Messages for 15 March 2006

Subject	Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:57:47 +1300
------=_Part_77_3361397.1142373467752 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/14/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > > So, you would prefer to leave a version that is known to be more flawed i= n > the > game than one that most people think is less flawed because you're afraid > it > might turn into the final version? A compromise --perhaps a bit silly but it might ally any concerns about 21.= 4or 2.1.5 being seen as official -- remove Rune altogether from the next rulebook printing and make playtest copies of 2.1.4 (or 5) easily / readily available. Cheers, Martin PS: Just to clarify/confirm: my preference is to dump the old Rune and no longer allow it / play it. ------=_Part_77_3361397.1142373467752 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/14/06, <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;">So, you wo= uld prefer to leave a version that is known to be more flawed in the<br>gam= e than one that most people think is less flawed because you're afraid it <br>might turn into the final version?</blockquote><div><br>A compromise --= perhaps a bit silly but it might ally any concerns about 21.4 or 2.1.5 bein= g seen as official -- remove Rune altogether from the next rulebook printin= g and make playtest copies of=20 2.1.4 (or 5) easily / readily available.<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br><br>PS= : Just to clarify/confirm: my preference is to dump the old Rune and no lon= ger allow it / play it.<br></div></div><br> ------=_Part_77_3361397.1142373467752-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:11:54 +1300 (NZDT)
In essense, yes. But my first preference is now: ...remove the college from the rules and leave a placeholder stating 'The college is undergoing a rewrite and playtest, refer to the Wiki for the latest version.' > So, you would prefer to leave a version that is known to be more flawed in the game than one > that most people think is less flawed because you're afraid it might turn into the final > version? > > Jim. > > Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: > >> I haven't gone through Rune 2.1.4 in detail, but I believe from comments that it has less >> issues >> than the version in the 2004 Rules but it still has issues. >> >> I think we should leave the old broken one in until we have a version that is fixed and >> tested. >> >> Otherwise what will happen is that the version that goes in will become the final version by >> default. >> >> Thinking further about it, I would prefer to remove the college from the rules and leave a >> placeholder stating 'The college is undergoing a rewrite and playtest, refer to the Wiki for >> the >> latest version.' >> >> Cheers, Stephen. >> >> >> > This was such a nested email, I couldn't follow all of it. >> > >> > Which way are you jumping? I don't need to know why, I don't think. >> > >> > Jim. >> > >> > Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: >> > >> >> Our process is that the accepted rules are in the Rulebook. Playtest >> stuff isn't. >> >> >> >> But Rune is broken, the process around the development of Rune has broken >> down several times, >> >> the >> >> new version is broken (presumably less than the old). So breaking our >> standard process fits >> >> in >> >> fairly well. >> >> >> >> Old rune is a pain in terms of paperwork but at least its issues are known >> and can be worked >> >> around. >> >> Until we have a new tested and working version, I would prefer to stick >> with the devil we >> >> know. >> >> >> >> Cheers, Stephen. >> >> >> >> Errol Cavit said: >> >> > The design notes on the page below are: >> >> > >> >> > March 2006 >> >> > The stop play on Rune Mages is being lifted. >> >> > >> >> > Jono Bean hosted a meeting of current rune mages (except Chris >> Caulfield) >> >> at his place to gain >> >> > agreement on which version of Rune should be in place test. People at >> the >> >> meeting where: Kelsie >> >> > McArthur, Michael Haycock (Surfboard), Dean Ellis, Julia McSpadden, and >> >> Jonathan McSpadden. >> >> > >> >> > Jono Bean is the currently driving this forward (because others do not >> want >> >> to). >> >> > Kelsie took notes of changes that are needed to 2.1.4 of Rune. It was >> agreed that 2.1.4 >> >> would be the standard version in 'playtest'. >> >> Version 3.0 is intended >> >> > to be a major re-write. >> >> > A re-worked 2.1.5 will be out shortly and another meeting is planned. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Given this, would it be most useful to use the 2.1.4 (or perhaps 2.1.5) >> >> version in the June 2006 >> >> > Rulebook? >> >> > I'm thinking if the old version is not used by any PCs, and was put on >> hold >> >> partially because it >> >> > did bad things to the campaign, is there any value in including it? Will >> >> 2.1.4 will give new >> >> > players and GMs a better feel of what is likely to result? >> >> > >> >> > Cheers >> >> > Errol >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: Jonathan Bean - TME [mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz] >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:52 >> >> >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >> >> >> Subject: [dq] Rune 2.1.4 meeting >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> >> >> Results of some of the people working on Rune has been added to the wiki at >> >> >> the following URL: >> >> >> http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Rune_College_by >> _Ross_Alexande >> >> >> r#Review_Notes >> >> >> >> >> >> If you are interested in this and wish to come to the next meeting please >> >> >> contact me directly. >> >> >> Thanks in advance, >> >> >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan Bean >> >> >> Business Development Manager >> >> >> TME -it's all about time >> >> >> NZ Toll Free 0800 55 33 66 >> >> >> Aust Toll Free 1800 30 51 75 >> >> >> 021 173 4060 www.tme.co.nz >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- >> >> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- >> > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:27:29 +1300
As I understand it, the people who are doing the playtest need to know which version of the rules they are playtesting, as do the people who are DMing them. How, then, do you propose that they might work out which rules they are playing to? Telepathy? Jim. Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: > > In essense, yes. > > But my first preference is now: > ...remove the college from the rules and leave a placeholder stating 'The > college is undergoing a > rewrite and playtest, refer to the Wiki for the latest version.' > > > > So, you would prefer to leave a version that is known to be more flawed in > the game than one > > that most people think is less flawed because you're afraid it might turn > into the final > > version? > > > > Jim. > > > > Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: > > > >> I haven't gone through Rune 2.1.4 in detail, but I believe from comments > that it has less > >> issues > >> than the version in the 2004 Rules but it still has issues. > >> > >> I think we should leave the old broken one in until we have a version that > is fixed and > >> tested. > >> > >> Otherwise what will happen is that the version that goes in will become > the final version by > >> default. > >> > >> Thinking further about it, I would prefer to remove the college from the > rules and leave a > >> placeholder stating 'The college is undergoing a rewrite and playtest, > refer to the Wiki for > >> the > >> latest version.' > >> > >> Cheers, Stephen. > >> > >> > >> > This was such a nested email, I couldn't follow all of it. > >> > > >> > Which way are you jumping? I don't need to know why, I don't think. > >> > > >> > Jim. > >> > > >> > Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: > >> > > >> >> Our process is that the accepted rules are in the Rulebook. Playtest > >> stuff isn't. > >> >> > >> >> But Rune is broken, the process around the development of Rune has > broken > >> down several times, > >> >> the > >> >> new version is broken (presumably less than the old). So breaking our > >> standard process fits > >> >> in > >> >> fairly well. > >> >> > >> >> Old rune is a pain in terms of paperwork but at least its issues are > known > >> and can be worked > >> >> around. > >> >> Until we have a new tested and working version, I would prefer to stick > >> with the devil we > >> >> know. > >> >> > >> >> Cheers, Stephen. > >> >> > >> >> Errol Cavit said: > >> >> > The design notes on the page below are: > >> >> > > >> >> > March 2006 > >> >> > The stop play on Rune Mages is being lifted. > >> >> > > >> >> > Jono Bean hosted a meeting of current rune mages (except Chris > >> Caulfield) > >> >> at his place to gain > >> >> > agreement on which version of Rune should be in place test. People at > >> the > >> >> meeting where: Kelsie > >> >> > McArthur, Michael Haycock (Surfboard), Dean Ellis, Julia McSpadden, > and > >> >> Jonathan McSpadden. > >> >> > > >> >> > Jono Bean is the currently driving this forward (because others do > not > >> want > >> >> to). > >> >> > Kelsie took notes of changes that are needed to 2.1.4 of Rune. It was > >> agreed that 2.1.4 > >> >> would be the standard version in 'playtest'. > >> >> Version 3.0 is intended > >> >> > to be a major re-write. > >> >> > A re-worked 2.1.5 will be out shortly and another meeting is planned. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Given this, would it be most useful to use the 2.1.4 (or perhaps > 2.1.5) > >> >> version in the June 2006 > >> >> > Rulebook? > >> >> > I'm thinking if the old version is not used by any PCs, and was put > on > >> hold > >> >> partially because it > >> >> > did bad things to the campaign, is there any value in including it? > Will > >> >> 2.1.4 will give new > >> >> > players and GMs a better feel of what is likely to result? > >> >> > > >> >> > Cheers > >> >> > Errol > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> >> From: Jonathan Bean - TME [mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz] > >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:52 > >> >> >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > >> >> >> Subject: [dq] Rune 2.1.4 meeting > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Hi all, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Results of some of the people working on Rune has been added to the > wiki at > >> >> >> the following URL: > >> >> >> http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Rune_College_by > >> _Ross_Alexande > >> >> >> r#Review_Notes > >> >> >> > >> >> >> If you are interested in this and wish to come to the next meeting > please > >> >> >> contact me directly. > >> >> >> Thanks in advance, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Kind regards, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Jonathan Bean > >> >> >> Business Development Manager > >> >> >> TME -it's all about time > >> >> >> NZ Toll Free 0800 55 33 66 > >> >> >> Aust Toll Free 1800 30 51 75 > >> >> >> 021 173 4060 www.tme.co.nz > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > >> > >> > >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > >> > > > > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:39:11 +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_01C647C0.7F013E9E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" I expect the primary playtest/development version to change rather more often than the rulebook is published. We don't normally put playtest versions in the rulebook. The situation with Rune is not normal (as already mentioned), hence me asking the question. If I had realised that there was a version agreed between the play-testers, I would have asked the question earlier. Telepathy is not required. I imagine email, looking at the Wiki, phone calls and face-to-face conversations with Jono (who is co-ordinating the Rune College process) will provide the needed communication for those playing and GMing Rune mages. Somewhat like what happened with Spy 2.0 (less the Wiki), for instance, or Namer 2.0. Cheers Errol > -----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: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 12:27 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook? > > > As I understand it, the people who are doing the playtest > need to know which > version of the rules they are playtesting, as do the people > who are DMing them. > > How, then, do you propose that they might work out which > rules they are playing > to? > > Telepathy? > > Jim. > > Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: > > > > > In essense, yes. > > > > But my first preference is now: > > ...remove the college from the rules and leave a > placeholder stating 'The > > college is undergoing a > > rewrite and playtest, refer to the Wiki for the latest version.' > > > > > > > So, you would prefer to leave a version that is known to > be more flawed in > > the game than one > > > that most people think is less flawed because you're > afraid it might turn > > into the final > > > version? > > > > > > Jim. > > > > > > Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: > > > > > >> I haven't gone through Rune 2.1.4 in detail, but I > believe from comments > > that it has less > > >> issues > > >> than the version in the 2004 Rules but it still has issues. > > >> > > >> I think we should leave the old broken one in until we > have a version that > > is fixed and > > >> tested. > > >> > > >> Otherwise what will happen is that the version that goes > in will become > > the final version by > > >> default. > > >> > > >> Thinking further about it, I would prefer to remove the > college from the > > rules and leave a > > >> placeholder stating 'The college is undergoing a rewrite > and playtest, > > refer to the Wiki for > > >> the > > >> latest version.' > > >> > > >> Cheers, Stephen. > > >> > > >> > > >> > This was such a nested email, I couldn't follow all of it. > > >> > > > >> > Which way are you jumping? I don't need to know why, I > don't think. > > >> > > > >> > Jim. > > >> > > > >> > Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: > > >> > > > >> >> Our process is that the accepted rules are in the > Rulebook. Playtest > > >> stuff isn't. > > >> >> > > >> >> But Rune is broken, the process around the > development of Rune has > > broken > > >> down several times, > > >> >> the > > >> >> new version is broken (presumably less than the old). > So breaking our > > >> standard process fits > > >> >> in > > >> >> fairly well. > > >> >> > > >> >> Old rune is a pain in terms of paperwork but at least > its issues are > > known > > >> and can be worked > > >> >> around. > > >> >> Until we have a new tested and working version, I > would prefer to stick > > >> with the devil we > > >> >> know. > > >> >> > > >> >> Cheers, Stephen. > > >> >> > > >> >> Errol Cavit said: > > >> >> > The design notes on the page below are: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > March 2006 > > >> >> > The stop play on Rune Mages is being lifted. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Jono Bean hosted a meeting of current rune mages > (except Chris > > >> Caulfield) > > >> >> at his place to gain > > >> >> > agreement on which version of Rune should be in > place test. People at > > >> the > > >> >> meeting where: Kelsie > > >> >> > McArthur, Michael Haycock (Surfboard), Dean Ellis, > Julia McSpadden, > > and > > >> >> Jonathan McSpadden. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Jono Bean is the currently driving this forward > (because others do > > not > > >> want > > >> >> to). > > >> >> > Kelsie took notes of changes that are needed to > 2.1.4 of Rune. It was > > >> agreed that 2.1.4 > > >> >> would be the standard version in 'playtest'. > > >> >> Version 3.0 is intended > > >> >> > to be a major re-write. > > >> >> > A re-worked 2.1.5 will be out shortly and another > meeting is planned. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Given this, would it be most useful to use the > 2.1.4 (or perhaps > > 2.1.5) > > >> >> version in the June 2006 > > >> >> > Rulebook? > > >> >> > I'm thinking if the old version is not used by any > PCs, and was put > > on > > >> hold > > >> >> partially because it > > >> >> > did bad things to the campaign, is there any value > in including it? > > Will > > >> >> 2.1.4 will give new > > >> >> > players and GMs a better feel of what is likely to result? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Cheers > > >> >> > Errol > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- > > >> >> >> From: Jonathan Bean - TME [mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz] > > >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:52 > > >> >> >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > >> >> >> Subject: [dq] Rune 2.1.4 meeting > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Hi all, > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Results of some of the people working on Rune has > been added to the > > wiki at > > >> >> >> the following URL: > > >> >> >> http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Rune_College_by > >> _Ross_Alexande > >> >> >> r#Review_Notes > >> >> >> > >> >> >> If you are interested in this and wish to come to the next meeting > please > >> >> >> contact me directly. > >> >> >> Thanks in advance, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Kind regards, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Jonathan Bean > >> >> >> Business Development Manager > >> >> >> TME -it's all about time > >> >> >> NZ Toll Free 0800 55 33 66 > >> >> >> Aust Toll Free 1800 30 51 75 > >> >> >> 021 173 4060 www.tme.co.nz > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > >> > >> > >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > >> > > > > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C647C0.7F013E9E 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] Which Rune version for rulebook?</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I expect the primary playtest/development version to = change rather more often than the rulebook is published. We don't = normally put playtest versions in the rulebook.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The situation with Rune is not normal (as already = mentioned), hence me asking the question. If I had realised that there = was a version agreed between the play-testers, I would have asked the = question earlier.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Telepathy is not required. I imagine email, looking = at the Wiki, phone calls and face-to-face conversations with Jono (who = is co-ordinating the Rune College process) will provide the needed = communication for those playing and GMing Rune mages. Somewhat like = what happened with Spy 2.0 (less the Wiki), for instance, or Namer = 2.0.</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: 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>> raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 12:27</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for = rulebook?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> As I understand it, the people who are doing = the playtest </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> need to know which</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> version of the rules they are playtesting, as = do the people </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> who are DMing them.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> How, then, do you propose that they might work = out which </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> rules they are playing</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> to?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Telepathy?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Jim.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Quoting Stephen Martin = <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > In essense, yes.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > But my first preference is now:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > ...remove the college from the rules and = leave a </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> placeholder stating 'The</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > college is undergoing a</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > rewrite and playtest, refer to the Wiki = for the latest version.'</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > So, you would prefer to leave a = version that is known to </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> be more flawed in</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > the game than one</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > that most people think is less flawed = because you're </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> afraid it might turn</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > into the final</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > version?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > Jim.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > Quoting Stephen Martin = <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> I haven't gone through Rune 2.1.4 = in detail, but I </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> believe from comments</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > that it has less</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> issues</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> than the version in the 2004 = Rules but it still has issues.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> I think we should leave the old = broken one in until we </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> have a version that</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > is fixed and</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> tested.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> Otherwise what will happen is = that the version that goes </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> in will become</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > the final version by</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> default.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> Thinking further about it, I = would prefer to remove the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> college from the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > rules and leave a</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> placeholder stating 'The college = is undergoing a rewrite </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> and playtest,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > refer to the Wiki for</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> latest version.'</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> Cheers, Stephen.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> > This was such a nested = email, I couldn't follow all of it.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> > Which way are you jumping? I = don't need to know why, I </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> don't think.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> > Jim.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> > Quoting Stephen Martin = <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> Our process is that the = accepted rules are in the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Rulebook.  Playtest</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> stuff isn't.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> But Rune is broken, the = process around the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> development of Rune has</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > broken</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> down several times,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> new version is broken = (presumably less than the old). </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>  So breaking our</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> standard process fits</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> in</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> fairly well.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> Old rune is a pain in = terms of paperwork but at least </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> its issues are</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > known</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> and can be worked</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> around.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> Until we have a new = tested and working version, I </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> would prefer to stick</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> with the devil we</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> know.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> Cheers, Stephen.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> Errol Cavit said:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > The design notes on = the page below are:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > March 2006</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > The stop play on = Rune Mages is being lifted.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > Jono Bean hosted a = meeting of current rune mages </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> (except Chris</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> Caulfield)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> at his place to = gain</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > agreement on which = version of Rune should be in </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> place test. People at</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> meeting where: = Kelsie</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > McArthur, Michael = Haycock (Surfboard), Dean Ellis, </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Julia McSpadden,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > and</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> Jonathan = McSpadden.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > Jono Bean is the = currently driving this forward </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> (because others do</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > not</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> want</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> to).</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > Kelsie took notes = of changes that are needed to </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 2.1.4 of Rune. It was</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> agreed that 2.1.4</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> would be the standard = version in 'playtest'.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> Version 3.0 is = intended</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > to be a major = re-write.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > A re-worked 2.1.5 = will be out shortly and another </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> meeting is planned.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > Given this, would = it be most useful to use the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 2.1.4 (or perhaps</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > 2.1.5)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> version in the June = 2006</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > Rulebook?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > I'm thinking if the = old version is not used by any </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> PCs, and was put</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > on</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> hold</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> partially because = it</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > did bad things to = the campaign, is there any value </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> in including it?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Will</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> 2.1.4 will give = new</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > players and GMs a = better feel of what is likely to result?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> > Errol</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> >> -----Original = Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> >> From: Jonathan = Bean - TME [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz</A>]</FONT>= <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, = 14 March 2006 13:52</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> >> To: = dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> >> Subject: [dq] = Rune 2.1.4 meeting</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> >> Hi all,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> >> Results of some = of the people working on Rune has </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> been added to the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > wiki at</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> >> the following = URL:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > >> >> >> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2><A = HREF=3D"http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Rune_College_by" = TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Rune_Co= llege_by</A></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> _Ross_Alexande</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> >> >> = r#Review_Notes</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> >> >> If you are = interested in this and wish to come to the next meeting</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> please</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> >> >> contact me = directly.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> >> >> Thanks in = advance,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> >> >> Kind regards,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> >> >> Jonathan Bean</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> >> >> Business Development = Manager</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> >> >> TME -it's all about = time</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> >> >> NZ Toll Free 0800 55 = 33 66</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> >> >> Aust Toll Free 1800 = 30 51 75</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> >> >> >> 021 173 4060 = www.tme.co.nz</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> <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>> >> -- 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> <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> <BR> <P><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> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C647C0.7F013E9E-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
From
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:30:44 +1300
nah, voice. you ask them 'what version are you playing, and bring a copy along with you'. this inter-personal approach has worked well for several years (for Rune) and millenia on a whole host of less relevant topics. Ian > As I understand it, the people who are doing the playtest need to know which > version of the rules they are playtesting, as do the people who are DMing them. > > How, then, do you propose that they might work out which rules they are playing > to? > > Telepathy? > > Jim. > > Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: > > > > > In essense, yes. > > > > But my first preference is now: > > ...remove the college from the rules and leave a placeholder stating 'The > > college is undergoing a > > rewrite and playtest, refer to the Wiki for the latest version.' > > > > > > > So, you would prefer to leave a version that is known to be more flawed in > > the game than one > > > that most people think is less flawed because you're afraid it might turn > > into the final > > > version? > > > > > > Jim. > > > > > > Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: > > > > > >> I haven't gone through Rune 2.1.4 in detail, but I believe from comments > > that it has less > > >> issues > > >> than the version in the 2004 Rules but it still has issues. > > >> > > >> I think we should leave the old broken one in until we have a version that > > is fixed and > > >> tested. > > >> > > >> Otherwise what will happen is that the version that goes in will become > > the final version by > > >> default. > > >> > > >> Thinking further about it, I would prefer to remove the college from the > > rules and leave a > > >> placeholder stating 'The college is undergoing a rewrite and playtest, > > refer to the Wiki for > > >> the > > >> latest version.' > > >> > > >> Cheers, Stephen. > > >> > > >> > > >> > This was such a nested email, I couldn't follow all of it. > > >> > > > >> > Which way are you jumping? I don't need to know why, I don't think. > > >> > > > >> > Jim. > > >> > > > >> > Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: > > >> > > > >> >> Our process is that the accepted rules are in the Rulebook. Playtest > > >> stuff isn't. > > >> >> > > >> >> But Rune is broken, the process around the development of Rune has > > broken > > >> down several times, > > >> >> the > > >> >> new version is broken (presumably less than the old). So breaking our > > >> standard process fits > > >> >> in > > >> >> fairly well. > > >> >> > > >> >> Old rune is a pain in terms of paperwork but at least its issues are > > known > > >> and can be worked > > >> >> around. > > >> >> Until we have a new tested and working version, I would prefer to stick > > >> with the devil we > > >> >> know. > > >> >> > > >> >> Cheers, Stephen. > > >> >> > > >> >> Errol Cavit said: > > >> >> > The design notes on the page below are: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > March 2006 > > >> >> > The stop play on Rune Mages is being lifted. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Jono Bean hosted a meeting of current rune mages (except Chris > > >> Caulfield) > > >> >> at his place to gain > > >> >> > agreement on which version of Rune should be in place test. People at > > >> the > > >> >> meeting where: Kelsie > > >> >> > McArthur, Michael Haycock (Surfboard), Dean Ellis, Julia McSpadden, > > and > > >> >> Jonathan McSpadden. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Jono Bean is the currently driving this forward (because others do > > not > > >> want > > >> >> to). > > >> >> > Kelsie took notes of changes that are needed to 2.1.4 of Rune. It was > > >> agreed that 2.1.4 > > >> >> would be the standard version in 'playtest'. > > >> >> Version 3.0 is intended > > >> >> > to be a major re-write. > > >> >> > A re-worked 2.1.5 will be out shortly and another meeting is planned. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Given this, would it be most useful to use the 2.1.4 (or perhaps > > 2.1.5) > > >> >> version in the June 2006 > > >> >> > Rulebook? > > >> >> > I'm thinking if the old version is not used by any PCs, and was put > > on > > >> hold > > >> >> partially because it > > >> >> > did bad things to the campaign, is there any value in including it? > > Will > > >> >> 2.1.4 will give new > > >> >> > players and GMs a better feel of what is likely to result? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Cheers > > >> >> > Errol > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- > > >> >> >> From: Jonathan Bean - TME [mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz] > > >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:52 > > >> >> >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > >> >> >> Subject: [dq] Rune 2.1.4 meeting > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Hi all, > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Results of some of the people working on Rune has been added to the > > wiki at > > >> >> >> the following URL: > > >> >> >> http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Rune_College_by > > >> _Ross_Alexande > > >> >> >> r#Review_Notes > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> If you are interested in this and wish to come to the next meeting > > please > > >> >> >> contact me directly. > > >> >> >> Thanks in advance, > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Kind regards, > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Jonathan Bean > > >> >> >> Business Development Manager > > >> >> >> TME -it's all about time > > >> >> >> NZ Toll Free 0800 55 33 66 > > >> >> >> Aust Toll Free 1800 30 51 75 > > >> >> >> 021 173 4060 www.tme.co.nz > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > > >> > > >> > > >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > > > > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > > > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 14:51:32 +1300 (NZDT)
I prefer pyrokinesis (range touch, requires a small rune wand with a red tip). Burn all versions that people turn up with that you don't want to play. > > nah, voice. you ask them 'what version are you playing, and bring a copy along with you'. > > this inter-personal approach has worked well for several years (for Rune) and millenia on a > whole host of less relevant topics. > > Ian > >> As I understand it, the people who are doing the playtest need to know which version of the >> rules they are playtesting, as do the people who are DMing them. >> >> How, then, do you propose that they might work out which rules they are playing to? >> >> Telepathy? >> >> Jim. >> >> Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: >> >> > >> > In essense, yes. >> > >> > But my first preference is now: >> > ...remove the college from the rules and leave a placeholder stating 'The college is >> undergoing a >> > rewrite and playtest, refer to the Wiki for the latest version.' >> > >> > >> > > So, you would prefer to leave a version that is known to be more flawed in >> > the game than one >> > > that most people think is less flawed because you're afraid it might turn >> > into the final >> > > version? >> > > >> > > Jim. >> > > >> > > Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: >> > > >> > >> I haven't gone through Rune 2.1.4 in detail, but I believe from comments >> > that it has less >> > >> issues >> > >> than the version in the 2004 Rules but it still has issues. >> > >> >> > >> I think we should leave the old broken one in until we have a version that >> > is fixed and >> > >> tested. >> > >> >> > >> Otherwise what will happen is that the version that goes in will become >> > the final version by >> > >> default. >> > >> >> > >> Thinking further about it, I would prefer to remove the college from the >> > rules and leave a >> > >> placeholder stating 'The college is undergoing a rewrite and playtest, >> > refer to the Wiki for >> > >> the >> > >> latest version.' >> > >> >> > >> Cheers, Stephen. >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > This was such a nested email, I couldn't follow all of it. >> > >> > >> > >> > Which way are you jumping? I don't need to know why, I don't think. >> > >> > >> > >> > Jim. >> > >> > >> > >> > Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: >> > >> > >> > >> >> Our process is that the accepted rules are in the Rulebook. Playtest >> > >> stuff isn't. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> But Rune is broken, the process around the development of Rune has >> > broken >> > >> down several times, >> > >> >> the >> > >> >> new version is broken (presumably less than the old). So breaking our >> > >> standard process fits >> > >> >> in >> > >> >> fairly well. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Old rune is a pain in terms of paperwork but at least its issues are >> > known >> > >> and can be worked >> > >> >> around. >> > >> >> Until we have a new tested and working version, I would prefer to stick >> > >> with the devil we >> > >> >> know. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Cheers, Stephen. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Errol Cavit said: >> > >> >> > The design notes on the page below are: >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > March 2006 >> > >> >> > The stop play on Rune Mages is being lifted. >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > Jono Bean hosted a meeting of current rune mages (except Chris >> > >> Caulfield) >> > >> >> at his place to gain >> > >> >> > agreement on which version of Rune should be in place test. People at >> > >> the >> > >> >> meeting where: Kelsie >> > >> >> > McArthur, Michael Haycock (Surfboard), Dean Ellis, Julia McSpadden, >> > and >> > >> >> Jonathan McSpadden. >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > Jono Bean is the currently driving this forward (because others do >> > not >> > >> want >> > >> >> to). >> > >> >> > Kelsie took notes of changes that are needed to 2.1.4 of Rune. It was >> > >> agreed that 2.1.4 >> > >> >> would be the standard version in 'playtest'. >> > >> >> Version 3.0 is intended >> > >> >> > to be a major re-write. >> > >> >> > A re-worked 2.1.5 will be out shortly and another meeting is planned. >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > Given this, would it be most useful to use the 2.1.4 (or perhaps >> > 2.1.5) >> > >> >> version in the June 2006 >> > >> >> > Rulebook? >> > >> >> > I'm thinking if the old version is not used by any PCs, and was put >> > on >> > >> hold >> > >> >> partially because it >> > >> >> > did bad things to the campaign, is there any value in including it? >> > Will >> > >> >> 2.1.4 will give new >> > >> >> > players and GMs a better feel of what is likely to result? >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > Cheers >> > >> >> > Errol >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> > >> >> >> From: Jonathan Bean - TME [mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 >> 13:52 >> > >> >> >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >> > >> >> >> Subject: [dq] Rune 2.1.4 meeting >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Hi all, >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Results of some of the people working on Rune has been added to the >> > wiki at >> > >> >> >> the following URL: >> > >> >> >> http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Rune_College_by >> > >> _Ross_Alexande >> > >> >> >> r#Review_Notes >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> If you are interested in this and wish to come to the next meeting >> > please >> > >> >> >> contact me directly. >> > >> >> >> Thanks in advance, >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Kind regards, >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Jonathan Bean >> > >> >> >> Business Development Manager >> > >> >> >> TME -it's all about time >> > >> >> >> NZ Toll Free 0800 55 33 66 >> > >> >> >> Aust Toll Free 1800 30 51 75 >> > >> >> >> 021 173 4060 www.tme.co.nz >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- >> > >> > >> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- >> > >> >> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- >> > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
From	Helen Saggers
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:23:12 +1300
From: "Stephen Martin" < > I prefer pyrokinesis (range touch, requires a small rune wand with a red tip). > Burn all versions that people turn up with that you don't want to play. Apart from the deafness caused by the smoke alarm this is not conducive to incoraging the playing of rune mages with which to test the new version. And will result in the collage being in play test for a further 10 years. Helen -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:06:30 +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_01C647DD.752953A8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > -----Original Message----- > From: Helen Saggers [mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 16:23 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook? > > > From: "Stephen Martin" < > > > I prefer pyrokinesis (range touch, requires a small rune > wand with a red > tip). > > Burn all versions that people turn up with that you don't > want to play. > > Apart from the deafness caused by the smoke alarm this is not > conducive to > incoraging the playing of rune mages with which to test the > new version. And > will result in the collage being in play test for a further 10 years. > Joking aside, if someone GM's response to a given version is "That's broken, and I'm not letting you play it on my game", then that is important feedback. Hopefully more detailed (and constructive) feedback would be forthcoming - except if the version trying to be played is the one that everyone has agreed is seriously broken for the last decade or so. Cheers Errol ------_=_NextPart_001_01C647DD.752953A8 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] Which Rune version for rulebook?</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <BR> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> From: Helen Saggers [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz">mailto:helen@owbn.net.nz</A>]</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 16:23</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for = rulebook?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> From: "Stephen Martin" <</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > I prefer pyrokinesis (range touch, = requires a small rune </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> wand with a red</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> tip).</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Burn all versions that people turn up with = that you don't </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> want to play.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Apart from the deafness caused by the smoke = alarm this is not </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> conducive to</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> incoraging the playing of rune mages with which = to test the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> new version. And</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> will result in the collage being in play test = for a further 10 years.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Joking aside, if someone GM's response to a given = version is "That's broken, and I'm not letting you play it on my = game", then that is important feedback. Hopefully more detailed = (and constructive) feedback would be forthcoming - except if the = version trying to be played is the one that everyone has agreed is = seriously broken for the last decade or so.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C647DD.752953A8-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] Rune version 2.1.4
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:31:22 +1300 (NZDT)
Jono and the Rune working group, Trying to be constructive, I am going through ver 2.1.4 piecemeal while waiting for the hourglass to go away on my paid work. My thoughts and comments are on the discussion page: http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Talk:Rune Can we use http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Rune as the working document? If so, then I'm happy to help with the translation into English too. Cheers, Stephen. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] Light & Dark
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:43:27 +1300 (NZDT)
Reading the Light & Dark spells in Rune I realised that a lot of the issues with the spells go away when they become a circular/spherical shape instead of a number of cubic feet to be shaped in horrendous ways. Also the differentiation between elemental light & dark vs natural light & dark which give Celestials bonuses. Darkness billowing out to fill a spherical volume and casting shadows, light filling and radiating out from a volume. I find these much easier to picture than the current Celestial writeups. How do Celestial advocates feel about yet another change to how light & dark work? Cheers, Stephen. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
From	Jonathan Bean - TME
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:47:06 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C64850.182A0B70 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?You would like me to convey rules to Jim in some form of communication face to face!!! What I would like to see is: Jim could set himself on fire at a few hundred yards away from me and try to send me smoke signals - I would find this would be agreeable. Jono -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of Errol Cavit Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 12:39 p.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook? I expect the primary playtest/development version to change rather more often than the rulebook is published. We don't normally put playtest versions in the rulebook. The situation with Rune is not normal (as already mentioned), hence me asking the question. If I had realised that there was a version agreed between the play-testers, I would have asked the question earlier. Telepathy is not required. I imagine email, looking at the Wiki, phone calls and face-to-face conversations with Jono (who is co-ordinating the Rune College process) will provide the needed communication for those playing and GMing Rune mages. Somewhat like what happened with Spy 2.0 (less the Wiki), for instance, or Namer 2.0. Cheers Errol > -----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: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 12:27 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook? > > > As I understand it, the people who are doing the playtest > need to know which > version of the rules they are playtesting, as do the people > who are DMing them. > > How, then, do you propose that they might work out which > rules they are playing > to? > > Telepathy? > > Jim. > > Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: > > > > > In essense, yes. > > > > But my first preference is now: > > ...remove the college from the rules and leave a > placeholder stating 'The > > college is undergoing a > > rewrite and playtest, refer to the Wiki for the latest version.' > > > > > > > So, you would prefer to leave a version that is known to > be more flawed in > > the game than one > > > that most people think is less flawed because you're > afraid it might turn > > into the final > > > version? > > > > > > Jim. > > > > > > Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: > > > > > >> I haven't gone through Rune 2.1.4 in detail, but I > believe from comments > > that it has less > > >> issues > > >> than the version in the 2004 Rules but it still has issues. > > >> > > >> I think we should leave the old broken one in until we > have a version that > > is fixed and > > >> tested. > > >> > > >> Otherwise what will happen is that the version that goes > in will become > > the final version by > > >> default. > > >> > > >> Thinking further about it, I would prefer to remove the > college from the > > rules and leave a > > >> placeholder stating 'The college is undergoing a rewrite > and playtest, > > refer to the Wiki for > > >> the > > >> latest version.' > > >> > > >> Cheers, Stephen. > > >> > > >> > > >> > This was such a nested email, I couldn't follow all of it. > > >> > > > >> > Which way are you jumping? I don't need to know why, I > don't think. > > >> > > > >> > Jim. > > >> > > > >> > Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: > > >> > > > >> >> Our process is that the accepted rules are in the > Rulebook. Playtest > > >> stuff isn't. > > >> >> > > >> >> But Rune is broken, the process around the > development of Rune has > > broken > > >> down several times, > > >> >> the > > >> >> new version is broken (presumably less than the old). > So breaking our > > >> standard process fits > > >> >> in > > >> >> fairly well. > > >> >> > > >> >> Old rune is a pain in terms of paperwork but at least > its issues are > > known > > >> and can be worked > > >> >> around. > > >> >> Until we have a new tested and working version, I > would prefer to stick > > >> with the devil we > > >> >> know. > > >> >> > > >> >> Cheers, Stephen. > > >> >> > > >> >> Errol Cavit said: > > >> >> > The design notes on the page below are: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > March 2006 > > >> >> > The stop play on Rune Mages is being lifted. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Jono Bean hosted a meeting of current rune mages > (except Chris > > >> Caulfield) > > >> >> at his place to gain > > >> >> > agreement on which version of Rune should be in > place test. People at > > >> the > > >> >> meeting where: Kelsie > > >> >> > McArthur, Michael Haycock (Surfboard), Dean Ellis, > Julia McSpadden, > > and > > >> >> Jonathan McSpadden. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Jono Bean is the currently driving this forward > (because others do > > not > > >> want > > >> >> to). > > >> >> > Kelsie took notes of changes that are needed to > 2.1.4 of Rune. It was > > >> agreed that 2.1.4 > > >> >> would be the standard version in 'playtest'. > > >> >> Version 3.0 is intended > > >> >> > to be a major re-write. > > >> >> > A re-worked 2.1.5 will be out shortly and another > meeting is planned. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Given this, would it be most useful to use the > 2.1.4 (or perhaps > > 2.1.5) > > >> >> version in the June 2006 > > >> >> > Rulebook? > > >> >> > I'm thinking if the old version is not used by any > PCs, and was put > > on > > >> hold > > >> >> partially because it > > >> >> > did bad things to the campaign, is there any value > in including it? > > Will > > >> >> 2.1.4 will give new > > >> >> > players and GMs a better feel of what is likely to result? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Cheers > > >> >> > Errol > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- > > >> >> >> From: Jonathan Bean - TME [mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz] > > >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, 14 March 2006 13:52 > > >> >> >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > >> >> >> Subject: [dq] Rune 2.1.4 meeting > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Hi all, > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Results of some of the people working on Rune has > been added to the > > wiki at > > >> >> >> the following URL: > > >> >> >> http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Rune_College_by > >> _Ross_Alexande > >> >> >> r#Review_Notes > >> >> >> > >> >> >> If you are interested in this and wish to come to the next meeting > please > >> >> >> contact me directly. > >> >> >> Thanks in advance, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Kind regards, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Jonathan Bean > >> >> >> Business Development Manager > >> >> >> TME -it's all about time > >> >> >> NZ Toll Free 0800 55 33 66 > >> >> >> Aust Toll Free 1800 30 51 75 > >> >> >> 021 173 4060 www.tme.co.nz > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > >> > >> > >> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > >> > > > > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C64850.182A0B70 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?</TITLE> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>You would like me to = convey rules to=20 Jim in some form of communication<SPAN class=3D247534503-15032006> face = to=20 face!!!</SPAN></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT><SPAN class=3D247534503-15032006></SPAN><SPAN=20 class=3D247534503-15032006></SPAN><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>W<SPAN=20 class=3D247534503-15032006>hat I would like to see = is:</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20 class=3D247534503-15032006></SPAN><BR>Jim could set himself on fire at a = few=20 hundred yards <SPAN class=3D247534503-15032006>away from me=20 </SPAN>and <SPAN class=3D247534503-15032006>try to </SPAN>send me = smoke=20 signals - <SPAN class=3D247534503-15032006>I would find </SPAN>this = would be=20 agreeable.<BR> <BR>Jono<BR></DIV></FONT></FONT> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px = solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT = face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> = dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20 [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Errol = Cavit<BR><B>Sent:</B>=20 Wednesday, 15 March 2006 12:39 p.m.<BR><B>To:</B>=20 dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Which Rune version for=20 rulebook?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <P><FONT size=3D2>I expect the primary playtest/development version to = change=20 rather more often than the rulebook is published. We don't normally = put=20 playtest versions in the rulebook.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3D2>The situation with Rune is not normal (as already = mentioned),=20 hence me asking the question. If I had realised that there was a = version=20 agreed between the play-testers, I would have asked the question=20 earlier.</FONT></P> <P><FONT size=3D2>Telepathy is not required. I imagine email, looking = at the=20 Wiki, phone calls and face-to-face conversations with Jono (who is=20 co-ordinating the Rune College process) will provide the needed = communication=20 for those playing and GMing Rune mages. Somewhat like what happened = with Spy=20 2.0 (less the Wiki), for instance, or Namer 2.0.</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>>=20 From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A=20 = href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]On= Behalf=20 Of</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 12:27</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] = Which Rune=20 version for rulebook?</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> As I understand it, the = people who=20 are doing the playtest </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> need to know = which</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> version of the rules they are playtesting, as = do the=20 people </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> who are DMing them.</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> How, then, do you propose = that they=20 might work out which </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> rules they are=20 playing</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> to?</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> Telepathy?</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> Jim.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>>=20 </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> Quoting Stephen Martin=20 <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = > In=20 essense, yes.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 > But my first preference is now:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = >=20 ...remove the college from the rules and leave a </FONT><BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 placeholder stating 'The</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > college = is=20 undergoing a</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > rewrite and playtest, = refer to=20 the Wiki for the latest version.'</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = ></FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > > = So, you=20 would prefer to leave a version that is known to </FONT><BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 be more flawed in</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > the game than = one</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > > that most people think is less = flawed because=20 you're </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> afraid it might turn</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > into the final</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > = >=20 version?</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > ></FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 > > Jim.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > ></FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > > Quoting Stephen Martin=20 <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = >=20 ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> I haven't gone = through Rune=20 2.1.4 in detail, but I </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> believe from=20 comments</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > that it has less</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > >> issues</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > = >>=20 than the version in the 2004 Rules but it still has issues.</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > >></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > = >> I think=20 we should leave the old broken one in until we </FONT><BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 have a version that</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > is fixed = and</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> tested.</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> >=20 >></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> Otherwise what = will happen=20 is that the version that goes </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> in will=20 become</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > the final version by</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > >> default.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = >=20 >></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> Thinking further = about it,=20 I would prefer to remove the </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> college = from=20 the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > rules and leave a</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > >> placeholder stating 'The college is = undergoing a=20 rewrite </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> and playtest,</FONT> <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > refer to the Wiki for</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> >=20 >> the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> latest=20 version.'</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >></FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > >> Cheers, Stephen.</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> >=20 >></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >></FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> > >> > This was such a nested email, I = couldn't follow=20 all of it.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> ></FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > >> > Which way are you jumping? I don't = need to know=20 why, I </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> don't think.</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 > >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> > = Jim.</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> >=20 >> > Quoting Stephen Martin=20 <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = >=20 >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> = Our process=20 is that the accepted rules are in the </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>>=20 Rulebook.  Playtest</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> = stuff=20 isn't.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >></FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > >> >> But Rune is broken, the process = around the=20 </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> development of Rune has</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > broken</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> = down=20 several times,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> = the</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> new version is broken = (presumably=20 less than the old). </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>>  So breaking = our</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> standard process fits</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > >> >> in</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = >=20 >> >> fairly well.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > = >>=20 >></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> Old = rune is a=20 pain in terms of paperwork but at least </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> = its=20 issues are</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > known</FONT> <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > >> and can be worked</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> >=20 >> >> around.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> = >>=20 Until we have a new tested and working version, I </FONT><BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 would prefer to stick</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> = with the=20 devil we</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> = know.</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> >=20 >> >> Cheers, Stephen.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > = >>=20 >></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> Errol = Cavit=20 said:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> > The = design=20 notes on the page below are:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > = >>=20 >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> = > March=20 2006</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> > The = stop play on=20 Rune Mages is being lifted.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > = >>=20 >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> = > Jono=20 Bean hosted a meeting of current rune mages </FONT><BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 (except Chris</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> = Caulfield)</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> at his place to = gain</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> > agreement on which = version=20 of Rune should be in </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> place test. People = at</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> the</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> >=20 >> >> meeting where: Kelsie</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = >=20 >> >> > McArthur, Michael Haycock (Surfboard), Dean = Ellis,=20 </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> Julia McSpadden,</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 > and</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> = Jonathan=20 McSpadden.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> = ></FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> > Jono Bean is the = currently=20 driving this forward </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> (because others = do</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > not</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > = >>=20 want</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> to).</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > >> >> > Kelsie took notes of changes = that are=20 needed to </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> 2.1.4 of Rune. It was</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > >> agreed that 2.1.4</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> >=20 >> >> would be the standard version in 'playtest'.</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> Version 3.0 is = intended</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> > to be a major=20 re-write.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> > A = re-worked=20 2.1.5 will be out shortly and another </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> = meeting is=20 planned.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> = ></FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 > >> >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > = >>=20 >> > Given this, would it be most useful to use the = </FONT><BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> 2.1.4 (or perhaps</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > = 2.1.5)</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> version in the June = 2006</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> > Rulebook?</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > >> >> > I'm thinking if the old = version is not=20 used by any </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> PCs, and was put</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > on</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> = hold</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> partially because = it</FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> > did bad things to = the=20 campaign, is there any value </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> in = including=20 it?</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > Will</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> >=20 >> >> 2.1.4 will give new</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = >=20 >> >> > players and GMs a better feel of what is likely = to=20 result?</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> = ></FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> > Cheers</FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > >> >> > Errol</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 > >> >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > = >>=20 >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> = ></FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> >> -----Original=20 Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> = >>=20 From: Jonathan Bean - TME [<A=20 = href=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz</A>]</FONT> = <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, = 14 March=20 2006 13:52</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> = >> To:=20 dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> = >>=20 Subject: [dq] Rune 2.1.4 meeting</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > = >>=20 >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> = >>=20 >></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> = >> Hi=20 all,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> = >></FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > >> >> >> Results of = some of the=20 people working on Rune has </FONT><BR><FONT size=3D2>> been added = to=20 the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> > wiki at</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 > >> >> >> the following URL:</FONT> <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> > >> >> >> </FONT><BR><FONT = size=3D2><A=20 = href=3D"http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Rune_College_by"=20 = target=3D_blank>http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Rune_Colle= ge_by</A></FONT>=20 <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >> _Ross_Alexande</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 >> >> >> r#Review_Notes</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 >> >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >> = >>=20 >> If you are interested in this and wish to come to the next=20 meeting</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> please</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 >> >> >> contact me directly.</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 >> >> >> Thanks in advance,</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 >> >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >> = >>=20 >> Kind regards,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >> = >>=20 >></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >> >> >> = Jonathan=20 Bean</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >> >> >> = Business=20 Development Manager</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >> >> = >>=20 TME -it's all about time</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >> = >>=20 >> NZ Toll Free 0800 55 33 66</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = >>=20 >> >> Aust Toll Free 1800 30 51 75</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 >> >> >> 021 173 4060 www.tme.co.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> >> >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> >>=20 >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >> >> = >> --=20 to unsubscribe notify <A=20 = href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A= >=20 --</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >> >> >></FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> = >>=20 >></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >> >> -- to = unsubscribe=20 notify <A=20 = href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A= >=20 --</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >> >></FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 >> ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >> ></FONT> = <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> >> > -- to unsubscribe notify <A=20 = href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A= >=20 --</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >></FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 >></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >> -- to unsubscribe = notify <A=20 = href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A= >=20 --</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> >></FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>>=20 ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>> > -- to=20 unsubscribe notify <A=20 = href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A= >=20 --</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>></FONT> <BR><FONT = size=3D2>></FONT> <BR><FONT=20 size=3D2>> -- to unsubscribe notify <A=20 = href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A= >=20 --</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3D2>></FONT> </P><BR> <P><FONT size=3D2>-- to unsubscribe notify <A=20 = href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A= >=20 --</FONT> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C64850.182A0B70-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:57:23 +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_01C647E4.90931834 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 > Stephen Martin > Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 16:43 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: [dq] Light & Dark > > > Reading the Light & Dark spells in Rune I realised that a lot > of the issues What issues do you see (boom boom!) > with the spells go > away when they become a circular/spherical shape instead of a > number of cubic feet to be shaped in > horrendous ways. > Also the differentiation between elemental light & dark vs > natural light & dark which give > Celestials bonuses. Actually remove penalties only, an important difference. > > Darkness billowing out to fill a spherical volume and casting > shadows, light filling and radiating > out from a volume. > I find these much easier to picture than the current > Celestial writeups. > > How do Celestial advocates feel about yet another change to > how light & dark work? > You still live in Waterview? I'll be round with a few associates later to give my 'opinion'. More useful response later. But short version is I would have thought that the Celestial version is easier to GM as the effects are pretty much limited to the hexes that the light/dark are in, rather than 'extended beyond the specified range (at naturally reduced levels).' Cheers Errol ------_=_NextPart_001_01C647E4.90931834 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] Light & Dark</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>> Stephen Martin</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 16:43</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: [dq] Light & Dark</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Reading the Light & Dark spells in Rune I = realised that a lot </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> of the issues </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>What issues do you see (boom boom!)</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> with the spells go</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> away when they become a circular/spherical = shape instead of a </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> number of cubic feet to be shaped in</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> horrendous ways.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Also the differentiation between elemental = light & dark vs </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> natural light & dark which give</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Celestials bonuses.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Actually remove penalties only, an important = difference.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Darkness billowing out to fill a spherical = volume and casting </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> shadows, light filling and radiating</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> out from a volume.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> I find these much easier to picture than the = current </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Celestial writeups.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> How do Celestial advocates feel about yet = another change to </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> how light & dark work?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>You still live in Waterview? I'll be round with a few = associates later to give my 'opinion'.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>More useful response later. But short version is I = would have thought that the Celestial version is easier to GM as the = effects are pretty much limited to the hexes that the light/dark are = in, rather than 'extended beyond the specified range (at naturally = reduced levels).'</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C647E4.90931834-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Rune version 2.1.4
From	Jonathan Bean - TME
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:55:09 +1300
Translation is done and we will be handing it back to Rune Players for review. Jono > -----Original Message----- > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of > Stephen Martin > Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 4:31 p.m. > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: [dq] Rune version 2.1.4 > > > Jono and the Rune working group, > > Trying to be constructive, I am going through ver 2.1.4 piecemeal > while waiting for the hourglass > to go away on my paid work. > > My thoughts and comments are on the discussion page: > http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Talk:Rune > > Can we use http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Rune as > the working document? If so, > then I'm happy to help with the translation into English too. > > Cheers, Stephen. > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Rune version 2.1.4
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:08:45 +1300
------=_Part_1141_31635771.1142395725075 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/15/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote: > > Translation is done and we will be handing it back to Rune Players for > review. Hi Jono, Just to confirm (what with a Rune mage in the party an' all) -- this version is designated 2.1.5, it is functionally equivalent to 2.1.4 (just rendered in English), and is the preferred interim version. Yes? Cheers, Martin ------=_Part_1141_31635771.1142395725075 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/15/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Jonathan Bean - TME</b> <<a hr= ef=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">Jonathan@tme.co.nz</a>> wrote:<div><spa= n class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"b= order-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; paddin= g-left: 1ex;"> Translation is done and we will be handing it back to Rune Players for<br>r= eview.</blockquote><div><br>Hi Jono, <br><br>Just  to confirm (what wi= th a Rune mage in the party an' all) -- this version is designated 2.1.5, i= t is functionally equivalent to=20 2.1.4 (just rendered in English), and is the preferred interim version.<br>= <br>Yes?<br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div><br></div><br> ------=_Part_1141_31635771.1142395725075-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Michael Woodhams
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:26:42 +1300
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 16:57, Errol Cavit wrote: > > More useful response later. But short version is I would have thought > that the Celestial version is easier to GM as the effects are pretty > much limited to the hexes that the light/dark are in, rather than > 'extended beyond the specified range (at naturally reduced levels).' > I don't have Celestial on hand to examine. I'd interpret Rune light as simply "Creates a source of light. The light behaves as you'd expect. At high ranks, the light is brighter and the source larger." Plus some rule-of-thumb guidelines as to how bright it is at different ranks. Just apply your real-life experience of small light sources. I remember many years ago on this list trying to understand some fluffy description of darkness (not sure if it was actual rules or a proposal.) E.g. if a wall of darkness doesn't cast a shadow, this implies that your view through the wall is unimpeded. I think what I came up with was that the spell reduced the albedo (reflectivity) of all objects in the area of effect, plus reduced the light output of any light sources. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Rune version 2.1.4
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:28:33 +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_01C647E8.EB86AA36 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" While on the topic, _if_ we point to the rune college in the Wiki from the Rulebook, I'd prefer to give a DQWiki page name that we can be fairly sure will remain valid (and useful). Not sure if we should give the full DQ Wiki url as it may well change over the life of the Rulebook edition. So something like: Warning: Players thinking of taking this college for a Player Character should note that it has been under revision for many years. No details are provided here as the only version in use is being playtested, and is subject to frequent change. Contact the Character Tribunal for advice. For information on the playtest refer to the 'Rune College' page on the DQ Wiki. Note that the 'Rune' page (that Stephen has been 'discussing' on) is currently only linked to from Stephen's user page. The intention is to link to it from 'Proposed Changes' or a 'Rune Playtest' co-ordination page? There are various easy ways to get to the 'Rune' page in the meantime: 1. Enter 'Rune' in the search box on the sidebar and click 'Go' (clicking search is less helpful) 2. Go to the Recent changes page (link in sidebar), and follow the link generated when someone changes the page. 3. follow the link the Stephen gave in his email. A 'Rune' Category would be good, for the Rune mages and the playtest info. I'll try to practice what I preach tonight and tidy up what is in the 'Rules' Category. Cheers Errol > -----Original Message----- > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of > Stephen Martin > Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 16:31 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: [dq] Rune version 2.1.4 > > > Jono and the Rune working group, > > Trying to be constructive, I am going through ver 2.1.4 > piecemeal while waiting for the hourglass > to go away on my paid work. > > My thoughts and comments are on the discussion page: > http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Talk:Rune > > Can we use > http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Rune as the > working document? If so, > then I'm happy to help with the translation into English too. > > Cheers, Stephen. > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C647E8.EB86AA36 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] Rune version 2.1.4</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>While on the topic, _if_ we point to the rune college = in the Wiki from the Rulebook, I'd prefer to give a DQWiki page name = that we can be fairly sure will remain valid (and useful). Not sure if = we should give the full DQ Wiki url as it may well change over the life = of the Rulebook edition. So something like:</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Warning: Players thinking of taking this college for = a Player Character should note that it has been under revision for many = years. No details are provided here as the only version in use is being = playtested, and is subject to frequent change. Contact the Character = Tribunal for advice.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>For information on the playtest refer to the 'Rune = College' page on the DQ Wiki.</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Note that the 'Rune' page (that Stephen has been = 'discussing' on) is currently only linked to from Stephen's user page. = The intention is to link to it from 'Proposed Changes' or a 'Rune = Playtest' co-ordination page?</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>There are various easy ways to get to the 'Rune' page = in the meantime:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>1. Enter 'Rune' in the search box on the sidebar and = click 'Go' (clicking search is less helpful)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>2. Go to the Recent changes page (link in sidebar), = and follow the link generated when someone changes the page.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>3. follow the link the Stephen gave in his = email.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>A 'Rune' Category would be good, for the Rune mages = and the playtest info. I'll try to practice what I preach tonight and = tidy up what is in the 'Rules' Category.</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: 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>> Stephen Martin</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 16:31</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: [dq] Rune version 2.1.4</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Jono and the Rune working group,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Trying to be constructive, I am going through = ver 2.1.4 </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> piecemeal while waiting for the = hourglass</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> to go away on my paid work.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> My thoughts and comments are on the discussion = page:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> <A = HREF=3D"http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Talk:Rune" = TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Talk:Ru= ne</A></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Can we use </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> <A = HREF=3D"http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Rune" = TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Rune</A= > as the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> working document?  If so,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> then I'm happy to help with the translation = into English too.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Cheers, Stephen.</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_01C647E8.EB86AA36-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Rune version 2.1.4
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:47:55 +1300 (NZDT)
'Rune' is part of the Rune, College, and Rules categories already. I have just added content to the Rune category so that it shows up. Cheers, Stephen. Errol Cavit said: > A 'Rune' Category would be good, for the Rune mages and the playtest info. I'll try to practice > what I preach tonight and tidy up what is in the 'Rules' Category. > > Cheers > Errol -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:53:16 +1300
I've always thought it was stupid to have light spells. The current version is 'workable' in a stupid, needlessly different way. I wouldn't mind out of college versions that did this, but as a standard, I see no reason why darkness spells don't shed darkness in the way you expect, and the same with light. The peculiar rationalisation used is a paranoid fear of base chance that really isn't much of a problem if it ever was. Jim. Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: > Reading the Light & Dark spells in Rune I realised that a lot of the issues > with the spells go > away when they become a circular/spherical shape instead of a number of cubic > feet to be shaped in > horrendous ways. > Also the differentiation between elemental light & dark vs natural light & > dark which give > Celestials bonuses. > > Darkness billowing out to fill a spherical volume and casting shadows, light > filling and radiating > out from a volume. > I find these much easier to picture than the current Celestial writeups. > > How do Celestial advocates feel about yet another change to how light & dark > work? > > > Cheers, Stephen. > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:54:32 +1300
Quoting Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>: > RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?You would like me to convey rules > to Jim in some form of communication face to face!!! > What I would like to see is: > > Jim could set himself on fire at a few hundred yards away from me and try to > send me smoke signals - I would find this would be agreeable. I've given up smoking. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark ... Might not have been clear about that one...
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:03:43 +1300
I should have said: I've always thought it was stupid to have light & dark spells that work the way they currently do. Jim -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Clare Baldock
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:13:07 +1300
On 15/03/2006, at 16:43, Stephen Martin wrote: > Darkness billowing out to fill a spherical volume and casting > shadows, light filling and radiating > out from a volume. > I find these much easier to picture than the current Celestial > writeups. > > How do Celestial advocates feel about yet another change to how > light & dark work? Only if they produce a more sensible effect that the current very non- intuitive way that it currently doesn't work. cheers, Clare (main character is a celestial mage) -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 18:45:19 +1300
------=_Part_1305_14978980.1142401519595 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/15/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > > ...I see no reason why darkness spells don't shed darkness in the way you > expect, and > the same with light. Not sure if there is a way I'd expect a Dark spell to work -- simply becaus= e in reality darkness is an absence of light rather than anti-light... but I'= m completely with you on the Light spells acting like normal light sources being desirable. Dark still feels to me like it works better as an area rather than point source, but I agree that the current rules are not good. The peculiar rationalisation used is a paranoid fear of > base chance that really isn't much of a problem if it ever was. Part of the reason that Darkness at least is written the way it is was to prevent using it as a big umbrella, so as to block the sun and create a ver= y large area of darkness with one spell. Making it a simple area of effect o= r a point source would be an alternate way of preventing this. - Martin ------=_Part_1305_14978980.1142401519595 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/15/06, <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;">...I see n= o reason why darkness spells don't shed darkness in the way you expect, and <br>the same with light.</blockquote><div><br> Not sure if there is a way I'd expect a Dark spell to work -- simply because in reality darkness is an absence of light rather than anti-light... but I'm completely with you on the Light spells acting like normal light sources being desirable.<br> <br> Dark still feels to me like it works better as an area rather than point source, but I agree that the current rules are not good.<br> </div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid= rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> The pe= culiar rationalisation used is a paranoid fear of<br>base chance that reall= y isn't much of a problem if it ever was. </blockquote><div><br> Part of the reason that Darkness at least is written the way it is was to prevent using it as a big umbrella, so as to block the sun and create a very large area of darkness with one spell.  Making it a simple area of effect or a point source would be an alternate way of preventing this.<br> <br>  - Martin<br> </div></div><br> ------=_Part_1305_14978980.1142401519595-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] {WikiTech} Rune
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:11:26 +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_01C64818.D231CA72 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Ah, my mistake, I was looking at the Talk page, not the article. However if you click on the Category Rune link on the Rune article you get taken to http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php?title=Category:Rune&action=ed it with your text already entered. I'm guessing the issue is the article and Category title are both 'Rune'? [S/Fx typing and clicking...] Hmm, I added Category Rune to the Ross Alexander Rune page, and linked through to a standard Category page. Still get the edit screen from 'Rune', so we should re-name the current 'Rune' article 'Rune College'? Note 'Earth Magics' seems to work OK as article and category. Also look at Category:College. Mind is organised/named differently from the others. Either approach is probably OK, but the mixture is a bit icky. Hmmm 99 categories, and counting. Cheers Errol > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephenm@castle.pointclark.net] > Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 17:48 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Rune version 2.1.4 > > > 'Rune' is part of the Rune, College, and Rules categories already. > I have just added content to the Rune category so that it shows up. > > Cheers, Stephen. > > Errol Cavit said: > > A 'Rune' Category would be good, for the Rune mages and the > playtest info. I'll try to practice > > what I preach tonight and tidy up what is in the 'Rules' Category. > > > > Cheers > > Errol > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C64818.D231CA72 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] {WikiTech} Rune</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Ah, my mistake, I was looking at the Talk page, not = the article.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>However if you click on the Category Rune link on the = Rune article you get taken to</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2><A = HREF=3D"http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php?title=3DCategory:= Rune&action=3Dedit" = TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php?title=3D= Category:Rune&action=3Dedit</A></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>with your text already entered.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'm guessing the issue is the article and Category = title are both 'Rune'?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>[S/Fx typing and clicking...]</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hmm, I added Category Rune to the Ross Alexander = Rune page, and linked through to a standard Category page. Still get = the edit screen from 'Rune', so we should re-name the current 'Rune' = article 'Rune College'?</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Note 'Earth Magics' seems to work OK as article and = category.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Also look at Category:College. Mind is = organised/named differently from the others. Either approach is = probably OK, but the mixture is a bit icky. Hmmm 99 categories, and = counting.</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: Stephen Martin [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:stephenm@castle.pointclark.net">mailto:stephenm@castle.po= intclark.net</A>]</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 17:48</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] Rune version 2.1.4</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 'Rune' is part of the Rune, College, and Rules = categories already.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> I have just added content to the Rune category = so that it shows up.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Cheers, Stephen.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Errol Cavit said:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > A 'Rune' Category would be good, for the = Rune mages and the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> playtest info. I'll try to practice</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > what I preach tonight and tidy up what is = in the 'Rules' Category.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Errol</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_01C64818.D231CA72-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --