Messages for 16 March 2006

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:02:11 +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_01C6481F.E927EAF2 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 Martin Dickson Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 18:45 To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Light & Dark On 3/15/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> < raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <mailto: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 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. 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 very large area of darkness with one spell. Making it a simple area of effect What do you mean by this? An area (volume) that blocks 60%+ of light from passing through will generate a significant shadow, and lower light levels outside the spell's area. The current Darkness only affects its own area. The fact that it doesn't cast shadows is counter-intuitive (especially at Rank 20), but means you don't have to worry about anything but the targeted area. Don't have to deal with e.g. the interaction of a magical point light source of higher rank at x distance and a natural light source at y distance with the Darkness, and what shadows result. Once I understood how it works (and I appreciate that this can be in issue for a DM who only has to think about it once every year or two) I found that I bugged the GM with irritating questions (that they often didn't really understand the implications of) a lot less than under the old arrangement. This may be a bigger factor for shadow than the other branches? I'm not saying that there isn't a better way overall (how college bonuses work need also to be considered), but there are a number of often conflicting things involved. or a point source would be an alternate way of preventing this. Please expand on this. Like a negative light source? Also note that the bonuses and penalties referred to in the Rune spells are the old-style Celestial modifiers (e.g a distorted shadow edge used to mean something). Cheers Errol (Darien) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6481F.E927EAF2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]<B>On Behalf Of</B> Martin Dickson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, 15 March 2006 18:45<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Light & Dark<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>On 3/15/06, <B class=gmail_sendername><A href="mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</A></B> <<A href="mailto:raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz">raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</A>> wrote: <DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">...I see no 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=gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">The peculiar rationalisation used is a paranoid fear of<BR>base chance that really 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 <SPAN class=531042310-15032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=531042310-15032006></SPAN> </DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><SPAN class=531042310-15032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>What do you mean by this? An area (volume) that blocks 60%+ of light from passing through will generate a significant shadow, and lower light levels outside the spell's area.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=531042310-15032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=531042310-15032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>The current Darkness only affects its own area. The fact that it doesn't cast shadows is counter-intuitive (especially at Rank 20), but means you don't have to worry about anything but the targeted area. Don't have to deal with e.g. the interaction of a magical point light source of higher rank at x distance and a natural light source at y distance with the Darkness, and what shadows result.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=531042310-15032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Once I understood how it works (and I appreciate that this can be in issue for a DM who only has to think about it once every year or two) I found that I bugged the GM with irritating questions (that they often didn't really understand the implications of) a lot less than under the old arrangement. This may be a bigger factor for shadow than the other branches?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=531042310-15032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=531042310-15032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I'm not saying that there isn't a better way overall (how college bonuses work need also to be considered), but there are a number of often conflicting things involved.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid"> <DIV><SPAN class=531042310-15032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=531042310-15032006> </SPAN>or a point source would be an alternate way of preventing this.<BR><BR><SPAN class=531042310-15032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2> </FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><SPAN class=531042310-15032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Please expand on this. Like a negative light source?</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=531042310-15032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=531042310-15032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Also note that the bonuses and penalties referred to in the Rune spells are the old-style Celestial modifiers (e.g a distorted shadow edge used to mean something).</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=531042310-15032006></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=531042310-15032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=531042310-15032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Errol (Darien)</FONT> </SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6481F.E927EAF2-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark - Aside
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:08:55 +1300 (NZDT)
It is obvious how Dark Spells would work in reality, they are simply Dark Suckers set on blow. The research is on the net: http://paul.merton.ox.ac.uk/science/darksucker.html http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Dark+Sucker+Theory Martin Dickson said: > 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 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. > > 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 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. > > - Martin -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:14:59 +1300
Any spell description that you cannot read and understand inside of five minutes is a failure. Same for items and abilities. If it your experience that a lot of DMs don't understand how it works, and it is certainly mine, then it is a DUMB way of doing it. It doesn't matter who elegant and beautiful the rationalisation is. Look at it this way. If the way we currently run light and darkness weren't used, and a player came up to a DM with an item or an ability that created the same kind of effect as light and darkness spells currently do, would you expect the DM to understand how to play it? I certainly wouldn't. And, I would be getting pretty bloody grumpy about the process. I would be on the phone to the DM who wrote it up, I imagine. Jim. Quoting Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz>: > 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 > > > What do you mean by this? An area (volume) that blocks 60%+ of light from > passing through will generate a significant shadow, and lower light levels > outside the spell's area. Not under the current interpretation. It will reduce the light level inside the area of effect. Then, once the light 'emerges' from the area of magical darkness, it will return to whatever the ambient light level would be if the darkness effect weren't there. > > The current Darkness only affects its own area. The fact that it doesn't > cast shadows is counter-intuitive (especially at Rank 20), but means you > don't have to worry about anything but the targeted area. Don't have to deal > with e.g. the interaction of a magical point light source of higher rank at > x distance and a natural light source at y distance with the Darkness, and > what shadows result. > Once I understood how it works (and I appreciate that this can be in issue > for a DM who only has to think about it once every year or two) I found that > I bugged the GM with irritating questions (that they often didn't really > understand the implications of) a lot less than under the old arrangement. > This may be a bigger factor for shadow than the other branches? > > I'm not saying that there isn't a better way overall (how college bonuses > work need also to be considered), but there are a number of often > conflicting things involved. > > > or a point source would be an alternate way of preventing this. > > > > Please expand on this. Like a negative light source? No, just a small, constrained volume that cannot be shaped. Probably spheroid. It can be used to create ares of shadow by casting it high, but there would be plenty of light in most cases to limit the total amount of darkness created. > > Also note that the bonuses and penalties referred to in the Rune spells are > the old-style Celestial modifiers (e.g a distorted shadow edge used to mean > something). Yes. Like it always did. Bugger all of nothing, as far as I can see. Jim -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:48:13 +1300
------=_Part_2556_2537734.1142455693816 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/16/06, Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of= Martin Dickson > ** > > 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 v= ery > large area of darkness with one spell. Making it a simple area of effect > > > What do you mean by this? An area (volume) that blocks 60%+ of light from > passing through will generate a significant shadow, and lower light level= s > outside the spell's area. > Sure. If you erect a simple area of darkness (if it worked that way) in th= e mouth of a cave then the rest of the cave would get darker as some or all o= f the light from outside would be diminished passing through the area. But for comparison -- if the dark spells shape remained as is (configurable with a 1 foot minimum) but it had the more intuitive effect of diminishing light passing through it then at Rk 20 instead of being only able to fill eleven 10x10x10 foot cubes with Darkness I'd be able to create a "tent" wit= h walls and ceiling made of Rk 20 darkness a foot thick (which allows no ligh= t to penetrate), of approx 80 x 90 feet and 10 feet high, and hence plunge something like the equivalent of seventy-two 10x10x10 cubes into darkness. > or a point source would be an alternate way of preventing this. > > Please expand on this. Like a negative light source? > Sure -- if we are going to treat darkness as its own insubstantial element rather than the absense of light then the idea of a "dark lantern" that casts darkness rather than light is possible... it may be too much of a problem to do -- we're not used to thinking about dark in that way... but it'd look cool. :-) - Martin ------=_Part_2556_2537734.1142455693816 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/16/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Errol Cavit</b> <<a href=3D"ma= ilto:ecavit@tollnz.co.nz" target=3D"_blank" onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenEx= tLink(window,event,this)">ecavit@tollnz.co.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;"> <div style=3D"direction: ltr;"> <div><font color=3D"#0000ff" face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2"></font> </div> <blockquote style=3D"border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-left: 5= px; margin-left: 5px;"> <div><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D"2"></font></div><div style=3D= "direction: ltr;"><span><font face=3D"Times New Roman" size=3D"2">-----Orig= inal Message-----<br><b>From:</b> <a href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" = target=3D"_blank" onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"> dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</a>=20 [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_blank" onclic= k=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</a= >]<b>On Behalf Of</b> Martin=20 Dickson<br><b></b></font></span></div></blockquote></div><div style=3D"di= rection: ltr;"><span><div><div>Part of the reason that Darkness at least is= written the way it is=20 was to prevent using it as a big umbrella, so as to block the sun and cre= ate a=20 very large area of darkness with one spell.  Making it a simple area= of=20 effect <span><font color=3D"#0000ff" face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">&nbsp= ;</font></span></div> <div><span></span> </div></div></span></div><div style=3D"direction:= ltr;"> <div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">What=20 do you mean by this? An area (volume) that blocks 60%+ of light from passin= g=20 through will generate a significant shadow, and lower light levels outside = the=20 spell's area.</font></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Sure.  If= you erect a simple area of darkness (if it worked that way) in the mouth o= f a cave then the rest of the cave would get darker as some or all of the l= ight from outside would be diminished passing through the area. <br><br>But for comparison -- if the dark spells shape remained as is (conf= igurable with a 1 foot minimum) but it had the more intuitive effect of dim= inishing light passing through it then at Rk 20 instead of being only able = to fill eleven 10x10x10 foot cubes with Darkness I'd be able to create a &q= uot;tent" with walls and ceiling made of Rk 20 darkness a foot thick (= which allows no light to penetrate), of approx 80 x 90 feet and 10 feet hig= h, and hence plunge something like the equivalent of seventy-two 10x10x10 c= ubes into darkness. <br></div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px s= olid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><di= v style=3D"direction: ltr;"><span><blockquote style=3D"border-left: 2px sol= id rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;"> <div> </div> <div><span> </span>or a point source would be an=20 alternate way of preventing this.<br><br><span></span></div></blockquote>= </span></div><div style=3D"direction: ltr;"> <div><span><font color=3D"#0000ff" face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">Please=20 expand on this. Like a negative light source?</font></span></div></div></bl= ockquote><div><br>Sure -- if we are going to treat darkness as its own insu= bstantial element rather than the absense of light then the idea of a &quot= ;dark lantern" that casts darkness rather than light is possible... it= may be too much of a problem to do -- we're not used to thinking about dar= k in that way... but it'd look cool. :-) <br><br>- Martin<br></div></div><br> ------=_Part_2556_2537734.1142455693816-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Michael Woodhams
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:49:41 +1300
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 18:13, Clare Baldock wrote: > Only if they produce a more sensible effect that the current very non- > intuitive way that it currently doesn't work. I can think of three main mechanisms for darkness: black fog, smoked-glass boundary, decreased albedo. Light sources within the volume can be made dimmer also - logically this is independent of the choice of mechanism, and doing so fits what we want from the spell. The current celestial rules come down to decreased albedo - stuff in the volume appears blacker (and light sources become dimmer) but light passing through is unaffected. This is the only mechanism which doesn't cast a shadow. In the black fog effect, light is absorbed by the volume - the greater the distance light travels through the volume, the dimmer it gets. This means that for moderate rank darkness, you can see quite well at the edge of the volume (assuming it is within a reasonably lit environment) but it gets very dark in the middle. At large volume, even low ranked darkness will get very dark in the middle. In the smoked glass effect, light is lost as it crosses the boundary of the volume. I'd refine it further to say that following a ray of light from source to observer, it is affected by only the highest ranked darkness boundary which it crosses in an inwards direction. This means you can't get a big darkness effect by stacking many low ranked darknesses, and things don't get darkened a second time as they exit the volume (as they would with real-world smoked glass.) As it stands, if it is already fairly dim and a low level darkness is cast, all of the effects above make it somewhat darker. This does not match the current writeup. I could work up a theory of light which allows this, but I suspect it would have a few weird, counterintuitive effects. I prefer the smoked glass effect. Then the problem of making a very large area of darkness by casting a shadow from a thin sheet must be dealt with by restricting the shape of the spell volume. "You can't make a volume that wouldn't be stable if it were a pile of sand" is a pretty simple to state example which eliminates large thin walls of dark. "As complex as you like, but all within (distance) of centre of effect" is another. Note that the black fog effect doesn't allow the shadow-of-a-thin-wall strategy, except at high rank. With this effect, it would probably be necessary to put in a volume-vs-effect tradeoff. At high rank, you can have a small volume of very dense black fog, or a large volume of thin black fog. Another consideration is whether the darkness affects heat - in the open on a sunny day but within darkness, do you feel the sun's heat? This may be decoupled from whether darkness affects infravision - just because radiant heat is infrared light in the real world, it doesn't have to be so in our magical one. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:54:36 +1300
------=_Part_2572_32743866.1142456076763 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/16/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > > > Not under the current interpretation. It will reduce the light level > inside the > area of effect. Then, once the light 'emerges' from the area of magical > darkness, it will return to whatever the ambient light level would be if > the > darkness effect weren't there. Which logically (or perhaps illogically) means that the outside viewer shouldn't be able to percieve the area of darkness as it doesn't interact with the light.... Very wacky. :-( ------=_Part_2572_32743866.1142456076763 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/16/06, <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;"><br>Not un= der the current interpretation. It will reduce the light level inside the<b= r> area of effect. Then, once the light 'emerges' from the area of magical<br>= darkness, it will return to whatever the ambient light level would be if th= e<br>darkness effect weren't there.</blockquote><div><br>Which logically (o= r perhaps illogically) means that the outside viewer shouldn't be able to p= ercieve the area of darkness as it doesn't interact with the light....=20 <br><br>Very wacky. :-(<br> </div><br><br></div><br> ------=_Part_2572_32743866.1142456076763-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] Healing Potions.
From	Mandos Mitchinson
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:15:56 +1300
A couple of people have Emailed me recently in regard to healing potions and their availability. I am running an adventure to investigate why some of the required rare herbs have not arrived at the guild. The guild stockpiles are still good and there are unlikely to be any shortages for the next few seasons. If GM's could spread rumours of potential shortages, stockpiling of potions etc on their games it would be appreciated, particularly if my current party fail their mission :-) Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Keith Smith
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:35:45 +1300
>Only if they produce a more sensible effect that the current very >non- intuitive way that it currently doesn't work. Heh .. I'll go along with that g If I recall the original discussions, I think people were trying to avoid having to invoke inverse square laws etc, to work out the effect of planting a Wall of Light in a particular spot, hence we now have the effect that objects within the area appear lit from an invisible source (at least that's how it was explained to me). Darkness had the effect of dampening down light in that area. But yeah, at the time, I'm sure, it was decided that the effects should not spill out from the hexes it was applied to Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Michael Woodhams
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:30:43 +1300
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 09:54, Martin Dickson wrote: > On 3/16/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> > wrote: > Not under the current interpretation. It will reduce the light > level inside the > area of effect. Then, once the light 'emerges' from the area > of magical > darkness, it will return to whatever the ambient light level > would be if the > darkness effect weren't there. > > Which logically (or perhaps illogically) means that the outside viewer > shouldn't be able to percieve the area of darkness as it doesn't > interact with the light.... > > Very wacky. :-( Not necessarily: light which originated (emitted or reflected) within the area of effect is still affected. From outside, a rank 20 darkness looks like an area effect turn-everything-jet-black spell. (Hm, so the huge-wall-casting-shadow effect which is Considered Harmful can still be created by the combination of Darkness and a fog spell. This creates jet-black fog. Or any other large area of effect illusion spell.) Large volume darkness, as written, would work very well against flying foes. While in the volume, they are blind, but you can see them (for targeting) as black silhouettes against the sky. Now I'm imagining castles defending against airborn invasion having large volumes of permenant darkness just above them. Fliers coming in to land are effectively blinded until a metre above the roof-tops. The castle caretaker is continually picking up dead birds who have flown into the darkness and then rammed castle walls. Changing the topic, to my "three mechanisms for darkness spells" earlier today, we could add a fourth mechanism: a source of anti-photons. I really haven't figured out what this would look like, but it would be weird. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:19:07 +1300
Any or all of these are fine. It is not the rationalisation that is important. It is the explanation, and how easy it is to administrate at runtime. If I have had to go to the library to look up some references to work out what is meant, then it is a failure. By and large, the closer something works to the real world, where possible, then the better it is. That said, I should be able to pick up the rule and interpret it sensibly with the equivalent of year 11 English. I shouldn't need any real understanding of physics at all. Jim. Quoting Michael Woodhams <mdw@free.net.nz>: > On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 18:13, Clare Baldock wrote: > > > Only if they produce a more sensible effect that the current very non- > > intuitive way that it currently doesn't work. > > I can think of three main mechanisms for darkness: black fog, > smoked-glass boundary, decreased albedo. Light sources within the volume > can be made dimmer also - logically this is independent of the choice of > mechanism, and doing so fits what we want from the spell. > > The current celestial rules come down to decreased albedo - stuff in the > volume appears blacker (and light sources become dimmer) but light > passing through is unaffected. This is the only mechanism which doesn't > cast a shadow. > > In the black fog effect, light is absorbed by the volume - the greater > the distance light travels through the volume, the dimmer it gets. This > means that for moderate rank darkness, you can see quite well at the > edge of the volume (assuming it is within a reasonably lit environment) > but it gets very dark in the middle. At large volume, even low ranked > darkness will get very dark in the middle. > > In the smoked glass effect, light is lost as it crosses the boundary of > the volume. I'd refine it further to say that following a ray of light > from source to observer, it is affected by only the highest ranked > darkness boundary which it crosses in an inwards direction. This means > you can't get a big darkness effect by stacking many low ranked > darknesses, and things don't get darkened a second time as they exit the > volume (as they would with real-world smoked glass.) > > As it stands, if it is already fairly dim and a low level darkness is > cast, all of the effects above make it somewhat darker. This does not > match the current writeup. I could work up a theory of light which > allows this, but I suspect it would have a few weird, counterintuitive > effects. > > I prefer the smoked glass effect. Then the problem of making a very > large area of darkness by casting a shadow from a thin sheet must be > dealt with by restricting the shape of the spell volume. "You can't make > a volume that wouldn't be stable if it were a pile of sand" is a pretty > simple to state example which eliminates large thin walls of dark. "As > complex as you like, but all within (distance) of centre of effect" is > another. > > Note that the black fog effect doesn't allow the shadow-of-a-thin-wall > strategy, except at high rank. With this effect, it would probably be > necessary to put in a volume-vs-effect tradeoff. At high rank, you can > have a small volume of very dense black fog, or a large volume of thin > black fog. > > Another consideration is whether the darkness affects heat - in the open > on a sunny day but within darkness, do you feel the sun's heat? This may > be decoupled from whether darkness affects infravision - just because > radiant heat is infrared light in the real world, it doesn't have to be > so in our magical one. > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:12:05 +1300
Quoting Michael Woodhams <mdw@free.net.nz>: > > Changing the topic, to my "three mechanisms for darkness spells" earlier > today, we could add a fourth mechanism: a source of anti-photons. I > really haven't figured out what this would look like, but it would be > weird. Would we understand it in five minutes, after we had read about it, or would we have to spend 3 years at university studying physics? Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:16:11 +1300
------=_Part_3156_11365834.1142468171547 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/16/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > > Any or all of these are fine. It is not the rationalisation that is > important. > > It is the explanation, and how easy it is to administrate at runtime. In what particular ways do you find the current version hard to administrate? We both seem to agree that it is wacky and unituitive... but I find that's only really a problem at the interface of the spell; inside the area of darkness/light its not too complicated and I'd be interested ot hear/undestand the problems that you (and other GMs) have encountered... hey, we could even consider this a defects backlog for working out the solution. :-) Cheers, Martin ------=_Part_3156_11365834.1142468171547 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/16/06, <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;">Any or all= of these are fine. It is not the rationalisation that is important.<br><br= > It is the explanation, and how easy it is to administrate at runtime.</bloc= kquote><div><br>In what particular ways do you find the current version har= d to administrate?<br><br>We both seem to agree that it is wacky and unitui= tive... but I find that's only really a problem at the interface of the spe= ll; inside the area of darkness/light its not too complicated and I'd be in= terested ot hear/undestand the problems that you (and other GMs) have encou= ntered... hey, we could even consider this a defects backlog for working ou= t the solution. :-) <br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br> ------=_Part_3156_11365834.1142468171547-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq-announce] Guild meeting minutes - autumn 06
From	Keith Smith
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:16:16 +1300
<html> <body> <div align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=6>Seagate Guild of Adventurers<br> </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=5><b>Guild Meeting Minutes<br> </b></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica">Autumn 806 WK<br><br> </div> 0) <u>Gods Meeting Minutes<br> </u>All the proposed rule changes (see attached notes and Wiki) were accepted into the rules. Thanks to Errol for co-ordinating this<br><br> There was a disturbing lack of adventures to be announced this meeting and all adventures known about were already prebooked and full. It appeared that prebooked adventures were more visible. Do we need to reformat the Guild meeting in order to reflect changing trends and, if so, what can we do? One suggestion was that a couple of slots could be made available in each prearranged adventure to be filled at the meeting. Also suggested was that the scribe could provide a brief adventure summary to the GM.<br><br> 1) <u>Adventures going out<br> </u>Some employers were found at the last minute (thanks to those who agreed to GM this session at short notice). <br><br> a) A short human from Sylvana. Requires Guild members to find out why magic is vanishing from their plane. It is suspected that a Binder is stealing it all. Zane, Low, Mt Albert<br><br> b) An insubstantial figure wants help in finding the last surviving member of his race. The trip would take the party to the far reaches of the universe and the pay involved symbiotes. One slot still open. Jeff Leddra, Medium, Thursdays.<br><br> c) A message from Grendel. There have been kidnappings on the Plane of Rue. Helen. Medium/highish, Night tba.<br><br> <br> <div align="center"><b>Awards <br><br> </b></div> <u>Smartest<br> </u><i>Eric the Dwarf </i>- Stole 5000 horses in order to stop the calvary<br> <i>Sam the Ork</i> - Got a dragon to eat Urealites etc<br> <i>Maebh</i> - Stepping up to Gok and taking him out after realising Gok was possessed.<br><br> <x-tab>        </x-tab>Winner - <b>Eric<br><br> </b><u>Bravest<br> </u><i>Valentine </i>- The party had to protect their Namer (Lizette) so when assassins leapt on her Valentine moved to block<br><br> <x-tab>        </x-tab>Winner - <b>Valentine<br> </b><u>Stupidest<br> </u><i>Human</i> - After being hit by a Backfire, he taunted the enemy into hitting him again, this time with a Whitefire<br> <i>Gok</i> - for lots of different acts (see Scribe Notes)<br> <i>Neroli</i> - kicking an avatar on a dare<br> <i>Aqualina</i> - for realising she could have summoned an elemental and dealt with the fight quickly, after the event.<br> <i>Theodona</i> - The party knew there were traps in the hallway but Theodona decided to run through them. The traps went off, triggering the traps on the party behind her that were frozen in place.<br> <i>Glass</i> - for being dragged into Limbo<br> <i>Brigetta</i> - for letting the guide know she was the one that cast the Silence spell<br><br> <x-tab>        </x-tab>Winner - <b>Gok<br><br> </b><u>Best Death<br> </u><i>Gok</i> - several times (see scribe notes). It was suggested that he rank Death<br> <i>Kishwa</i> - During a fight, Kishwa leapt in front of an incoming arrow stream to protect Lizette<br> <i>Human </i>- Killed by the afore mentioned Whirefire<br><br> <x-tab>        </x-tab>Winner - <b>Gok<br><br> </b><u>Other Business<br> </u>Aqualina announced that, because of commitments elsewhere, she would not be available to make Waters of Healing this coming session. Only a small stockpile was available at the College for emergencies<br><br> A group of witches are required for unborn blessings.<br><br> <div align="center">Meeting Closed<br><br> <br><br> </div>  <br><br> <br>  <br>  <br> </font></div> </body> </html> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-announce-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook?
From	Keith Smith
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:27:09 +1300
>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. I agree with Errol. Having the latest version of the playtest version of Rune, or anything else being playtested BTW, on the wiki would mean that the most uptodate version is readily available to the playtesters. Then, once everyone is agreed, that version on the Wiki gets voted in to the rules. Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:46:24 +1300
Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>: > > In what particular ways do you find the current version hard to > administrate? > > We both seem to agree that it is wacky and unituitive... but I find that's > only really a problem at the interface of the spell; inside the area of > darkness/light its not too complicated and I'd be interested ot > hear/undestand the problems that you (and other GMs) have encountered... > hey, we could even consider this a defects backlog for working out the > solution. :-) > Any rule description needs to do two things at once. It needs to be something that you can understand quickly. So, in principle, it should be simple and straightforward to administer. The other thing it needs to do, and this is just as important, is that it has to map onto a common understanding of how the world works. No set of rules is ever going to replace the function of a DM in a game, certainly not any time soon. The DM needs to be able extract from the rules a general picture of the world, and make sensible judgement calls based on it. Light and darkness spells attack this notion, because they are hard to understand. Very few DMs understand how they work, and who can bloody well blame them. An incidental affect of this is that people who have these spells often have them reinterpreted when the play in different games. I wouldn't mind that, necessarily, but the descriptions of these spells are insidious in that most people think that they understand how they work. So, they are playing an unconsidered rule variation. Now, light and darkness effects are basic to most games, and if you look through the literature, you see that they are not considered much of a problem. They just have a defined volume of effect, and are not shapeable. Light spells seem to mostly have a point source, but 'magically' illuminate to the extent of the volume. There is no diminuition of light the further away you are from the origin. Darkness spells are just a black fog. Again, there is no attenuation of darkness as you approach the edge of the effect. That is all we really need to have for light and darkness spells. I have no objection to there being four variations of light and darkness, and indeed that might be quite nice, so long as Dark Celestials get the best darkness effects and Light Celestials get the best light effect...Well, actually, given that other spell of theirs, they really don't need to have the best light effect. If there are to be different variations of light and darkness, and I'm keen, then the important consideration is not how beautiful the rationalisation, or how interesting. It MUST be easy to understand, and to extrapolate from. If I have to perform calculus every time someone casts this spell, I might be inclined to take up macrame rather than DM anything. Jim -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Wiki formatting - scribe note page
From	Keith Smith
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:22:49 +1300
>Why do we need stats & reports? Is there a series of KPIs and a >governance committee? If its just curiousity, I would suggest that the >Wiki format serves generic curiousity far better, and we don't need to >crunch census numbers on PCs given the Wiki as an alternative. What's a KPI? Anyway, IMHO, the wiki is basically a freeformat collection of pages whereas the OD is a database with a set schema. If anyone wants to crunch numbers, they'd be better off using the OD. Besides, I can see enquires coming like .. how many Rank 10 healers have we got currently .. or .. does anyone know anyone who can do <insert ability> Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Wiki formatting - scribe note page
From	Mandos Mitchinson
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:57:31 +1300
> What's a KPI? A KPI or KayPie is a cute little pet that lives in offices, Managers spend their days borely trying to find them and Employee's do what they can to avoid them (they bite if provoked). I am told they are about 4 inches high and covered in bright blue fur. They only bite employee's so try and get into management to avoid the bite, it can cause layoff's if the bite is serious. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:14:19 +1300
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6487D.CE013D9C 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 > raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz > Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 09:15 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Light & Dark > > <snip> > > From: Errol > > Also note that the bonuses and penalties referred to in the > Rune spells are > > the old-style Celestial modifiers (e.g. a distorted shadow > edge used to mean > > something). > > Yes. Like it always did. Bugger all of nothing, as far as I can see. > I'm fairly sure that it made (and makes) the difference between a BC mod of 0-20% (generally in practice 10% - this is what I used to assume I could get if a had a couple of minutes to organise things) and one of -25% for shadowweavers. That isn't 'bugger all of nothing'. It isn't even "I will backfire more often", it's "I won't bother doing any magic until that thing is turned off (because I'm quite good with this pointy stick).". Only one user's experience, I realise. Using current Celestial version, the response to not having a shadow with a defined edge within 30' when you want to cast is to cast a big Darkness (and 60% darkness level will do fine), so you are at 0% mod. At rank 10 you can do a 30x30x6.5 block, so the lack of shadow can be dealt with, but you can't ignore it. However the point I was making was that if the same impact is intended on Celestials, a different choice of words (that corresponds with the current terms used in Celestial and how bonuses/penalties work) would be an improvement. Cheers Errol ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6487D.CE013D9C 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>> raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 09:15</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] Light & Dark</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2><snip></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > From: Errol</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Also note that the bonuses and penalties = referred to in the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Rune spells are</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > the old-style Celestial modifiers (e.g. a = distorted shadow </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> edge used to mean</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > something).</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Yes. Like it always did. Bugger all of nothing, = as far as I can see.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'm fairly sure that it made (and makes) the = difference between a BC mod of 0-20% (generally in practice 10% - this = is what I used to assume I could get if a had a couple of minutes to = organise things) and one of -25% for shadowweavers. That isn't 'bugger = all of nothing'. It isn't even "I will backfire more often", = it's "I won't bother doing any magic until that thing is turned = off (because I'm quite good with this pointy stick).". Only one = user's experience, I realise.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Using current Celestial version, the response to not = having a shadow with a defined edge within 30' when you want to cast is = to cast a big Darkness (and 60% darkness level will do fine), so you = are at 0% mod. At rank 10 you can do a 30x30x6.5 block, so the lack of = shadow can be dealt with, but you can't ignore it.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>However the point I was making was that if the same = impact is intended on Celestials, a different choice of words (that = corresponds with the current terms used in Celestial and how = bonuses/penalties work) would be an improvement.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6487D.CE013D9C-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Michael Woodhams
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:05:57 +1300
[in reply to my 3 mechanisms for darkness] On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 11:19, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz wrote: > Any or all of these are fine. It is not the rationalisation that is important. They aren't just rationalization, they have significantly different effects. > It is the explanation, and how easy it is to administrate at runtime. If I have > had to go to the library to look up some references to work out what is meant, > then it is a failure. All three can be explained simply. The current rule is "reduced albedo", but it is explained in a much more round about way. My favoured option (smoked glass) can be explained very simply as: any light which has passed through the volume of darkness is dimmed. (The amount of dimming is rank dependent, but does not depend on how far it has traveled through the darkness volume.) except for the bit where low level darkness has no effect in already dim light conditions. > By and large, the closer something works to the real > world, where possible, then the better it is. Black fog is closest to real world. It is like being in the exhaust of a soot-belching truck, but without the breathing problems. > > That said, I should be able to pick up the rule and interpret it sensibly with > the equivalent of year 11 English. I shouldn't need any real understanding of > physics at all. > > Jim. Me: >> Changing the topic, to my "three mechanisms for darkness spells" earlier >> today, we could add a fourth mechanism: a source of anti-photons. I >> really haven't figured out what this would look like, but it would be >> weird. Jim: > Would we understand it in five minutes, after we had read about it, or > would we > have to spend 3 years at university studying physics? I expect I could hold the requirement to 1st year physics. For this mechanism, I doubt that simplicity and consistency are compatable. I just added it to the mechanisms list as others had brought it up. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Andrew Withy \(DSL AK\)
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:07:44 +1300
The current Darkness works like real-world darkness - there is less light in the area. The current Light works like real-world light in a farmhouse in the coutry. Or real-world light in a searchlight/spotlight. And any other area where you have a single strong light of finite size in darkness. There is light in the area. Our problem is that everyone thinks they know how real-world light works (apart from infinite rays) and its not what the spell says. Magic black or glowing fog is much easier to administer, and more "fantasy" based. Its also how most GMs think light/dark works, from what I've observed. However, you don't need to be cunning to use fog - that's why water, air and illusionists already have it - add celestials, necros, witches, rune shamans or whoever has darkness, and black fog becomes boring or mundane ... I'll go and have discussions with Michael Woodhams now about real-world light, which is waaaay to complex to use in a game. I admit the current light/dark writeups are due to me thinking reality was GMable - a mistake I've made a number of times (and I'm not being sarcastic, bitterly ironic or whatever at this point). Andrew -----Original Message----- Any rule description needs to do two things at once. It needs to be something that you can understand quickly. So, in principle, it should be simple and straightforward to administer. The other thing it needs to do, and this is just as important, is that it has to map onto a common understanding of how the world works. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:13:53 +1300
Quoting Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz>: > > However the point I was making was that if the same impact is intended on > Celestials, a different choice of words (that corresponds with the current > terms used in Celestial and how bonuses/penalties work) would be an > improvement. > As I recall, there were two major objections to the current version of the spells. One was that Dark, and now Light, celestials could get a big 25 point bonus (big fat hairy deal). The other one was that you could create a huge volume of darkness by obscuring some light source. More of an issue with darkness than light, really. The problem goes away if the spells are more mainstream, and have a simple and constrained effect. But, in those days, no one changed a rule to make for a better game. Instead, they fretted about base chances and whittered on about the underlying rationalisation until we have this abortion of an effect. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:25:41 +1300
Quoting Michael Woodhams <mdw@free.net.nz>: > [in reply to my 3 mechanisms for darkness] > > On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 11:19, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz wrote: > > Any or all of these are fine. It is not the rationalisation that is > important. > > They aren't just rationalization, they have significantly different > effects. Unless you think the game we are playing is the real world, then it's a rationalisation. > > > It is the explanation, and how easy it is to administrate at runtime. If I > have > > had to go to the library to look up some references to work out what is > meant, > > then it is a failure. > > All three can be explained simply. Good. Let's be having it, then. >The current rule is "reduced albedo", > but it is explained in a much more round about way. My favoured option > (smoked glass) can be explained very simply as: any light which has > passed through the volume of darkness is dimmed. (The amount of dimming > is rank dependent, but does not depend on how far it has traveled > through the darkness volume.) > > except for the bit where low level darkness has no effect in already > dim light conditions. This is your simple explanation? > > > By and large, the closer something works to the real > > world, where possible, then the better it is. > > Black fog is closest to real world. It is like being in the exhaust of a > soot-belching truck, but without the breathing problems. Right. Well, let's go with that then. > > > > That said, I should be able to pick up the rule and interpret it sensibly > with > > the equivalent of year 11 English. I shouldn't need any real understanding > of > > physics at all. > > > > Jim. > > Me: > >> Changing the topic, to my "three mechanisms for darkness spells" > earlier > >> today, we could add a fourth mechanism: a source of anti-photons. I > >> really haven't figured out what this would look like, but it would be > >> weird. > > Jim: > > Would we understand it in five minutes, after we had read about it, or > > would we > > have to spend 3 years at university studying physics? > > I expect I could hold the requirement to 1st year physics. For this > mechanism, I doubt that simplicity and consistency are compatable. I > just added it to the mechanisms list as others had brought it up. > Then, you are writing a rule that will exclude some DMs from being able to interpret it easily. There is no problem with using an accurate model. These are great because there's less baggage associated with them. IF THE RULE IS EASY TO UNDERSTAND. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:27:53 +1300
------=_Part_3360_17555353.1142472473872 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/16/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > > > Any rule description needs to do two things at once.... All agreed. Now, light and darkness effects are basic to most games, and if you look > through > the literature, you see that they are not considered much of a problem. Ah literature -- that's where authors don't have to worry about their characters being scheming and coniving megalomanics because they control th= e character actions. :-) They just have a defined volume of effect, and are not shapeable. Light > spells seem > to mostly have a point source, but 'magically' illuminate to the extent o= f > the > volume. There is no diminuition of light the further away you are from th= e > origin. Definitely agree about the point source, but I'd contend that (although not necessarily described carefully) they are more likely to act like lanterns... pretty much every magical light I've seen in a movie looks like the wizard has a lightbulb on the end of his staff. :-) Other thing to consider -- you quite rightly contend that fantasy construct= s should map where possible to the real world so that they way we think/know things work does so in the game. Point sources in real life drop off over range, would you want to ignore this in-game and break the real-world experience/knowledge? Darkness spells are just a black fog. Again, there is no attenuation of > darkness > as you approach the edge of the effect. Might depend on the spell effects budget, but yes, basically big black fog areas. That is all we really need to have for light and darkness spells. Until they interact, or someone has a magic lantern in the dark area, or they plug the cave mouth with the big black fog, etc. Authors and filmaker= s have it easy.-- if they don't want the problem to occur it doesn't. GMs hav= e more factors and a more fluid situation to consider. It MUST be easy to understand, and to extrapolate from. Yes, the more usual / easy to understand light and dark spells are then the easier it is to extrapolate their interactions... which is all for the good= . Regards, Martin ------=_Part_3360_17555353.1142472473872 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/16/06, <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;"><br>Any ru= le description needs to do two things at once....</blockquote><div><br>All = agreed.=20 <br></div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px s= olid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Now= , light and darkness effects are basic to most games, and if you look throu= gh <br>the literature, you see that they are not considered much of a problem.= </blockquote><div><br>Ah literature -- that's where authors don't have to w= orry about their characters being scheming and coniving megalomanics becaus= e they control the character actions. :-) <br></div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px s= olid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Th= ey just have a defined volume of effect, and are not shapeable. Light spell= s seem <br>to mostly have a point source, but 'magically' illuminate to the extent= of the<br>volume. There is no diminuition of light the further away you ar= e from the<br>origin.</blockquote><div><br>Definitely agree about the point= source, but I'd contend that (although not necessarily described carefully= ) they are more likely to act like lanterns... pretty much every magical li= ght I've seen in a movie looks like the wizard has a lightbulb on the end o= f his staff. :-) <br><br>Other thing to consider -- you quite rightly contend that fantasy c= onstructs should map where possible to the real world so that they way we t= hink/know things work does so in the game. Point sources in real life drop = off over range, would you want to ignore this in-game and break the real-wo= rld experience/knowledge? <br></div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px s= olid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Dar= kness spells are just a black fog. Again, there is no attenuation of darkne= ss <br>as you approach the edge of the effect.</blockquote><div><br>Might depe= nd on the spell effects budget, but yes, basically big black fog areas. <br= ></div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px soli= d rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> That is all we really need to have for light and darkness spells.</blockquo= te><div><br>Until they interact, or someone has a magic lantern in the dark= area, or they plug the cave mouth with the big black fog, etc.  Autho= rs and filmakers have it easy.-- if they don't want the problem to occur it= doesn't. GMs have more factors and a more fluid situation to consider. <br></div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px s= olid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">It = MUST be easy to understand, and to extrapolate from.</blockquote><div><br>Y= es, the more usual / easy to understand light and dark spells are then the easier it is to extrapolate their interactions... which is all for the good.<br><br>Regards,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br> ------=_Part_3360_17555353.1142472473872-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:43:21 +1300
Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>: > > Ah literature -- that's where authors don't have to worry about their > characters being scheming and coniving megalomanics because they control the > character actions. :-) I meant games literature, like AD&D, EarthDawn, EverQuest, even. > > They just have a defined volume of effect, and are not shapeable. Light > > spells seem > > to mostly have a point source, but 'magically' illuminate to the extent of > > the > > volume. There is no diminuition of light the further away you are from the > > origin. > > > Definitely agree about the point source, but I'd contend that (although not > necessarily described carefully) they are more likely to act like > lanterns... pretty much every magical light I've seen in a movie looks like > the wizard has a lightbulb on the end of his staff. :-) Yes, but do we actually care about the fact that it diminishes? Mostly, we couldn't give a tinker's cuss. > > Other thing to consider -- you quite rightly contend that fantasy constructs > should map where possible to the real world so that they way we think/know > things work does so in the game. Point sources in real life drop off over > range, would you want to ignore this in-game and break the real-world > experience/knowledge? > > Darkness spells are just a black fog. Again, there is no attenuation of > > darkness > > as you approach the edge of the effect. > > > Might depend on the spell effects budget, but yes, basically big black fog > areas. > > That is all we really need to have for light and darkness spells. > > > Until they interact, or someone has a magic lantern in the dark area, or > they plug the cave mouth with the big black fog, etc. Authors and filmakers > have it easy.-- if they don't want the problem to occur it doesn't. GMs have > more factors and a more fluid situation to consider. No, not really. Who cares if a player occludes the front of a cave with a darkness spell and blocks a lot of light. If anything, it sounds like the sort of thing that they SHOULD be able to do. We don't need to worry about some peculiar effect. That's just paranoia, and the only thing it does is stop players from being imaginative. Yes, they are megalomaniacal, and driven by fear, revenge and greed. When was it ever otherwise? I cannot see a resource that the players are going to be able to corner which is going to be dangerous to the game. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark correction
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:45:31 +1300
Oops... Quoting raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz: > Quoting Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz>: > > > > However the point I was making was that if the same impact is intended on > > Celestials, a different choice of words (that corresponds with the current > > terms used in Celestial and how bonuses/penalties work) would be an > > improvement. > > > As I recall, there were two major objections to the current version of the > spells. I should have said that there were two main REASONS for the current version... Jim -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Michael Woodhams
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:48:42 +1300
Is there an already established table of light levels? E.g. level 15 light is mid-day in a desert. Level 5 is dusk on a clear day. This would simplify describing the rank-dependent effect of darkness: e.g. rank 10 darkness causes mid-day in a desert to appear like dusk. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:55:17 +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_01C6489C.AC8C0696 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Yes, the Celestial Lighting Modifier Table http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Celestial#19.10_Celestial_Lig hting_Modifier_Table Celestial light is 60% + 2% light per rank Celestial dark is 40% - 2% light per rank Note the Light/Dark Walls have same lighting effects as the Light/Dark spells > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Woodhams [mailto:mdw@free.net.nz] > Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:49 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Light & Dark > > > Is there an already established table of light levels? E.g. level 15 > light is mid-day in a desert. Level 5 is dusk on a clear day. > This would > simplify describing the rank-dependent effect of darkness: > e.g. rank 10 > darkness causes mid-day in a desert to appear like dusk. > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6489C.AC8C0696 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> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Yes, the Celestial Lighting Modifier Table </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2><A = HREF=3D"http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Celestial#19.10_C= elestial_Lighting_Modifier_Table" = TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Celesti= al#19.10_Celestial_Lighting_Modifier_Table</A></FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Celestial light is 60% + 2% light per rank</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Celestial dark is 40% - 2% light per rank</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Note the Light/Dark Walls have same lighting effects = as the Light/Dark spells</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> From: Michael Woodhams [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:mdw@free.net.nz">mailto:mdw@free.net.nz</A>]</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 14:49</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] Light & Dark</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Is there an already established table of light = levels? E.g. level 15</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> light is mid-day in a desert. Level 5 is dusk = on a clear day. </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> This would</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> simplify describing the rank-dependent effect = of darkness: </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> e.g. rank 10</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> darkness causes mid-day in a desert to appear = like dusk.</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_01C6489C.AC8C0696-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark - Lighting Table
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:57:47 +1300 (NZDT)
The lighting table at the end of Celestial is the closest we have to a lighting table. It is at the end of this page: http://www.dragonquest.org.nz/dqwiki/index.php/Celestial Michael Woodhams said: > Is there an already established table of light levels? E.g. level 15 light is mid-day in a > desert. Level 5 is dusk on a clear day. This would simplify describing the rank-dependent effect > of darkness: e.g. rank 10 darkness causes mid-day in a desert to appear like dusk. > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Andrew Withy \(DSL AK\)
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:01:33 +1300
19.10 - end of celestial college Rk Light Natural / Artificial Lighting 20 0% Magical Effect - no vision works 19 1% Midnight in a storm. Pitch Blackness Underground, no lights 17 5% Overcast night. Single Candle Underground 15 10% New Moon, partially cloudy night. 1 Torch Underground, Windowless room in day 10 20% Night with crescent Moon + stars. 1 Lantern Underground 5 30% Night in a town. Campfire at night; Shuttered room in day 0 40% Night of Full Moon. Torch-lit Underground - 50% Twilight, Major Storm. Inside on overcast day 0 60% Bright day in a forest, Solid rain. Lamp-lit Interior 5 70% Overcast; Mist, Light rain. Brightly lit Underground 10 80% Autumn Morning, Light cloud. Brightly lit Interior 15 90% Bright sunny afternoon. 17 95% Noon. 19 99% Noon in a desert. 20 100% Magical Effect - no vision works Darkness is 60%+2/Rank darkness Light is 60%+2/Rank light. Rank 10 Darkness = 80% dark = 20% light = Night with crescent Moon + stars or 1 Lantern Underground It may not be clear, but its there. We could replace the % light with Ranks instead. This takes out a formula. I've done this on the table above. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Michael Woodhams Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 2:49 p.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Light & Dark Is there an already established table of light levels? E.g. level 15 light is mid-day in a desert. Level 5 is dusk on a clear day. This would simplify describing the rank-dependent effect of darkness: e.g. rank 10 darkness causes mid-day in a desert to appear like dusk. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	William Dymock
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:18:08 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C6490C.D47EC1F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Any light/dark rules should take the lighting rules into account. Go look at table 57.3 near the bottom. There's the lighting rules. A darkness effect should make the modifier worse, a light effect makes it better. Since various races and colleges can see in the dark to a degree this degree these too should get a modifier. I suggest modifiers of +/- 2 / rank with real limits at -40 and 0. Prehaps you can have +/- 50 at R20. Elves and dwarves get a +20 mod, spells get 10+rank mods. This also does away with arbitary rnk 20 effects For spells let the damn things modify BCs up or down by 5+1/rank. Who really cares if celestials get a bonus in the morning buffing their comrades? Get to the bloody action already! In a battle the time taken out to faff about casting light/dark may be more productivly spent elsewhere. For vision use the already extant lighting modifiers to modify things like stealth, hit chances and what ever else. A light spell illuminates an area and in a dark place allows those withing to be seen. A dark spell hides things, casts shadows and makes for obscurement meaning you suffer a penalty to shoot through it. And rules lawyers / munchkins take double damage. It's a handy rule that should stop 95% of the cheese. William -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.3/281 - Release Date: 14/03/2006 ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C6490C.D47EC1F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2>Any light/dark rules should take the lighting rules into = account.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2>Go = look at table=20 57.3 near the bottom. There's the lighting rules.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2>A = darkness effect=20 should make the modifier worse, a light effect makes it better. Since = various=20 races and colleges can see in the dark to a degree this degree these = too=20 should get a modifier.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2>I = suggest=20 modifiers of +/- 2 / rank with real limits at -40 and 0. Prehaps you = can have=20 +/- 50 at R20.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma = size=3D2>Elves and dwarves=20 get a +20 mod, spells get 10+rank mods. </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma = size=3D2>This also does=20 away with arbitary rnk 20 effects</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2>For = spells let=20 the damn things modify BCs up or down by 5+1/rank. Who really cares if = celestials get a bonus in the morning buffing their comrades? Get to = the=20 bloody action already! In a battle the time taken out to faff about = casting=20 light/dark may be more productivly spent = elsewhere.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2>For = vision use=20 the already extant lighting modifiers to modify things like stealth, = hit=20 chances and what ever else. A light spell illuminates an area and in a = dark=20 place allows those withing to be seen. A dark spell hides things, = casts=20 shadows and makes for obscurement meaning you suffer a penalty to = shoot=20 through it.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2>And = rules lawyers=20 / munchkins take double damage. It's a handy rule that should stop 95% = of the=20 cheese.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D816595201-16032006><FONT face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2>William</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C6490C.D47EC1F0-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:20:55 +1300
------=_Part_169_112396.1142475655675 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/16/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > > > Yes, but do we actually care about the fact that it diminishes? Mostly, w= e > couldn't give a tinker's cuss. We may not care or at least we may not bother to model it since it makes ou= r lives more difficult. ...or they plug the cave mouth with the big black fog, etc. Authors and > filmakers > > have it easy.-- if they don't want the problem to occur it doesn't. GMs > have > > more factors and a more fluid situation to consider. > > No, not really. Who cares if a player occludes the front of a cave with a > darkness spell and blocks a lot of light. If anything, it sounds like the > sort > of thing that they SHOULD be able to do. And past GMs have argued the opposite... which leads us back into the undesirable current spell description. If we are happy with the possibility of plugged cave mouths et al then we can probably get easier/ better spells out of it... it's all a matter of "curstomer requirements" -- the current spell descriptions were created in order to achieve the outcomes desired at the time. If the requirements have changed then so can the spells. (Which would be good, imho). We don't need to worry about some peculiar effect. That's just paranoia, an= d > the > only thing it does is stop players from being imaginative. What I don't want, are _unexpected_ peculiar effects... or at least wish to avoid if possible. One of the reasons for discussing possible models for these spells (aside from finding the easiest to play) is to understand how they might be used and abused. I'm not suggesting that plugging a cave mouth is bad -- I would argue that a big sun umbrella probably is... but then that can be mitigated by the area of effect being less configurable, etc. Cheers, Martin ------=_Part_169_112396.1142475655675 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/16/06, <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;"><br>Yes, b= ut do we actually care about the fact that it diminishes? Mostly, we<br>cou= ldn't give a tinker's cuss. </blockquote><div><br>We may not care or at least we may not bother to mode= l it since it makes our lives more difficult.<br></div><br><blockquote clas= s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margi= n: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> ...or they plug the cave mouth with the big black fog, etc.  Auth= ors and filmakers<br>> have it easy.-- if they don't want the problem to= occur it doesn't. GMs have<br>> more factors and a more fluid situation= to consider. <br><br>No, not really. Who cares if a player occludes the front of a cave = with a<br>darkness spell and blocks a lot of light. If anything, it sounds = like the sort<br>of thing that they SHOULD be able to do.</blockquote><div> <br>And past GMs have argued the opposite... which leads us back into the u= ndesirable current spell description.<br><br>If we are happy with the possi= bility of plugged cave mouths et al then we can probably get easier/ better= spells out of it... it's all a matter of "curstomer requirements&quot= ; -- the current spell descriptions were created in order to achieve the ou= tcomes desired at the time. <br><br>If the requirements have changed then so can the spells. (Which wou= ld be good, imho).<br></div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"= border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; paddi= ng-left: 1ex;"> We don't need to worry about some peculiar effect. That's just paranoia, an= d the<br>only thing it does is stop players from being imaginative.</blockq= uote><div><br>What I don't want, are _unexpected_ peculiar effects... or at= least wish to avoid if possible. One of the reasons for discussing possibl= e models for these spells (aside from finding the easiest to play) is to un= derstand how they might be used and abused.  I'm not suggesting that p= lugging a cave mouth is bad -- I would argue that a big sun umbrella probab= ly is... but then that can be mitigated by the area of effect being less co= nfigurable, etc. <br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br> ------=_Part_169_112396.1142475655675-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Struan Judd
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:24:51 +1300
(Headslap) Mainly to stimulate more thinking on this approach, cause at first glance I really like it. TTFN, Struan. On 3/16/06, William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > > > Any light/dark rules should take the lighting rules into account. > > Go look at table 57.3 near the bottom. There's the lighting rules. > > A darkness effect should make the modifier worse, a light effect makes it > better. Since various races and colleges can see in the dark to a degree > this degree these too should get a modifier. > > I suggest modifiers of +/- 2 / rank with real limits at -40 and 0. Prehaps > you can have +/- 50 at R20. > > Elves and dwarves get a +20 mod, spells get 10+rank mods. > > This also does away with arbitary rnk 20 effects > > For spells let the damn things modify BCs up or down by 5+1/rank. Who really > cares if celestials get a bonus in the morning buffing their comrades? Get > to the bloody action already! In a battle the time taken out to faff about > casting light/dark may be more productivly spent elsewhere. > > For vision use the already extant lighting modifiers to modify things like > stealth, hit chances and what ever else. A light spell illuminates an area > and in a dark place allows those withing to be seen. A dark spell hides > things, casts shadows and makes for obscurement meaning you suffer a penalty > to shoot through it. > > And rules lawyers / munchkins take double damage. It's a handy rule that > should stop 95% of the cheese. > > William -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Andrew Withy \(DSL AK\)
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:33:56 +1300
While my headslap was from having to factor one's rank in Witchsight to one's strike chance in William's proposal. Underground, little light. GM: The SC penalty is -30 Player: I'm a witch with Rank 6 Witchsight. GM: That's -18% then. Player: And an elf. GM: - that reduces your penalty by -20%, so that's -10, no +2, no 0%. You hit. And that's without weird shit, defence, stun, out-of-fatigue, off-hand modifiers, etc. Or a second player. Oh, and under this approach, shadowform defence should also be reduced by witchsight/race, as it doesn't combine with darkness and works the same way. Try running that at 10pm at the end of the week. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Struan Judd Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 3:25 p.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Light & Dark (Headslap) Mainly to stimulate more thinking on this approach, cause at first glance I really like it. TTFN, Struan. On 3/16/06, William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > > > Any light/dark rules should take the lighting rules into account. > > Go look at table 57.3 near the bottom. There's the lighting rules. > > A darkness effect should make the modifier worse, a light effect makes > it better. Since various races and colleges can see in the dark to a > degree this degree these too should get a modifier. > > I suggest modifiers of +/- 2 / rank with real limits at -40 and 0. > Prehaps you can have +/- 50 at R20. > > Elves and dwarves get a +20 mod, spells get 10+rank mods. > > This also does away with arbitary rnk 20 effects > > For spells let the damn things modify BCs up or down by 5+1/rank. Who > really cares if celestials get a bonus in the morning buffing their > comrades? Get to the bloody action already! In a battle the time taken > out to faff about casting light/dark may be more productivly spent > elsewhere. > > For vision use the already extant lighting modifiers to modify things > like stealth, hit chances and what ever else. A light spell > illuminates an area and in a dark place allows those withing to be > seen. A dark spell hides things, casts shadows and makes for > obscurement meaning you suffer a penalty to shoot through it. > > And rules lawyers / munchkins take double damage. It's a handy rule > that should stop 95% of the cheese. > > William -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Michael Woodhams
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:35:59 +1300
OK, here's an incomplete proposal: (stuff about range, size and shape of the volume of darkness to be discussed. If people are worried about the shadow-from-a-big-sheet-of-darkness, this is the place to address it. We could allow high rank casters to increase volume at the expense of the rank of effect.) ====================================== Any light which passes through the volume affected by Darkness is dimmed. For each rank of darkness effect, the light is shifted 5% down on table 19.10. Light levels will not be shifted below the 1% level, except by rank 20 Darkness. - e.g. rank 10 darkness would shift a sunny afternoon (90% light) to night with full moon (40% light), or twilight (50%) to pitch darkness (1%). For an observer within the volume of the spell, the world appears as if they were wearing dark glasses. For an observer outside, it appears as if the closest boundary of the darkness were made of (nonreflective) tinted glass. A volume of darkness will cast a shadow, but the shadow is less deep than from a fully opaque object (except at rank 20.) If light travels through the effect of several Darkness spells, only the highest rank effect is counted. ======================================= Note that the second paragraph is purely for clarification - everything in it is a logical consequence of the one-sentence main description. One effect that this will have is that in dim light, low level darkness spells will be completely blinding. E.g. night with cresent moon and stars (20%) can be turned to pitch blackness (1%) by rank 4 darkness. We could make it multiplicative instead of additive: rank 10 (50%) turns 90% light into 45% light, and 20% light into 10% light. Rank 4 (20%) turns 90% light to 72%, 20% to 16%. I prefer the additive method, but could be convinced otherwise. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:45:41 +1300
Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>: > What I don't want, are _unexpected_ peculiar effects... or at least wish to > avoid if possible. One of the reasons for discussing possible models for > these spells (aside from finding the easiest to play) is to understand how > they might be used and abused. I'm not suggesting that plugging a cave > mouth is bad -- I would argue that a big sun umbrella probably is... but > then that can be mitigated by the area of effect being less configurable, > etc. Jesus. I don't know about you, but I'm desperately keen on unexpected peculiar effects. The predictable I can see coming a mile off. So, what I want is a basic, generally useful spell relative to its Exp.Mult, and that I can understand. If someone comes up with something unusual, not only would I award them extra XP. I'd be impressed. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	William Dymock
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:06:09 +1300
A darkness modifier is only going to change with each new casting of a light dark spell. >Underground, little light. >GM: The SC penalty is -30 >Player: I'm a witch with Rank 6 Witchsight. >GM: That's -18% then. >Player: And an elf. >GM: - that reduces your penalty by -20%, so that's -10, no +2, no 0%. >You hit. Underground little light GM - the SC penalty is -30 player 1 (who has a clue notes their mod is +38 from being an elf with r6 witchy witchsight and realises they are at no penalty) I hit. player 2 (who has neglected to note this modifier down anywhere, just like they never seem to have their IV, SC, MR or damage calcs even roughly worked out) what's my modifier again? GM (to player 2) you miss. Next! You only have to work out your modifier once, mabye twice when you work out what the best seeing buff in the party will be. This is no harder than calculating your defence. I am agreeing more and more with Jono. If a player wants to stuff around in combat working out numbers they should have written down earlier they miss/take a pass action. >And that's without weird shit, defence, stun, out-of-fatigue, off-hand >modifiers, etc. Which is calculable in advance for player wierdness and is an arbitary number the GM can throw out. >Or a second player. >Oh, and under this approach, shadowform defence should also be reduced >by witchsight/race, as it doesn't combine with darkness and works the >same way. Try running that at 10pm at the end of the week. Yes it could but I don't care. Anyways that should apply already if we wished to be pendantic. But it doesn't because were not. William -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.3/281 - Release Date: 14/03/2006 -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:19:14 +1300
------=_Part_132_19842647.1142479154859 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/16/06, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz <raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > > Jesus. I don't know about you, but I'm desperately keen on unexpected > peculiar > effects. The predictable I can see coming a mile off. :-) OK, that didn't come out quite the way I meant it. What I meant was -- I don't want us to settle on a new light/dark description, get it into play and then find that it has some major problem = / loophole that gets abused from the off. Unexpected clever uses... I'm completely with you on. Cheers, Martin ------=_Part_132_19842647.1142479154859 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/16/06, <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;">Jesus. I d= on't know about you, but I'm desperately keen on unexpected peculiar<br>eff= ects. The predictable I can see coming a mile off. </blockquote><div><br>:-)  OK, that didn't come out quite the way I me= ant it.<br><br>What I meant was -- I don't want us to settle on a new light= /dark description, get it into play and then find that it has some major pr= oblem / loophole that gets abused from the off. <br><br>Unexpected clever uses... I'm completely with you on.<br><br>Cheers= ,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br> ------=_Part_132_19842647.1142479154859-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:04:34 +1300
I like William's approach. it seems right to worry about the in-game effects/modifiers and leave the mechanism to the imagination/illusionists. Light = increases the amount of light in a volume. zero effect outside the volume. Too much light is painful and decreases the PC of those in the volume. Dark = decreases the amount of light in a volume. Mechanism: magical. lets leave the mundane explanations to the mechanicians, and accept that magic does stuff that dfies logical explanation. And at 10pm on Friday is the same as 7pm on Tuesday = teh PCs should have the modifiers worked out for themselves. If you do not instantly know your defence then you have zero defence. not knowing the effect of your spell = no effect (we have rule books for a reason). To be fair though, the rules would have to be very clearly written, preferably in scare tissue on the back of their hands. We may have to reword the rules on vision and perception etc, and spells like witchsight. Darkness and Lightness affects PC, which is already in several combat formula: so that gives a clue as to how these spells will affect combat. Ian > > From: Andrew\ Withy\ \(DSL\ AK\) <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> > Date: 2006/03/16 Thu PM 03:33:56 GMT+13:00 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Light & Dark > > While my headslap was from having to factor one's rank in Witchsight to > one's strike chance in William's proposal. > > Underground, little light. > GM: The SC penalty is -30 > Player: I'm a witch with Rank 6 Witchsight. > GM: That's -18% then. > Player: And an elf. > GM: - that reduces your penalty by -20%, so that's -10, no +2, no 0%. > You hit. > > And that's without weird shit, defence, stun, out-of-fatigue, off-hand > modifiers, etc. > Or a second player. > > Oh, and under this approach, shadowform defence should also be reduced > by witchsight/race, as it doesn't combine with darkness and works the > same way. Try running that at 10pm at the end of the week. > > > Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of > Struan Judd > Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 3:25 p.m. > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Light & Dark > > > (Headslap) > Mainly to stimulate more thinking on this approach, cause at first > glance I really like it. > > TTFN, Struan. > > On 3/16/06, William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > > > > > > > Any light/dark rules should take the lighting rules into account. > > > > Go look at table 57.3 near the bottom. There's the lighting rules. > > > > A darkness effect should make the modifier worse, a light effect makes > > > it better. Since various races and colleges can see in the dark to a > > degree this degree these too should get a modifier. > > > > I suggest modifiers of +/- 2 / rank with real limits at -40 and 0. > > Prehaps you can have +/- 50 at R20. > > > > Elves and dwarves get a +20 mod, spells get 10+rank mods. > > > > This also does away with arbitary rnk 20 effects > > > > For spells let the damn things modify BCs up or down by 5+1/rank. Who > > really cares if celestials get a bonus in the morning buffing their > > comrades? Get to the bloody action already! In a battle the time taken > > > out to faff about casting light/dark may be more productivly spent > > elsewhere. > > > > For vision use the already extant lighting modifiers to modify things > > like stealth, hit chances and what ever else. A light spell > > illuminates an area and in a dark place allows those withing to be > > seen. A dark spell hides things, casts shadows and makes for > > obscurement meaning you suffer a penalty to shoot through it. > > > > And rules lawyers / munchkins take double damage. It's a handy rule > > that should stop 95% of the cheese. > > > > William > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:10:03 +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_01C648AF.80622952 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" An off-the-cuff attempt at 'breaking' the approach (without submitting anything constructive as an alternative). Sunny day, GoK's party are charged by angry church knights across a field. GoK would like to Whitefire the leader, but realises that a modified Base Chance of ~20% (not in shadow so -25% modifier) means he will probably have to wait until they get within hacking distance to hurt them (rather than himself). But he has time to prepare and cast a Darkness (then the Whitefire). Lets say he can do a 25ft diameter globe up to 100' away, that takes the light from 90% to 40%. If he makes the centre of effect where he is currently standing, BC will be ~45 (if we take the current approach of removing penalties only), or ~60 (if we can take positive bonuses). Well worth it, tells party during time out that this is his plan. Mil Sci Sci says, we like dark (we can all see in dark, maybe the knights can't), and we should maximise the area where you don't have horrible penalties to cast. Put the globe just above (up-sun of) us, we'll try to fight in the shadow. Shadowed area is bigger than the globe, although not as dark, especially near edge. Lets say we expect 50% light in middle, GoK still keen to fire at ~55%. Next pulse, after prepare, Mil Sci says 'main thing is to kill your negative , make the globe higher (closer to sun) for lesser effect over larger area. So how big will the shadow be if the globe is centred 75 feet away, and what is light level at the edge, and in the centre? If it's 50 feet away? Did I mention it's a snow-covered field with lots of reflections? Different GMs will react differently to these questions, so knowing this Hamish has GoK charge (ignoring the Mil Sci). Now sure there _could_ be irritatingly-placed natural objects on the battlefield that cause similar headaches, but the GM hardly ever seems to put them there. Just like the GM hardly ever has weather where light levels at your location vary from minute to minute (like can happen with fast-moving clouds.) Cheers Errol > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Woodhams [mailto:mdw@free.net.nz] > Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:36 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Light & Dark > > > OK, here's an incomplete proposal: > > (stuff about range, size and shape of the volume of darkness to be > discussed. If people are worried about the > shadow-from-a-big-sheet-of-darkness, this is the place to > address it. We > could allow high rank casters to increase volume at the expense of the > rank of effect.) > > ====================================== > Any light which passes through the volume affected by Darkness is > dimmed. For each rank of darkness effect, the light is shifted 5% down > on table 19.10. Light levels will not be shifted below the 1% level, > except by rank 20 Darkness. - e.g. rank 10 darkness would > shift a sunny > afternoon (90% light) to night with full moon (40% light), or twilight > (50%) to pitch darkness (1%). > > For an observer within the volume of the spell, the world > appears as if > they were wearing dark glasses. For an observer outside, it appears as > if the closest boundary of the darkness were made of (nonreflective) > tinted glass. A volume of darkness will cast a shadow, but > the shadow is > less deep than from a fully opaque object (except at rank 20.) > > If light travels through the effect of several Darkness > spells, only the > highest rank effect is counted. > ======================================= > Note that the second paragraph is purely for clarification - > everything > in it is a logical consequence of the one-sentence main description. > > One effect that this will have is that in dim light, low > level darkness > spells will be completely blinding. E.g. night with cresent moon and > stars (20%) can be turned to pitch blackness (1%) by rank 4 > darkness. We > could make it multiplicative instead of additive: rank 10 (50%) turns > 90% light into 45% light, and 20% light into 10% light. Rank 4 (20%) > turns 90% light to 72%, 20% to 16%. I prefer the additive method, but > could be convinced otherwise. > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C648AF.80622952 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> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>An off-the-cuff attempt at 'breaking' the approach = (without submitting anything constructive as an alternative).</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sunny day, GoK's party are charged by angry church = knights across a field. GoK would like to Whitefire the leader, but = realises that a modified Base Chance of ~20% (not in shadow so -25% = modifier) means he will probably have to wait until they get within = hacking distance to hurt them (rather than himself). But he has time to = prepare and cast a Darkness (then the Whitefire). Lets say he can do a = 25ft diameter globe up to 100' away, that takes the light from 90% to = 40%. If he makes the centre of effect where he is currently standing, = BC will be ~45 (if we take the current approach of removing penalties = only), or ~60 (if we can take positive bonuses). Well worth it, tells = party during time out that this is his plan.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Mil Sci Sci says, we like dark (we can all see in = dark, maybe the knights can't), and we should maximise the area where = you don't have horrible penalties to cast. Put the globe just above = (up-sun of) us, we'll try to fight in the shadow. Shadowed area is = bigger than the globe, although not as dark, especially near edge. Lets = say we expect 50% light in middle, GoK still keen to fire at ~55%. Next = pulse, after prepare, Mil Sci says 'main thing is to kill your negative = , make the globe higher (closer to sun) for lesser effect over larger = area.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>So how big will the shadow be if the globe is centred = 75 feet away, and what is light level at the edge, and in the centre? = If it's 50 feet away? Did I mention it's a snow-covered field with lots = of reflections?</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Different GMs will react differently to these = questions, so knowing this Hamish has GoK charge (ignoring the Mil = Sci).</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Now sure there _could_ be irritatingly-placed natural = objects on the battlefield that cause similar headaches, but the GM = hardly ever seems to put them there. Just like the GM hardly ever has = weather where light levels at your location vary from minute to minute = (like can happen with fast-moving clouds.)</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: Michael Woodhams [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:mdw@free.net.nz">mailto:mdw@free.net.nz</A>]</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 15:36</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] Light & Dark</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> OK, here's an incomplete proposal:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> (stuff about range, size and shape of the = volume of darkness to be</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> discussed. If people are worried about = the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> shadow-from-a-big-sheet-of-darkness, this is = the place to </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> address it. We</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> could allow high rank casters to increase = volume at the expense of the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> rank of effect.)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Any light which passes through the volume = affected by Darkness is</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> dimmed. For each rank of darkness effect, the = light is shifted 5% down</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> on table 19.10. Light levels will not be = shifted below the 1% level,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> except by rank 20 Darkness. - e.g. rank 10 = darkness would </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> shift a sunny</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> afternoon (90% light) to night with full moon = (40% light), or twilight</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> (50%) to pitch darkness (1%). </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> For an observer within the volume of the spell, = the world </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> appears as if</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> they were wearing dark glasses. For an observer = outside, it appears as</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> if the closest boundary of the darkness were = made of (nonreflective)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> tinted glass. A volume of darkness will cast a = shadow, but </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> the shadow is</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> less deep than from a fully opaque object = (except at rank 20.)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> If light travels through the effect of several = Darkness </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> spells, only the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> highest rank effect is counted.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Note that the second paragraph is purely for = clarification - </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> everything</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> in it is a logical consequence of the = one-sentence main description.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> One effect that this will have is that in dim = light, low </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> level darkness</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> spells will be completely blinding. E.g. night = with cresent moon and</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> stars (20%) can be turned to pitch blackness = (1%) by rank 4 </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> darkness. We</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> could make it multiplicative instead of = additive: rank 10 (50%) turns</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 90% light into 45% light, and 20% light into = 10% light. Rank 4 (20%)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> turns 90% light to 72%, 20% to 16%. I prefer = the additive method, but</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> could be convinced otherwise.</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_01C648AF.80622952-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Michael Woodhams
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 17:39:01 +1300
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 17:10, Errol Cavit wrote: > Put the globe just above (up-sun of) us, we'll try to fight in the > shadow. Shadowed area is bigger than the globe, although not as dark, > especially near edge. Lets say we expect 50% light in middle, GoK > still keen to fire at ~55%. Next pulse, after prepare, Mil Sci says > 'main thing is to kill your negative , make the globe higher (closer > to sun) for lesser effect over larger area. As the globe moves further away, the penumbra (partial shade) grows bigger at the expense of both the umbra (full shade) and unshaded areas. The amount of light blocked remains constant. The knights will have little trouble fighting in the penumbra, so I don't see any advantage to this tactic. Also, it won't be a very big effect unless you can cast the sphere so far away it has an apparent size on the order of 1 degree. (Sun is about half a degree across.) Once the sphere is far enough away to have apparent size smaller than the sun, you lose the umbra entirely. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:38:31 +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_01C648BB.DC48247C 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 > Michael Woodhams > Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:39 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Light & Dark > > > On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 17:10, Errol Cavit wrote: > > Put the globe just above (up-sun of) us, we'll try to fight in the > > shadow. Shadowed area is bigger than the globe, although > not as dark, > > especially near edge. Lets say we expect 50% light in middle, GoK > > still keen to fire at ~55%. Next pulse, after prepare, Mil Sci says > > 'main thing is to kill your negative , make the globe higher (closer > > to sun) for lesser effect over larger area. > > As the globe moves further away, the penumbra (partial shade) grows > bigger at the expense of both the umbra (full shade) and > unshaded areas. > The amount of light blocked remains constant. The knights will have > little trouble fighting in the penumbra, so I don't see any > advantage to > this tactic. Gok is on lighting mod of +5 (or something like it) in the penumbra, rather than -25. Changes his options considerably. Also if you starting point is 40% light (full moon) rather than 90%, losing 20% light is important (-20 SC mod vs -10 - something in that order anyway), and a Celestial can reasonably expect to tweak things to give them maximum benefit. > Also, it won't be a very big effect unless you > can cast the > sphere so far away it has an apparent size on the order of 1 degree. > (Sun is about half a degree across.) Is that at 200'? 200 yards? 2,000 yards? I have no idea. And it needs to be worked out for every new sized light source and blocking globe. How about a 1 foot diameter globe light source on the end on an approaching rune mage's stick? It's possible that the effect is so small in practice for the range of objects available that we can ignore it, but I'd rather not need a maths refresher lesson to convince myself. Once the sphere is far > enough away > to have apparent size smaller than the sun, you lose the > umbra entirely. At typical spell ranges, I wasn't expecting this to be a factor. Once you accept the current write-up, its application is simple in my experience. Unfortunately overcoming people's expectations of how things should work (and this varies from person to person) tends to be an issue. I'd be very happy if the current spell effect were able to be explained in a way that people would accept. I haven't thought of a way to do this (yet). Cheers Errol ------_=_NextPart_001_01C648BB.DC48247C 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>> Michael Woodhams</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:39</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] Light & Dark</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 17:10, Errol Cavit = wrote:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > Put the globe just above (up-sun of) us, = we'll try to fight in the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > shadow. Shadowed area is bigger than the = globe, although </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> not as dark,</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > especially near edge. Lets say we expect = 50% light in middle, GoK</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > still keen to fire at ~55%. Next pulse, = after prepare, Mil Sci says</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > 'main thing is to kill your negative , = make the globe higher (closer</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > to sun) for lesser effect over larger = area.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> As the globe moves further away, the penumbra = (partial shade) grows</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> bigger at the expense of both the umbra (full = shade) and </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> unshaded areas.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> The amount of light blocked remains constant. = The knights will have</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> little trouble fighting in the penumbra, so I = don't see any </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> advantage to</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> this tactic. </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Gok is on lighting mod of +5 (or something like it) = in the penumbra, rather than -25. Changes his options = considerably.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Also if you starting point is 40% light (full moon) = rather than 90%, losing 20% light is important (-20 SC mod vs -10 - = something in that order anyway), and a Celestial can reasonably expect = to tweak things to give them maximum benefit.</FONT></P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Also, it won't be a very big effect unless you = </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> can cast the</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> sphere so far away it has an apparent size on = the order of 1 degree.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> (Sun is about half a degree across.) </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Is that at 200'? 200 yards? 2,000 yards? I have no = idea. And it needs to be worked out for every new sized light source = and blocking globe. How about a 1 foot diameter globe light source on = the end on an approaching rune mage's stick?</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>It's possible that the effect is so small in practice = for the range of objects available that we can ignore it, but I'd = rather not need a maths refresher lesson to convince myself.</FONT></P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Once the sphere is far </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> enough away</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> to have apparent size smaller than the sun, you = lose the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> umbra entirely.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>At typical spell ranges, I wasn't expecting this to = be a factor.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Once you accept the current write-up, its application = is simple in my experience. Unfortunately overcoming people's = expectations of how things should work (and this varies from person to = person) tends to be an issue.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'd be very happy if the current spell effect were = able to be explained in a way that people would accept. I haven't = thought of a way to do this (yet).</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C648BB.DC48247C-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:49:00 +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_01C648BD.532D2848 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > -----Original Message----- > From: dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz [mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz] > Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:05 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Light & Dark > > > > I like William's approach. it seems right to worry about the > in-game effects/modifiers and leave the mechanism to the > imagination/illusionists. > Light = increases the amount of light in a volume. zero > effect outside the volume. Too much light is painful and > decreases the PC of those in the volume. So like it is now (maybe except rank 20) for the area impacted (i.e. no impact ouside area), but with a (positive) modifier to the existing light level rather than giving a (maximum) resulting light level? I thought the part of the current spell that people had trouble understanding was the area impacted. Does this aspect just need to be explained in a different way? (I don't care which method is used to work out the end light level). > > Dark = decreases the amount of light in a volume. > Again this is a modifier to the existing light vs the current (minimum) resulting light level. If it casts shadows (as William proposed), its a potentially big change to the area that is impacted by the spell. Most points are lit from multiple angles. Saying that light that enters e.g. a room from given angles is (partially) blocked means a range of possible effects 'down-light'. The player would like to adjust things to the benefit of the party, but if the impacts are complex, they effectively can't do it. The 'realistic' model ends up getting applied only in ways that have on-off effects. > Mechanism: magical. lets leave the mundane explanations to > the mechanicians, and accept that magic does stuff that dfies > logical explanation. > With you on that. Someone could have a go at re-writing Light and Dark to just talk about results rather than methods, and we could see how that works for people. If you want me to do it you will have to wait a week or two. Errol <snip> > > Ian > > On 3/16/06, William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz> wrote: <snip> > > > > > > For vision use the already extant lighting modifiers to > modify things > > > like stealth, hit chances and what ever else. A light spell > > > illuminates an area and in a dark place allows those withing to be > > > seen. A dark spell hides things, casts shadows and makes for > > > obscurement meaning you suffer a penalty to shoot through it. > > > > > > And rules lawyers / munchkins take double damage. It's a > handy rule > > > that should stop 95% of the cheese. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C648BD.532D2848 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: dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz [<A = HREF=3D"mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz">mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz</A>]</F= ONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Thursday, 16 March 2006 17:05</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] Light & Dark</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> I like William's approach. it seems right to = worry about the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> in-game effects/modifiers and leave the = mechanism to the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> imagination/illusionists.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Light =3D increases the amount of light in a = volume. zero </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> effect outside the volume. Too much light is = painful and </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> decreases the PC of those in the volume.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>So like it is now (maybe except rank 20) for the area = impacted (i.e. no impact ouside area), but with a (positive) modifier = to the existing light level rather than giving a (maximum) resulting = light level?</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I thought the part of the current spell that people = had trouble understanding was the area impacted. Does this aspect just = need to be explained in a different way?</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>(I don't care which method is used to work out the = end light level). </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Dark =3D decreases the amount of light in a = volume.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>></FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Again this is a modifier to the existing light vs the = current (minimum) resulting light level.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>If it casts shadows (as William proposed), its a = potentially big change to the area that is impacted by the spell. Most = points are lit from multiple angles. Saying that light that enters e.g. = a room from given angles is (partially) blocked means a range of = possible effects 'down-light'. The player would like to adjust things = to the benefit of the party, but if the impacts are complex, they = effectively can't do it. The 'realistic' model ends up getting applied = only in ways that have on-off effects.</FONT></P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Mechanism: magical. lets leave the mundane = explanations to </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> the mechanicians, and accept that magic does = stuff that dfies </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> logical explanation.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>With you on that.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Someone could have a go at re-writing Light and Dark = to just talk about results rather than methods, and we could see how = that works for people. If you want me to do it you will have to wait a = week or two.</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> <BR> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2><snip></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Ian</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > On 3/16/06, William Dymock = <dworkin@ihug.co.nz> wrote:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2><snip></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > For vision use the already extant = lighting modifiers to </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> modify things</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > like stealth, hit chances and what = ever else. A light spell</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > illuminates an area and in a dark = place allows those withing to be</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > seen. A dark spell hides things, = casts shadows and makes for</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > obscurement meaning you suffer a = penalty to shoot through it.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > ></FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > And rules lawyers / munchkins take = double damage. It's a </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> handy rule</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> > > that should stop 95% of the = cheese.</FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C648BD.532D2848-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:58:33 +1300
Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>: > What I meant was -- I don't want us to settle on a new light/dark > description, get it into play and then find that it has some major problem / > loophole that gets abused from the off. You're worried about a potential problem, in the face of an existing one? Look. If the vast majority...If ALL of the other fantasy role playing games don't have a problem with their light and darkness spells, and they have pretty much the SAME kind of darkness and light spells, WHY are we clinging to light and darkness spells that no one seems able to DM as they were intended? The concern is focused in the wrong place, and about the wrong things. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:58:33 +1300
Quoting Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>: > What I meant was -- I don't want us to settle on a new light/dark > description, get it into play and then find that it has some major problem / > loophole that gets abused from the off. You're worried about a potential problem, in the face of an existing one? Look. If the vast majority...If ALL of the other fantasy role playing games don't have a problem with their light and darkness spells, and they have pretty much the SAME kind of darkness and light spells, WHY are we clinging to light and darkness spells that no one seems able to DM as they were intended? The concern is focused in the wrong place, and about the wrong things. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	Keith Smith
Date	Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:36:23 +1300
>As the globe moves further away, the penumbra (partial shade) grows >bigger at the expense of both the umbra (full shade) and unshaded areas. >The amount of light blocked remains constant. The knights will have >little trouble fighting in the penumbra, so I don't see any advantage to >this tactic. Also, it won't be a very big effect unless you can cast the >sphere so far away it has an apparent size on the order of 1 degree. >(Sun is about half a degree across.) Once the sphere is far enough away >to have apparent size smaller than the sun, you lose the umbra entirely. Hmmmm .... so .. where would you have to put the sphere to see the corona? g (Seriously though - to get around light scattering in the atmosphere, I suspect said sphere would have to be in space - hmmm .. possible plot idea) Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --