolution ... you are aware this is a fantasy game? Yes, I was aware of that. I'm also aware that we don't spontaneously generate entities unless there's a good reason. I'm waiting to see this good reason. > > > You cannot make the assertion that the different creatures > > WILL definitely have > > a different mental construct to ours, > > No exactly ... But it is consistent that difference exist because not every > sentient thinks the same -- not to mention differences that arise from being > species -- something for which there is NO real world parallel, without > elevating the cries of [non-sentient] animals to a language. > > > When you can explain to me something in one language that you > > can't in another, > > then I might be convinced. > > I cant becasue i'm a HUMAN -- and I only speak one language fluently. The > difference between the real world & DQ being not just the multiplicity of > sentient species, but the "rules" of the world & magic. This means that you can't explain it to me. > > > > There are concepts that a chimpanzee can understand that a > > baboon cannot. If > > > (fantasy game, remember) they could speak, then CLEARLY > > Baboon would have a > > > lower maximum rank > > > > Really? What are these concepts? I and much of the > > psycho-zoological fraternity > > are clamouring for your insight, here. > > The one difference I can remember Gary Tunnel mentioning was that Chimpanzees > can see their reflection in a mirror and quickly realise what it is; a > baboon can't. > > A [real-world] chimp is close to a [real-world] baboon. I believe a [DQ] > wyvern cannot understand, hence cannot translate to its own language, ALL the > concepts that a [DQ] dragon can -- many, yes. That is a Game Concept which > (befeore today) I would have thought all DQers accepted. I'm not fussed about the language ability of creatures that have acquired them magically. That's just the way it works, and I'm prepared to accept that they have some weird ability to speak to their own kind. Or other kinds, I suppose. > > Admittedly there is no real reason why it is Rank 4 rather than 3 or 5; but 6 > (by its description) would seem to high personally. One other design > criterion was that the different ranks SHOULD have some flavour ... so that > there was a purpose for advancing. The only absolute criterion was that Rank > 8 is the necessary rank for magic use. > > > > You're thinking HUMAN ("people"), again. Baboon & > > chimpanzees have "culture" > > > but would be UNable to understand certain concepts. > > Remember ... language > > > is cultural and is ALSO intrinsic to the species, which was > > a key point > > > decided on by the Gods when the rules were originally > > written -- hence the > > > family groups. > > > > I am thinking SOCIAL, as the term refers to people who > > develop lanuguage. > > Chimpanzees and baboons might have a culture, and even social > > structures, but > > they don't have language. > > for the last time you are absolutely equating "people" with "Language-users" > The Gods decided that all sentient races have their own language ... the rest > follows from the perception that not all sentients ahve the same level of > intelligence or cultural experiences. And, we use that for the justification for language? So, we never disucss any other alternative, because it's already been given by the Gods? Your argument is that language is derived by the Gods and does not have any of the behaviour that natural languages do. Why stop there? Why have any discussion on anything at all, within the game? Any rule is as easily a product of the Gods' whims. And, I doubt it's for the last time, Michael. You would not so readily deprive yourself of the opportunity of prating. Jim. > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	Michael Parkinson
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:17:25 +1300
> > > When you can explain to me something in one language that you > > > can't in another, then I might be convinced. ???? Illogical! ALL the languages we (the players user) are all HUMAN cultural constructs. The characters encounter NON-human sentient species (from Dragons & Titans down). You seem to believe that PCs, let alone humans, have concepts that can not be expressed in Wyvern or in Yeti; I suspect you assume that sentience confers an ability to understand & express in one's native tongue ANY concept. Yes, I could do a web search for an Aboriginal language that uses the same word for any number over two -- but that is a faulty analogy. If in our fantasy game the were such a language and we decided that as a human, a small percentage of that nation were magic useres, clearly the language is Rank 8 (but clearly not rank 9 if its vocabularly is much less than, say, Destinian). Your falacy is that I MUST give you a human example to "prove" that a wyvern cannot understand a dragon or even an average townsman (Rank 6). As I hoped I had pointed out before, primarily it is a sound GAME Mechanic that ALL concepts can, with some effort perhaps, be expressed in a Rank 8 language -- therefore ALL PCs generated according to the rules CAN understand anything. It just might need to be explained rather than instantly recognised by the distinction between the words "Gmgm" & "Sgmgm". Anyway, as diverting as this has been I should find a real reason for avoiding writing up DQ items or reading the 299 unread DQ emails. Since you seem to be persistenly ignoring the concept I have repeatedly rephrased, I am assuming you're prolonging the argument solely, or at least primarily, to be offensive. If I have wronged you or offended our mutual readers, then I do apologise. Should you ever come up with a valid argument, or even a chamingly polite discourse, I will have to read it both second hand & quite by accident. <! cut> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:36:46 +1300
Quoting Michael Parkinson <m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz>: > > > > When you can explain to me something in one language that you > > > > can't in another, then I might be convinced. > > ???? Illogical! > > ALL the languages we (the players user) are all HUMAN cultural > constructs. The characters encounter NON-human sentient species (from > Dragons & Titans down). You seem to believe that PCs, let alone humans, have > concepts that can not be expressed in Wyvern or in Yeti; I suspect you assume > that sentience confers an ability to understand & express in one's native > tongue ANY concept. Yes, I could do a web search for an Aboriginal > language that uses the same word for any number over two -- but that is a > faulty analogy. If in our fantasy game the were such a language and we > decided that as a human, a small percentage of that nation were magic useres, > clearly the language is Rank 8 (but clearly not rank 9 if its vocabularly is > much less than, say, Destinian). Your falacy is that I MUST give you a > human example to "prove" that a wyvern cannot understand a dragon or even an > average townsman (Rank 6). There are languages where counting doesn't work the same way as it does in most. That doesn't mean that people can't count. They usually do it by referencing things that have canonical values: hand = 5 for example. Mind you, having said that, number systems are important for developing a coherent mathematical system. But, then, maths is a formal language, and so you'd expect that. I am not arguing the point with regard to a magical creature like a wyvern, where it seems reasonably that they don't learn language as a function of society. I am arguing it with regard to those creatures that we might with reason think of as people, even if they are different to humans. > > As I hoped I had pointed out before, primarily it is a sound GAME Mechanic > that ALL concepts can, with some effort perhaps, be expressed in a Rank 8 > language -- therefore ALL PCs generated according to the rules CAN > understand anything. It just might need to be explained rather than > instantly recognised by the distinction between the words "Gmgm" & "Sgmgm". I dispute that it is a sound game mechanic. > > Anyway, as diverting as this has been I should find a real reason for > avoiding writing up DQ items or reading the 299 unread DQ emails. Since you > seem to be persistenly ignoring the concept I have repeatedly rephrased, I > am assuming you're prolonging the argument solely, or at least primarily, to > be offensive. No, I am not prolonging this argument because I care deeply enough about you to annoy you. I simply don't believe the model works or even comes close to working. At the same time, it does not provide anything useful within the game. Communication between the players and the DM is too critical an issue to let a story get bogged down in silliness like who can speak what, and what sorts of things they can say in it, and the ease with which they say it. If I have wronged you or offended our mutual readers, then I > do apologise. Should you ever come up with a valid argument, or even a > chamingly polite discourse, I will have to read it both second hand & quite > by accident. I don't take this argument seriously enough to be offended or to feel wronged. I've never seen quite so petulant a sulk as this. Why don't you stamp your little foot as well and complete the picture. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	Michael Scott
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:50:08 +1300
>From: raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz >Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >Subject: Re: [dq] Languages >Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:00:04 +1300 > >Quoting Michael Scott <big_mac_kd@hotmail.com>: > > > > > Are not the ranks be a reflection of understanding an alien culture. > > It may simply be that we humans (or dwarves, or elves etc) are not > > phyiscally capible of comunicating at rk 10 in a language you need gills >to > > proberly pronounce. > > >There are deaf people whose language skills are highly polished. And yet they proberly would have a hard time making people who can not sign understand them espeacally if there hand gestures are different. The problem would be with the person recieving the message as much as the one trying to make him/herself understood. >Physical impediments might have an impact, of course, but I don't think >what is >permissable is so hard and fast as to be complete denial. > >Jim. At the end of the day it is a fantasy game and we can only come so close to reality before it becomes unplayable. As a sword fighter I can see many unrealistic parts to the weapons and combat in the game but understand conseesions must be made to ensure playability and fairness. Susgestions on making the game more realistic are fine as long as they enhance the fun and don't screw the system. TTFN Michael _________________________________________________________________ Read the latest Hollywood gossip @ http://xtramsn.co.nz/entertainment -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Languages
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:04:11 +1300
Quoting Michael Scott <big_mac_kd@hotmail.com>: > > > > >From: raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz > >Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > >To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > >Subject: Re: [dq] Languages > >Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:00:04 +1300 > > > >Quoting Michael Scott <big_mac_kd@hotmail.com>: > > > > > > > > Are not the ranks be a reflection of understanding an alien culture. > > > It may simply be that we humans (or dwarves, or elves etc) are not > > > phyiscally capible of comunicating at rk 10 in a language you need gills > >to > > > proberly pronounce. > > > > >There are deaf people whose language skills are highly polished. > > And yet they proberly would have a hard time making people who can not sign > understand them espeacally if there hand gestures are different. The problem > would be with the person recieving the message as much as the one trying to > make him/herself understood. No, I didn't mean the use of sign, which most people consider a separate language, or at least a creole. I meant that there ability to understand and use an oral language. Just because you're deaf doesn't mean you can't learn to speak one or to understand what others mean when they use one. I've no doubt it's more difficult, 'though. > > At the end of the day it is a fantasy game and we can only come so close to > reality before it becomes unplayable. As a sword fighter I can see many > unrealistic parts to the weapons and combat in the game but understand > conseesions must be made to ensure playability and fairness. > > Susgestions on making the game more realistic are fine as long as they > enhance the fun and don't screw the system. Varying ranks for languages based on some weird notion that some language is more or less capable of expressing 'elevated' concepts are crap. Language is at the root of the way we play the game, because ultimately it's about the way the information reaches the player from the DM. Jim -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --