Messages for 17 March 2006

Subject	Re: [dq] Light & Dark
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:38:01 +1300
Quoting Keith Smith <phaeton@ihug.co.nz>: > > >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) At arm's length, you can eclipse the sun with your thumb. The further away the eclipsing thing is, the bigger it would have to be to until it was the diameter of the Sun. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Andrew Withy \(DSL AK\)
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:09:38 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6492D.2BFAF5F3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Glowy / black lumps of fog. Must be rectangular or globular - no wiggling wierd shapes, no concave anything. Darkness blocks light & vision - i.e. casts shadows and hides whats on the other side. Light only illuminates stuff in the area - but is still visible as a glowy block. =20 Light levels in the area as as per the rows in the Celestial table or formula of (60+2/Rank, 40-2/Rank) Darkness at Rank 10 or 15 or whatever, needs magic vision to see. Darkness & Light at Rank 20 can't be seen through. =20 Its boring, scientifically stupid, and really easy to GM except in really odd situations - which is where GMs use their imaginations, or GM fiat. This is vaguely how my memory of dark spells work from other games - if not could someone summarise the "standard" light/darkness?. =20 Andrew ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6492D.2BFAF5F3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=3D473550019-16032006><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Glowy = / black lumps=20 of fog.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D473550019-16032006><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Must = be rectangular=20 or globular - no wiggling wierd shapes, no concave = anything.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D473550019-16032006><FONT face=3DArial = size=3D2>Darkness blocks=20 light & vision - i.e. casts shadows and hides whats on the other=20 side.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D473550019-16032006><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Light = only=20 illuminates stuff in the area - but is still visible as a glowy=20 block.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D473550019-16032006><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D473550019-16032006><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Light = levels in the=20 area as as per the rows in the Celestial table or formula of = (60+2/Rank,=20 40-2/Rank)</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D473550019-16032006><FONT face=3DArial = size=3D2>Darkness at Rank 10=20 or 15 or whatever, needs magic vision to see.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D473550019-16032006><FONT face=3DArial = size=3D2>Darkness & Light=20 at Rank 20 can't be seen through.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D473550019-16032006><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D473550019-16032006><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Its = boring,=20 scientifically stupid, and really easy to GM except in really odd = situations -=20 which is where GMs use their imaginations, or GM = fiat.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D473550019-16032006><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This = is vaguely how=20 my memory of dark spells work from other games - if not could someone = summarise=20 the "standard" light/darkness?.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D473550019-16032006><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D473550019-16032006><FONT face=3DArial=20 size=3D2>Andrew</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML> =00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6492D.2BFAF5F3-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 8:41:56 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=____1142538116822_z.zGL7gy8+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit i prefer the simpler "area of effect" is the radius. there is no effect out side the area of effect. This is how magic works! Next you will be arguing that a fire ball causes heat outside the area of effect, that combustibles will burn near a dragon flames, and then someone will ask 'what sort of range from the primary effect will a combustible take flame?' I am not worried by other game systems. i want something easy to GM, play and plan for. I do not want celestials to have to ask teh gm to interprete the edge effects. teh current rules do this (or were intended to). There was also a desire that celestials cannot bootstrap themselves to a positive bonus, the best they can do by casting a college spell is to neutralise a penalty. Why is this being changed? What has happened in the last few weeks that these concepts are no longer desirable? Sorry if this offends your idea of a post-Newtonian reality. and sorry Errol if it offends your idea of what shadow should do (why not come up with a spell of shadows?). I want magic to be different from technology. A spell of light has an area of effect within which the effect is constant. A lamp or torch will produce light, that tails off to teh edges. Same for darkness and an umbrella. > > From: Andrew\ Withy\ \(DSL\ AK\) <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> > Date: 2006/03/17 Fri AM 08:09:38 GMT+13:00 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: [dq] Simple Light & Dark > > Glowy / black lumps of fog. > Must be rectangular or globular - no wiggling wierd shapes, no concave > anything. > Darkness blocks light & vision - i.e. casts shadows and hides whats on > the other side. > Light only illuminates stuff in the area - but is still visible as a > glowy block. > > Light levels in the area as as per the rows in the Celestial table or > formula of (60+2/Rank, 40-2/Rank) > Darkness at Rank 10 or 15 or whatever, needs magic vision to see. > Darkness & Light at Rank 20 can't be seen through. > > Its boring, scientifically stupid, and really easy to GM except in > really odd situations - which is where GMs use their imaginations, or GM > fiat. > This is vaguely how my memory of dark spells work from other games - if > not could someone summarise the "standard" light/darkness?. > > Andrew > > ------=____1142538116822_z.zGL7gy8+ Content-Type: text/html; name="reply" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="reply" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=473550019-16032006><FONT face=Arial size=2>Glowy / black lumps of fog.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=473550019-16032006><FONT face=Arial size=2>Must be rectangular or globular - no wiggling wierd shapes, no concave anything.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=473550019-16032006><FONT face=Arial size=2>Darkness blocks light & vision - i.e. casts shadows and hides whats on the other side.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=473550019-16032006><FONT face=Arial size=2>Light only illuminates stuff in the area - but is still visible as a glowy block.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=473550019-16032006><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=473550019-16032006><FONT face=Arial size=2>Light levels in the area as as per the rows in the Celestial table or formula of (60+2/Rank, 40-2/Rank)</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=473550019-16032006><FONT face=Arial size=2>Darkness at Rank 10 or 15 or whatever, needs magic vision to see.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=473550019-16032006><FONT face=Arial size=2>Darkness & Light at Rank 20 can't be seen through.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=473550019-16032006><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=473550019-16032006><FONT face=Arial size=2>Its boring, scientifically stupid, and really easy to GM except in really odd situations - which is where GMs use their imaginations, or GM fiat.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=473550019-16032006><FONT face=Arial size=2>This is vaguely how my memory of dark spells work from other games - if not could someone summarise the "standard" light/darkness?.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=473550019-16032006><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=473550019-16032006><FONT face=Arial size=2>Andrew</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML> ------=____1142538116822_z.zGL7gy8+-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:46:23 +1300
------=_Part_3916_22378295.1142538383197 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/17/06, DSL AK) <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> <Andrew\Withy\\> wrote: > > Darkness blocks light & vision - i.e. casts shadows and hides whats on th= e > other side. > Light only illuminates stuff in the area - but is still visible as a glow= y > block. > > Light levels in the area as as per the rows in the Celestial table or > formula of (60+2/Rank, 40-2/Rank) > Darkness at Rank 10 or 15 or whatever, needs magic vision to see. > Darkness & Light at Rank 20 can't be seen through. > So, with the exception of the blocks appearing "glowy" for light or casting some shadows for dark... this would be what we currently have? - Martin ------=_Part_3916_22378295.1142538383197 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/17/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">DSL AK) <<a href=3D"mailto:And= rewW@datacom.co.nz">AndrewW@datacom.co.nz</a>></b> <Andrew\Withy\\&gt= ; wrote:<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_= quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt = 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div style=3D"direction: ltr;"><div><span><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">D= arkness blocks=20 light & vision - i.e. casts shadows and hides whats on the other=20 side.</font></span></div> <div><span><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">Light only=20 illuminates stuff in the area - but is still visible as a glowy=20 block.</font></span></div> <div><span><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2"></font></span> </div> <div><span><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">Light levels in the=20 area as as per the rows in the Celestial table or formula of (60+2/Ran= k,=20 40-2/Rank)</font></span></div> <div><span><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">Darkness at Rank 10=20 or 15 or whatever, needs magic vision to see.</font></span></div> <div><span><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">Darkness & Light=20 at Rank 20 can't be seen through.</font></span></div></div></blockquote><di= v><br>So, with the exception of the blocks appearing "glowy" for = light or casting some shadows for dark... this would be what we currently h= ave? <br><br>- Martin <br></div><br></div><br> ------=_Part_3916_22378295.1142538383197-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:48:59 +1300
------=_Part_3924_10976237.1142538539515 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/17/06, Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 3/17/06, DSL AK) <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> <Andrew\Withy\\> wrote: > > > > Light levels in the area as as per the rows in the Celestial table or > > formula of (60+2/Rank, 40-2/Rank) > > Darkness at Rank 10 or 15 or whatever, needs magic vision to see. > > Darkness & Light at Rank 20 can't be seen through. > > > > So, with the exception of the blocks appearing "glowy" for light or > casting some shadows for dark... this would be what we currently have? > That is, the same / very similar internal effects to what we currently have= , with less mutable block shapes. - Martin > > ------=_Part_3924_10976237.1142538539515 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/17/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Martin Dickson</b> <<a href=3D= "mailto:martin.dickson@gmail.com">martin.dickson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<d= iv><span class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty= le=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;= padding-left: 1ex;"> <div style=3D"direction: ltr;"><span class=3D"q" id=3D"q_10a0498871fa9f28_0= ">On 3/17/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">DSL AK) <<a href=3D"mailto:A= ndrewW@datacom.co.nz" target=3D"_blank" onclick=3D"return top.js.OpenExtLin= k(window,event,this)"> AndrewW@datacom.co.nz</a>></b> <Andrew\Withy\\> wrote:<div><span c= lass=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"bord= er-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-l= eft: 1ex;"> <div style=3D"direction: ltr;"><div><span><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">L= ight levels in the=20 area as as per the rows in the Celestial table or formula of (60+2/Ran= k,=20 40-2/Rank)</font></span></div> <div><span><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">Darkness at Rank 10=20 or 15 or whatever, needs magic vision to see.</font></span></div> <div><span><font face=3D"Arial" size=3D"2">Darkness & Light=20 at Rank 20 can't be seen through.</font></span></div></div></blockquote><di= v><br>So, with the exception of the blocks appearing "glowy" for = light or casting some shadows for dark... this would be what we currently h= ave? </div></div></span></div></blockquote><div><br>That is, the same / very sim= ilar internal effects to what we currently have, with less mutable block s= hapes.<br></div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left:= 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex= ;"> <div style=3D"direction: ltr;"><span class=3D"q" id=3D"q_10a0498871fa9f28_0= "><div><div>- Martin <br></div><br></div> </span></div></blockquote></div><br> ------=_Part_3924_10976237.1142538539515-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Andrew Withy \(DSL AK\)
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:52:16 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C64933.2060C305 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The light & dark would be visible from a distance - which it isn't currently. Dark would cast shadows. It would obscure things on the other side of it, which it doesn't currently. =20 This seems to be what other people were asking for. =20 =20 I've already said I think its stupid, but DQ is based on mob mentality - give them what they want and they will stop posting. I'd rather have a concrete proposal to compare with what we currently have that put up with further whining without people being constructive. When something is difficult, fine, but when there are simple solutions, lets present them, decide, move on. =20 Guess who got up on the wrong side of the bed today. ;-) =20 Andrew -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Martin Dickson Sent: Friday, 17 March 2006 8:46 a.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark =09 =09 On 3/17/06, DSL AK) <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> <Andrew\Withy\\> wrote:=20 =09 Darkness blocks light & vision - i.e. casts shadows and hides whats on the other side. Light only illuminates stuff in the area - but is still visible as a glowy block. =20 Light levels in the area as as per the rows in the Celestial table or formula of (60+2/Rank, 40-2/Rank) Darkness at Rank 10 or 15 or whatever, needs magic vision to see. Darkness & Light at Rank 20 can't be seen through. So, with the exception of the blocks appearing "glowy" for light or casting some shadows for dark... this would be what we currently have?=20 =09 - Martin=20 =09 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C64933.2060C305 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Message</TITLE> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=3D272254719-16032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>The=20 light & dark would be visible from a distance - which it isn't=20 currently.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D272254719-16032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>Dark=20 would cast shadows. It would obscure things on the other side of it, = which it=20 doesn't currently.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D272254719-16032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D272254719-16032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>This=20 seems to be what other people were asking for.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D272254719-16032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D272254719-16032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D272254719-16032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>I've=20 already said I think its stupid, but DQ is based on mob mentality - give = them=20 what they want and they will stop posting. I'd rather have a concrete = proposal=20 to compare with what we currently have that put up with further whining = without=20 people being constructive. When something is difficult, fine, but when = there are=20 simple solutions, lets present them, decide, move = on.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D272254719-16032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D272254719-16032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>Guess=20 who got up on the wrong side of the bed today. ;-)</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D272254719-16032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D272254719-16032006><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>Andrew</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV></DIV> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr = align=3Dleft><FONT=20 face=3DTahoma size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20 dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] <B>On Behalf Of=20 </B>Martin Dickson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, 17 March 2006 8:46=20 a.m.<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Simple = Light=20 & Dark<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>On 3/17/06, <B = class=3Dgmail_sendername>DSL AK)=20 <<A = href=3D"mailto:AndrewW@datacom.co.nz">AndrewW@datacom.co.nz</A>></B>=20 <Andrew\Withy\\> wrote: <DIV><SPAN class=3Dgmail_quote></SPAN> <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20 style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: = rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid"> <DIV style=3D"DIRECTION: ltr"> <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Darkness blocks light & = vision - i.e.=20 casts shadows and hides whats on the other side.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Light only illuminates stuff = in the area=20 - but is still visible as a glowy block.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Light levels in the area as = as per the=20 rows in the Celestial table or formula of (60+2/Rank,=20 40-2/Rank)</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Darkness at Rank 10 or 15 or=20 whatever, needs magic vision to see.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Darkness & Light at Rank = 20 can't be=20 seen through.</FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV><BR>So, with the exception of the blocks appearing "glowy" for = light or=20 casting some shadows for dark... this would be what we currently have? = <BR><BR>- Martin <BR></DIV><BR></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> =00 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C64933.2060C305-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Andrew Luxton-Reilly
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:53:45 +1300
The problems that I have seen in game are not related to what happens inside the area of effect. The current spell description is reasonably clear about what happens inside the area. The problems revolve around what happens when you are outside the area, but looking into the area, or looking through the area. That is unclear and interpreted very differently by different GMs. For example, imagine a mage casts a Rk 19 light in a 10ft cube. The cube starts a few inches above the floor and covers only empty space. Next to that they cast a Rk 19 Dark in a similar fashion. 1. Now, what does an onlooker see? Anything? 2. Let us suppose that an entity walks from outside the area, into the light cube, then into the dark cube, then out the other side. What does an onlooker see? 3. Imagine that this happens in the middle of the day. Does this change anything? What about if it was in the middle of the night? 4. Does anything appear different to an onlooker if the Rk of the spells is 20 instead of 19? If we can all come to the same resolution for these questions, then we probably have a spell effect that is pretty easy to interpret and GM :) Can we do it with the current writeup? Ciao, Andrew dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz wrote: > i prefer the simpler "area of effect" is the radius. there is no effect out side the area of effect. This is how magic works! Next you will be arguing that a fire ball causes heat outside the area of effect, that combustibles will burn near a dragon flames, and then someone will ask 'what sort of range from the primary effect will a combustible take flame?' > > I am not worried by other game systems. i want something easy to GM, play and plan for. I do not want celestials to have to ask teh gm to interprete the edge effects. > > teh current rules do this (or were intended to). There was also a desire that celestials cannot bootstrap themselves to a positive bonus, the best they can do by casting a college spell is to neutralise a penalty. > > Why is this being changed? What has happened in the last few weeks that these concepts are no longer desirable? > > > Sorry if this offends your idea of a post-Newtonian reality. and sorry Errol if it offends your idea of what shadow should do (why not come up with a spell of shadows?). > > I want magic to be different from technology. A spell of light has an area of effect within which the effect is constant. A lamp or torch will produce light, that tails off to teh edges. > > Same for darkness and an umbrella. > > > >> From: Andrew\ Withy\ \(DSL\ AK\) <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz> >> Date: 2006/03/17 Fri AM 08:09:38 GMT+13:00 >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >> Subject: [dq] Simple Light & Dark >> >> Glowy / black lumps of fog. >> Must be rectangular or globular - no wiggling wierd shapes, no concave >> anything. >> Darkness blocks light & vision - i.e. casts shadows and hides whats on >> the other side. >> Light only illuminates stuff in the area - but is still visible as a >> glowy block. >> >> Light levels in the area as as per the rows in the Celestial table or >> formula of (60+2/Rank, 40-2/Rank) >> Darkness at Rank 10 or 15 or whatever, needs magic vision to see. >> Darkness & Light at Rank 20 can't be seen through. >> >> Its boring, scientifically stupid, and really easy to GM except in >> really odd situations - which is where GMs use their imaginations, or GM >> fiat. >> This is vaguely how my memory of dark spells work from other games - if >> not could someone summarise the "standard" light/darkness?. >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Glowy / black lumps of fog. >> Must be rectangular or globular - no wiggling wierd shapes, no concave >> anything. >> Darkness blocks light & vision - i.e. casts shadows and hides whats on >> the other side. >> Light only illuminates stuff in the area - but is still visible as a >> glowy block. >> >> Light levels in the area as as per the rows in the Celestial table or >> formula of (60+2/Rank, 40-2/Rank) >> Darkness at Rank 10 or 15 or whatever, needs magic vision to see. >> Darkness & Light at Rank 20 can't be seen through. >> >> Its boring, scientifically stupid, and really easy to GM except in >> really odd situations - which is where GMs use their imaginations, or >> GM fiat. >> This is vaguely how my memory of dark spells work from other games - >> if not could someone summarise the "standard" light/darkness?. >> >> Andrew -- ------------------------------- Andrew Luxton-Reilly Department of Computer Science University of Auckland Email: andrew@cs.auckland.ac.nz Phone: +649-373-7599 x 85654 -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:32:24 +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_01C64938.BC0A7AFC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > -----Original Message----- > From: dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz [mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz] > Sent: Friday, 17 March 2006 08:42 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark > > > > i prefer the simpler "area of effect" is the radius. there is > no effect out side the area of effect. This is how magic > works! Next you will be arguing that a fire ball causes heat > outside the area of effect, that combustibles will burn near > a dragon flames, and then someone will ask 'what sort of > range from the primary effect will a combustible take flame?' > > I am not worried by other game systems. i want something easy > to GM, play and plan for. I do not want celestials to have to > ask teh gm to interprete the edge effects. > > teh current rules do this (or were intended to). There was > also a desire that celestials cannot bootstrap themselves to > a positive bonus, the best they can do by casting a college > spell is to neutralise a penalty. > > Why is this being changed? What has happened in the last few > weeks that these concepts are no longer desirable? > > > Sorry if this offends your idea of a post-Newtonian reality. > and sorry Errol if it offends your idea of what shadow should > do (why not come up with a spell of shadows?). I'm happy with magical darkness NOT causing shadows. Because it doesn't I don't spend time working out how to use this factor (and my ability to place large-ish bits of Dark where-ever I want) to my advantage, then convincing GMs that they should read the spell description (and understand how my college mods work) rather than going with their gut feel of how things work (which varies from person to person). GMs arbitrarily saying 'you get a bonus of 10' (because it feels right to them) when I know I'm either -25 or +20 makes me feel powerless and irrelevant. Why bother putting any thought or subtlety into how I do things if it is over-ridden by whim (this happens much less now than it used to under the early 1990's college). Real world things that cause shadows tend to be one of: 1. Held by someone who would prefer I didn't backfire, 'cause walking is slow. (GM input to me working out base chances nil or maybe one general question) 2. mobile (and movement uncontrolled by me) and cast too small a shadow for me to worry about them. 3. immobile, large, and I move myself to make use of the resulting shadow (again minimal GM input needed). Cheers Errol ------_=_NextPart_001_01C64938.BC0A7AFC 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] Simple 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: Friday, 17 March 2006 08:42</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] Simple Light & = Dark</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> i prefer the simpler "area of effect" = is the radius. there is </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> no effect out side the area of effect. This is = how magic </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> works! Next you will be arguing that a fire = ball causes heat </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> outside the area of effect, that combustibles = will burn near </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> a dragon flames, and then someone will ask = 'what sort of </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> range from the primary effect will a = combustible take flame?' </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> I am not worried by other game systems. i want = something easy </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> to GM, play and plan for. I do not want = celestials to have to </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> ask teh gm to interprete the edge = effects.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> teh current rules do this (or were intended = to). There was </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> also a desire that celestials cannot bootstrap = themselves to </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> a positive bonus, the best they can do by = casting a college </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> spell is to neutralise a penalty. </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Why is this being changed? What has happened in = the last few </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> weeks that these concepts are no longer = desirable?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sorry if this offends your idea of a = post-Newtonian reality. </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> and sorry Errol if it offends your idea of what = shadow should </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> do (why not come up with a spell of shadows?). = </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'm happy with magical darkness NOT causing shadows. = Because it doesn't I don't spend time working out how to use this = factor (and my ability to place large-ish bits of Dark where-ever I = want) to my advantage, then convincing GMs that they should read the = spell description (and understand how my college mods work) rather than = going with their gut feel of how things work (which varies from person = to person). GMs arbitrarily saying 'you get a bonus of 10' (because it = feels right to them) when I know I'm either -25 or +20 makes me feel = powerless and irrelevant. Why bother putting any thought or subtlety = into how I do things if it is over-ridden by whim (this happens much = less now than it used to under the early 1990's college).</FONT></P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Real world things that cause shadows tend to be one = of:</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>1. Held by someone who would prefer I didn't = backfire, 'cause walking is slow. (GM input to me working out base = chances nil or maybe one general question)</FONT></P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>2. mobile (and movement uncontrolled by me) and cast = too small a shadow for me to worry about them.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>3. immobile, large, and I move myself to make use of = the resulting shadow (again minimal GM input needed).</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C64938.BC0A7AFC-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Errol Cavit
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:41:58 +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_01C6493A.1233150A Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > -----Original Message----- > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of > Andrew Luxton-Reilly > Sent: Friday, 17 March 2006 08:54 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark > > > The problems that I have seen in game are not related to what happens > inside the area of effect. The current spell description is > reasonably > clear about what happens inside the area. > > The problems revolve around what happens when you are outside > the area, > but looking into the area, or looking through the area. That > is unclear > and interpreted very differently by different GMs. This has been my experience. > > For example, imagine a mage casts a Rk 19 light in a 10ft cube. The > cube starts a few inches above the floor and covers only empty space. > Next to that they cast a Rk 19 Dark in a similar fashion. > > 1. Now, what does an onlooker see? Anything? > > 2. Let us suppose that an entity walks from outside the > area, into the > light cube, then into the dark cube, then out the other side. > What does > an onlooker see? > > 3. Imagine that this happens in the middle of the day. Does this > change anything? What about if it was in the middle of the night? > > 4. Does anything appear different to an onlooker if the Rk of the > spells is 20 instead of 19? > > If we can all come to the same resolution for these > questions, then we > probably have a spell effect that is pretty easy to interpret > and GM :) > > Can we do it with the current writeup? > Good questions. The other common thing that tends to generate different results is 6. A large fire is lit inside the Dark. What does an onlooker see (both inside the Dark, and just outside its edge). Cheers Errol ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6493A.1233150A 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] Simple 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>> Andrew Luxton-Reilly</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Friday, 17 March 2006 08:54</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: [dq] Simple Light & = Dark</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> The problems that I have seen in game are not = related to what happens </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> inside the area of effect.  The current = spell description is </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> reasonably </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> clear about what happens inside the = area.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> The problems revolve around what happens when = you are outside </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> the area, </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> but looking into the area, or looking through = the area.  That </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> is unclear </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> and interpreted very differently by different = GMs.</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This has been my experience.</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> For example, imagine a mage casts a Rk 19 light = in a 10ft cube.  The </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> cube starts a few inches above the floor and = covers only empty space. </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Next to that they cast a Rk 19 Dark in a = similar fashion.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 1.  Now, what does an onlooker see?  = Anything?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 2.  Let us suppose that an entity walks = from outside the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> area, into the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> light cube, then into the dark cube, then out = the other side. </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>>  What does </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> an onlooker see?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 3.  Imagine that this happens in the = middle of the day.  Does this </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> change anything?  What about if it was in = the middle of the night?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 4.  Does anything appear different to an = onlooker if the Rk of the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> spells is 20 instead of 19?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> If we can all come to the same resolution for = these </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> questions, then we </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> probably have a spell effect that is pretty = easy to interpret </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> and GM :)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Can we do it with the current writeup?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Good questions. The other common thing that tends to = generate different results is </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>6. A large fire is lit inside the Dark. What does an = onlooker see (both inside the Dark, and just outside its edge).</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C6493A.1233150A-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 9:55:55 +1300
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=____1142542555959_DNto)=ique Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Using a simple "the effect is limited to the area of effect" and ignoring methods, mechanisms or logical application of causitive effect, i interpret it to be: Outside the area, looking through the area: No effect. you see things on teh other side as if the effct was not there. (you will see the effect is there by the periferal vision noticing things are different within the area of effect) Outside the area, looking in: full effect. amount of light within is reduced or increased. Outside the effect, looking at this side of effect: No effect. no light or darkness or shadow is cast out of the area. it is as if the effect is not there. Periferal vision will kick in of course. Looking with other than vision (infravision, ultrasonic etc). no effect. There are other spells that affect those aspects, like heat. Looking with darkvision. The full effect within, but reversed (the darker the better the vision). No effect outside the area of effect. Ian > > From: Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> > Date: 2006/03/17 Fri AM 09:41:58 GMT+13:00 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of > > Andrew Luxton-Reilly > > Sent: Friday, 17 March 2006 08:54 > > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > > Subject: Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark > > > > > > The problems that I have seen in game are not related to what happens > > inside the area of effect. The current spell description is > > reasonably > > clear about what happens inside the area. > > > > The problems revolve around what happens when you are outside > > the area, > > but looking into the area, or looking through the area. That > > is unclear > > and interpreted very differently by different GMs. > > > This has been my experience. > > > > > > For example, imagine a mage casts a Rk 19 light in a 10ft cube. The > > cube starts a few inches above the floor and covers only empty space. > > Next to that they cast a Rk 19 Dark in a similar fashion. > > > > 1. Now, what does an onlooker see? Anything? > > > > 2. Let us suppose that an entity walks from outside the > > area, into the > > light cube, then into the dark cube, then out the other side. > > What does > > an onlooker see? > > > > 3. Imagine that this happens in the middle of the day. Does this > > change anything? What about if it was in the middle of the night? > > > > 4. Does anything appear different to an onlooker if the Rk of the > > spells is 20 instead of 19? > > > > If we can all come to the same resolution for these > > questions, then we > > probably have a spell effect that is pretty easy to interpret > > and GM :) > > > > Can we do it with the current writeup? > > > > Good questions. The other common thing that tends to generate different > results is > > 6. A large fire is lit inside the Dark. What does an onlooker see (both > inside the Dark, and just outside its edge). > > Cheers > Errol > > ------=____1142542555959_DNto)=ique Content-Type: text/html; name="reply" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="reply" <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2658.2"> <TITLE>RE: [dq] Simple Light & Dark</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <BR> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [<A HREF="mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz</A>]On Behalf Of</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Andrew Luxton-Reilly</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Sent: Friday, 17 March 2006 08:54</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Subject: Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> The problems that I have seen in game are not related to what happens </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> inside the area of effect.  The current spell description is </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> reasonably </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> clear about what happens inside the area.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> The problems revolve around what happens when you are outside </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the area, </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> but looking into the area, or looking through the area.  That </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> is unclear </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> and interpreted very differently by different GMs.</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=2>This has been my experience.</FONT> </P> <BR> <P><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> For example, imagine a mage casts a Rk 19 light in a 10ft cube.  The </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> cube starts a few inches above the floor and covers only empty space. </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Next to that they cast a Rk 19 Dark in a similar fashion.</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> 1.  Now, what does an onlooker see?  Anything?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> 2.  Let us suppose that an entity walks from outside the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> area, into the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> light cube, then into the dark cube, then out the other side. </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>>  What does </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> an onlooker see?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> 3.  Imagine that this happens in the middle of the day.  Does this </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> change anything?  What about if it was in the middle of the night?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> 4.  Does anything appear different to an onlooker if the Rk of the </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> spells is 20 instead of 19?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> If we can all come to the same resolution for these </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> questions, then we </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> probably have a spell effect that is pretty easy to interpret </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> and GM :)</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> Can we do it with the current writeup?</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>> </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Good questions. The other common thing that tends to generate different results is </FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>6. A large fire is lit inside the Dark. What does an onlooker see (both inside the Dark, and just outside its edge).</FONT> </P> <P><FONT SIZE=2>Cheers</FONT> <BR><FONT SIZE=2>Errol</FONT> </P> </BODY> </HTML> ------=____1142542555959_DNto)=ique-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Andrew Luxton-Reilly
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:18:25 +1300
So, putting words in your mouth, your answers would be: 1. The onlooker sees nothing different 2. The onlooker sees an entity that is suddenly lit very brightly, appearing to almost glow, then the entity suddenly appears very black as if all the colour is absorbed from them?? 3. In the middle of the day, the entity would be clearly visible outside the area, then be more brightly lit in the light, then would appear to be a dark blot where it would be difficult to make out features in the area of the (otherwise invisible) darkness. 4. Hmm? Not sure how you visualize this. Perhaps Rk 20 light would be so bright as to obscure all details and make the entity appear like a beacon? Would be visible for miles at night? Rk 20 dark would obscure all detail and make the entity look as if they were created from a black substance? 6. A fire lit inside the Darkness. Ummmm? The light makes it seem even brighter, but the brightness does not extend beyond the spell. The Darkness means that you can see the fire, but it appears to be a very dim source, although it casts a lot of light after about 5 ft from the center? Would this be a fair interpretation of your views? Please correct where I am mistaken, preferably with reference to the actual example used. Ciao, Andrew dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz wrote: > Using a simple "the effect is limited to the area of effect" and ignoring methods, mechanisms or logical application of causitive effect, i interpret it to be: > > Outside the area, looking through the area: > No effect. you see things on teh other side as if the effct was not there. (you will see the effect is there by the periferal vision noticing things are different within the area of effect) > > Outside the area, looking in: > full effect. amount of light within is reduced or increased. > > Outside the effect, looking at this side of effect: > No effect. no light or darkness or shadow is cast out of the area. it is as if the effect is not there. Periferal vision will kick in of course. > > Looking with other than vision (infravision, ultrasonic etc). no effect. There are other spells that affect those aspects, like heat. > > Looking with darkvision. The full effect within, but reversed (the darker the better the vision). No effect outside the area of effect. > > Ian > >> From: Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> >> Date: 2006/03/17 Fri AM 09:41:58 GMT+13:00 >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >> Subject: Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of >>> Andrew Luxton-Reilly >>> Sent: Friday, 17 March 2006 08:54 >>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >>> Subject: Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark >>> >>> >>> The problems that I have seen in game are not related to what happens >>> inside the area of effect. The current spell description is >>> reasonably >>> clear about what happens inside the area. >>> >>> The problems revolve around what happens when you are outside >>> the area, >>> but looking into the area, or looking through the area. That >>> is unclear >>> and interpreted very differently by different GMs. >> >> This has been my experience. >> >> >>> For example, imagine a mage casts a Rk 19 light in a 10ft cube. The >>> cube starts a few inches above the floor and covers only empty space. >>> Next to that they cast a Rk 19 Dark in a similar fashion. >>> >>> 1. Now, what does an onlooker see? Anything? >>> >>> 2. Let us suppose that an entity walks from outside the >>> area, into the >>> light cube, then into the dark cube, then out the other side. >>> What does >>> an onlooker see? >>> >>> 3. Imagine that this happens in the middle of the day. Does this >>> change anything? What about if it was in the middle of the night? >>> >>> 4. Does anything appear different to an onlooker if the Rk of the >>> spells is 20 instead of 19? >>> >>> If we can all come to the same resolution for these >>> questions, then we >>> probably have a spell effect that is pretty easy to interpret >>> and GM :) >>> >>> Can we do it with the current writeup? >>> >> Good questions. The other common thing that tends to generate different >> results is >> >> 6. A large fire is lit inside the Dark. What does an onlooker see (both >> inside the Dark, and just outside its edge). >> >> Cheers >> Errol >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of >> > Andrew Luxton-Reilly >> > Sent: Friday, 17 March 2006 08:54 >> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz >> > Subject: Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark >> > >> > >> > The problems that I have seen in game are not related to what happens >> > inside the area of effect. The current spell description is >> > reasonably >> > clear about what happens inside the area. >> > >> > The problems revolve around what happens when you are outside >> > the area, >> > but looking into the area, or looking through the area. That >> > is unclear >> > and interpreted very differently by different GMs. >> >> >> This has been my experience. >> >> >> > >> > For example, imagine a mage casts a Rk 19 light in a 10ft cube. The >> > cube starts a few inches above the floor and covers only empty space. >> > Next to that they cast a Rk 19 Dark in a similar fashion. >> > >> > 1. Now, what does an onlooker see? Anything? >> > >> > 2. Let us suppose that an entity walks from outside the >> > area, into the >> > light cube, then into the dark cube, then out the other side. >> > What does >> > an onlooker see? >> > >> > 3. Imagine that this happens in the middle of the day. Does this >> > change anything? What about if it was in the middle of the night? >> > >> > 4. Does anything appear different to an onlooker if the Rk of the >> > spells is 20 instead of 19? >> > >> > If we can all come to the same resolution for these >> > questions, then we >> > probably have a spell effect that is pretty easy to interpret >> > and GM :) >> > >> > Can we do it with the current writeup? >> > >> >> Good questions. The other common thing that tends to generate >> different results is >> >> 6. A large fire is lit inside the Dark. What does an onlooker see >> (both inside the Dark, and just outside its edge). >> >> Cheers >> Errol >> -- ------------------------------- Andrew Luxton-Reilly Department of Computer Science University of Auckland Email: andrew@cs.auckland.ac.nz Phone: +649-373-7599 x 85654 -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:22:01 +1300
Quoting "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>: > Its boring, scientifically stupid, and really easy to GM except in > really odd situations - which is where GMs use their imaginations, or GM > fiat. > This is vaguely how my memory of dark spells work from other games - if > not could someone summarise the "standard" light/darkness?. > It's a fantasy game. It's not an exercise in speculative fiction. Play another kind of game if that's what you want. In fact, most of the base structures in the game should be, as the name suggests, BASIC. Not complex, not hard to understand, and yes, they OUGHT to be boring. The simpler the base structures, the easier to DM, so the more people will DM, and introduce their own variations to a shared world. A 'scientifically accurate' model is elitist, discourages new DMs from running games and is largely ignored by the experienced DMs who are more interested in telling an engaging story than preening on their academic laurels. By all means, model accurately. But, as you have just admitted, not many people understand how your version of the spells works, and of this number, not very many are willing to run their games as it is written. I mean, you can have your version in your game if you like. As you play you can sneer at all of the other people who don't understand the inner grace of your rationalisation. You'll be DMing some of them, mind. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Andrew Withy \(DSL AK\)
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:37:08 +1300
This is why I have tried to suggest something that fits with people's intuitions - trying to solve the problem. If this suggestion doesn't work, suggest something that does. -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz But, as you have just admitted, not many people understand how your version of the spells works, and of this number, not very many are willing to run their games as it is written. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Mandos Mitchinson
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:44:29 +1300
> This is why I have tried to suggest something that fits with > people's intuitions - trying to solve the problem. If this > suggestion doesn't work, suggest something that does. Don't be silly, suggesting solutions never solved anything. I vote everyone keeps arguing in circles how light works until everyone gives up and it stays the same....Its the DQ way. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:08:44 +1300
Hey Andrew, yup - pretty much on the money. seems odd, but then if one necro casts agony, you expect the magic to stop, not trail off at the inverse square of the distance. > > From: Andrew Luxton-Reilly <andrew@cs.auckland.ac.nz> > Date: 2006/03/17 Fri AM 10:18:25 GMT+13:00 > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > Subject: Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark > > So, putting words in your mouth, your answers would be: > > 1. The onlooker sees nothing different correct. the viewpoint is outside the area of effect. Try holding up an umbrella and looking at an object the other side of the shadow. does the shadow affect the distant object? > > 2. The onlooker sees an entity that is suddenly lit very brightly, > appearing to almost glow, then the entity suddenly appears very black as > if all the colour is absorbed from them?? yup. good test if there are celestials playing with your mind. > > 3. In the middle of the day, the entity would be clearly visible > outside the area, then be more brightly lit in the light, then would > appear to be a dark blot where it would be difficult to make out > features in the area of the (otherwise invisible) darkness. yup. If it were dim (normally) and they were carrying a torch, it would light up things normally around them, then it would light up things around them (assuming the magical light is not so strong as to remove all shadows), then it would hardly light things up around them, then it would appear normal (and you can see it normally all the way through as it is a light source, not an object visible due to the reflection of light). > > 4. Hmm? Not sure how you visualize this. Perhaps Rk 20 light would be > so bright as to obscure all details and make the entity appear like a > beacon? Would be visible for miles at night? Rk 20 dark would obscure > all detail and make the entity look as if they were created from a black > substance? nope, rank 20 light cannot be seen outside of the area of effect. Magic has limits. It has a hard cut off. like digital cellphones. they work or they dont. Or taking a gps underground (beleive me they work great right up to the door). > 6. A fire lit inside the Darkness. Ummmm? The light makes it seem > even brighter, but the brightness does not extend beyond the spell. The > Darkness means that you can see the fire, but it appears to be a very > dim source, although it casts a lot of light after about 5 ft from the > center? Nup. pse see my idea of someone carrying a torch. If you are outside the area of effect the light looks normal for a fire, but it is not reflecting very much in the area of effect. this would be a remote test for a spell of darkness. if you go underground, the absence of light is absolute. Almost no one experiences this. If you go into a coal mine, (especially a low grade mine) the amount of light is very low, even with cap-lamps. Looking in, you can see the cap-lamps, but you cannot see much around them. the spell of darkness reduces light within the spell area. and if it looks odd, then change your perspective to someone who has lived with magic all their life and used to stuff that we consider unusual, like an elf walking into the room. > > Would this be a fair interpretation of your views? Please correct where > I am mistaken, preferably with reference to the actual example used. the main thing is to have an area of effect, and all is normal outside that area of effect. It is simple even if counter intuitive for you. Ian > > Ciao, > Andrew > > > dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz wrote: > > Using a simple "the effect is limited to the area of effect" and ignoring methods, mechanisms or logical application of causitive effect, i interpret it to be: > > > > Outside the area, looking through the area: > > No effect. you see things on teh other side as if the effct was not there. (you will see the effect is there by the periferal vision noticing things are different within the area of effect) > > > > Outside the area, looking in: > > full effect. amount of light within is reduced or increased. > > > > Outside the effect, looking at this side of effect: > > No effect. no light or darkness or shadow is cast out of the area. it is as if the effect is not there. Periferal vision will kick in of course. > > > > Looking with other than vision (infravision, ultrasonic etc). no effect. There are other spells that affect those aspects, like heat. > > > > Looking with darkvision. The full effect within, but reversed (the darker the better the vision). No effect outside the area of effect. > > > > Ian > > > >> From: Errol Cavit <ecavit@tollnz.co.nz> > >> Date: 2006/03/17 Fri AM 09:41:58 GMT+13:00 > >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > >> Subject: Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark > >> > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of > >>> Andrew Luxton-Reilly > >>> Sent: Friday, 17 March 2006 08:54 > >>> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > >>> Subject: Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark > >>> > >>> > >>> The problems that I have seen in game are not related to what happens > >>> inside the area of effect. The current spell description is > >>> reasonably > >>> clear about what happens inside the area. > >>> > >>> The problems revolve around what happens when you are outside > >>> the area, > >>> but looking into the area, or looking through the area. That > >>> is unclear > >>> and interpreted very differently by different GMs. > >> > >> This has been my experience. > >> > >> > >>> For example, imagine a mage casts a Rk 19 light in a 10ft cube. The > >>> cube starts a few inches above the floor and covers only empty space. > >>> Next to that they cast a Rk 19 Dark in a similar fashion. > >>> > >>> 1. Now, what does an onlooker see? Anything? > >>> > >>> 2. Let us suppose that an entity walks from outside the > >>> area, into the > >>> light cube, then into the dark cube, then out the other side. > >>> What does > >>> an onlooker see? > >>> > >>> 3. Imagine that this happens in the middle of the day. Does this > >>> change anything? What about if it was in the middle of the night? > >>> > >>> 4. Does anything appear different to an onlooker if the Rk of the > >>> spells is 20 instead of 19? > >>> > >>> If we can all come to the same resolution for these > >>> questions, then we > >>> probably have a spell effect that is pretty easy to interpret > >>> and GM :) > >>> > >>> Can we do it with the current writeup? > >>> > >> Good questions. The other common thing that tends to generate different > >> results is > >> > >> 6. A large fire is lit inside the Dark. What does an onlooker see (both > >> inside the Dark, and just outside its edge). > >> > >> Cheers > >> Errol > >> > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of > >> > Andrew Luxton-Reilly > >> > Sent: Friday, 17 March 2006 08:54 > >> > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz > >> > Subject: Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark > >> > > >> > > >> > The problems that I have seen in game are not related to what happens > >> > inside the area of effect. The current spell description is > >> > reasonably > >> > clear about what happens inside the area. > >> > > >> > The problems revolve around what happens when you are outside > >> > the area, > >> > but looking into the area, or looking through the area. That > >> > is unclear > >> > and interpreted very differently by different GMs. > >> > >> > >> This has been my experience. > >> > >> > >> > > >> > For example, imagine a mage casts a Rk 19 light in a 10ft cube. The > >> > cube starts a few inches above the floor and covers only empty space. > >> > Next to that they cast a Rk 19 Dark in a similar fashion. > >> > > >> > 1. Now, what does an onlooker see? Anything? > >> > > >> > 2. Let us suppose that an entity walks from outside the > >> > area, into the > >> > light cube, then into the dark cube, then out the other side. > >> > What does > >> > an onlooker see? > >> > > >> > 3. Imagine that this happens in the middle of the day. Does this > >> > change anything? What about if it was in the middle of the night? > >> > > >> > 4. Does anything appear different to an onlooker if the Rk of the > >> > spells is 20 instead of 19? > >> > > >> > If we can all come to the same resolution for these > >> > questions, then we > >> > probably have a spell effect that is pretty easy to interpret > >> > and GM :) > >> > > >> > Can we do it with the current writeup? > >> > > >> > >> Good questions. The other common thing that tends to generate > >> different results is > >> > >> 6. A large fire is lit inside the Dark. What does an onlooker see > >> (both inside the Dark, and just outside its edge). > >> > >> Cheers > >> Errol > >> > > -- > ------------------------------- > Andrew Luxton-Reilly > Department of Computer Science > University of Auckland > Email: andrew@cs.auckland.ac.nz > Phone: +649-373-7599 x 85654 > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] The Dragon Isles
From	Mandos Mitchinson
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:17:25 +1300
Having started GM'ing an area close to the Dragon Isles it seems that there are aspects of the area that I don't know about and might need to. I wonder if anyone has the information regarding this area that could be either added to the Wiki, or sent to me so I can add it. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:21:06 +1300
No, that's not good enough. You need to have a simple rationalisation of the way it works, because the rules cannot (and won't in the forseeable future) cover every possibility. The underlying explanation has to be one that a DM can quickly understand and make sensible decisions based on when a situation arises that isn't covered by the rules, as happens so frequently in games. If we came up with a rules structure that covered every possible eventuality, we wouldn't be wasting our time playing games with it, NASA would be supporting us while we drank cocktails out of coconuts on our own private beaches. Jim. Quoting dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz: > > the main thing is to have an area of effect, and all is normal outside that > area of effect. It is simple even if counter intuitive for you. > > Ian -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:06:35 +1300 (NZDT)
Andrew Luxton-Reilly said: > The problems that I have seen in game are not related to what happens inside the area of > effect. The current spell description is reasonably clear about what happens inside the area. > > The problems revolve around what happens when you are outside the area, but looking into the > area, or looking through the area. That is unclear and interpreted very differently by > different GMs. This matches my experience with the current spells. > For example, imagine a mage casts a Rk 19 light in a 10ft cube. The cube starts a few inches > above the floor and covers only empty space. Next to that they cast a Rk 19 Dark in a similar > fashion. With the Current Celestial Light & Dark, these are my answers based on my (possibly flawed) understanding: > 1. Now, what does an onlooker see? Anything? Nothing. > 2. Let us suppose that an entity walks from outside the area, into the light cube, then into > the dark cube, then out the other side. What does an onlooker see? In the Light they are extremely well lit without shadows in the fold of their clothes, etc. In the Dark they are a dark silhouette occluding the background. This is assuming that the observer does not have Witchsight, Nightvision, etc. which would let them see in Rk 19 Dark. If they do then they see the walker as per the limits of their vision. In both areas they cast a shadow as if the spells are not there and the lower few inches of their shoes are perfectly normal. > 3. Imagine that this happens in the middle of the day. Does this change anything? What about > if it was in the middle of the night? Noon in a desert - apart from the shadows in the folds of their clothing going, there would be no difference between the walker standing outside the affected areas and standing in the light. Darkness would still be as above. Midnight in a storm - the darkness is the same as the surrounding area (no silhouette, nothing to see), the light is as per 2. > 4. Does anything appear different to an onlooker if the Rk of the spells is 20 instead of 19? No, except that magical vision is of no difference to normal vision. > 5. A bonfire in the areas? Light - if the light level is higher than that of a Bonfire (which I believe Rk 19 is) then the burning wood is will lit, the flames are not visible. Dark - the Bonfire (above the first few inches) is not visible unless appropriate magical vision is available. In both cases the area normally illuminated by the bonfire (outside the light&dark) is illuminated to normal levels. With the Simple Light & Dark as posted and scorned by Andrew W, these are my answers based on my (possibly flawed) understanding: > 1. Now, what does an onlooker see? Anything? A dark cloud (that hides what is behind it if you don't have magical vision) and a glowing cloud (makes the area beyond harder to see). > 2. Let us suppose that an entity walks from outside the area, into the light cube, then into > the dark cube, then out the other side. What does an onlooker see? In the Light they are extremely well lit without shadows in the folds of their clothes, etc. In the Dark they are not visible without magical vision. In both areas the lower few inches of their shoes are visible but shadowed under the Dark. > 3. Imagine that this happens in the middle of the day. Does this change anything? What about > if it was in the middle of the night? Noon in a desert - apart from the shadows in the fold of their clothing going, there would be no difference between the walker standing outside the affected areas and standing in the light. Darkness would still be as above. Midnight in a storm - all as per 2. Except that there is not much difference between the surrounding environment and the Dark. > 4. Does anything appear different to an onlooker if the Rk of the spells is 20 instead of 19? Dark - No, except that magical vision is of no difference to normal vision. Light - more like a Dark, everything in the area is too bright to see and the area beyond is obscured. > 5. A bonfire in the areas? Light - if the light level is higher than that of a Bonfire (which I believe Rk 19 is) then the burning wood is well lit, the flames are not visible. The area normally illuminated by the bonfire (outside the light) is illuminated to normal levels. Dark - the Bonfire (above the first few inches) is not visible unless appropriate magical vision is available. It does not illuminate the surrounding area. Cheers, Stephen. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Michael Woodhams
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:11:21 +1300
Quoting dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz: > > > > the main thing is to have an area of effect, and all is normal outside that > > area of effect. It is simple even if counter intuitive for you. > > > On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 13:21, raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz wrote: > No, that's not good enough. You need to have a simple rationalisation of the way > it works, because the rules cannot (and won't in the forseeable future) cover > every possibility. I agree with this - which is why I've concentrated on a logically consistent mechanism, and only secondarily on crafting the explanation. I object to the current rule on two grounds. The explaination is quite confusing - it takes effort to realize this is an albedo-changing spell. This is easily fixed. The other reason is that it doesn't behave as I feel a darkness spell should. (I want darkness which obscures what is behind it, and is visible even if the volume is empty. Yes, if cast over the mouth of a cave, it should make the entire cave dark. It is silly if a small illusionary wall can darken a cave but a small darkness spell can't.) Ian's description corresponds to the current rule, so evidently others prefer the albedo mechanism. The black fog effect comes 3rd in my list of preferences - it is much harder to GM. What is the light level where you are standing? Depends on exterior light levels, distance into the fog, and rank of the darkness. How far away through the darkness can I see a torch? We could figure out formulae and tables, but it would be a big pain. The source-of-anti-light mechanism is so hairy I haven't even tried to figure out how to play it, so I think that is a non-starter. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Martin Dickson
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:12:49 +1300
------=_Part_5188_16950830.1142557969732 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/17/06, dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz <dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz> wrote: > > > It is simple even if counter intuitive for you. I think the complaint it that simple + counter-intuitive =3D not simple. Having strongly limited / defined areas for the magic is simple. Ignoring the inverse square law and having the light (or dark) within the area all of the same intensity is simple. But having the big block of darkness or light completely invisible from the outside is counter-intuitive and adds complexity. Having the big block of dark look dark (and perhaps cast weak and useless shadows) and having the big block of light look glowy (and give a little weak and useless ilumination) goes a long way towards making them "feel" more reasonable (even if not real). Using this simple change with Andrew's questions: > 1. Now, what does an onlooker see? Anything? A big shadowy block / a big glowy block > 2. Let us suppose that an entity walks from outside the area, into the > light cube, then into the dark cube, then out the other side. What does > an onlooker see? The entity in the light area look like they are in a very bright searchligh= t beam, when they enter the dark area they'll probably disappear... or mostly disappear depending on the viewer's vision. The example said Rk 19, but th= e point is the darker the dark then the less visible the entity will be, the brighter the light the more so... until it becomes so bright the viewer can't distinguish the entity amongst the glare. >3. Imagine that this happens in the middle of the day. Does this >change anything? What about if it was in the middle of the night? The glowy area will be less obvious or even invisible in the day (can you see a torch in daylight?), the dark will be less obvious at night. And eac= h will be more obvious when in the opposite lighting area. >4. Does anything appear different to an onlooker if the Rk of the >spells is 20 instead of 19? In both cases the entity will be invisible -- obscured by the dark or lost in the glare of the light. And Errol's question: >6. A large fire is lit inside the Dark. What does an onlooker see (both inside the Dark, > and just outside its edge). The fire doesn't give out as much lit as normal, whether seen from inside the darkness or without. Cheers, Martin ------=_Part_5188_16950830.1142557969732 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 3/17/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername"><a href=3D"mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.= co.nz">dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz</a></b> <<a href=3D"mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co= .nz">dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz</a>> wrote:<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote"></= span> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, = 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>It is simple = even if counter intuitive for you.</blockquote><div><br>I think the complai= nt it that simple + counter-intuitive =3D not simple. <br><br>Having strongly limited / defined areas for the magic is simple.<br= ><br>Ignoring the inverse square law and having the light (or dark) within = the area all of the same intensity is simple.<br><br>But having the big blo= ck of darkness or light completely invisible from the outside is counter-in= tuitive and adds complexity. <br><br>Having the big block of dark look dark (and perhaps cast weak and u= seless shadows) and having the big block of light look glowy (and give a li= ttle weak and useless ilumination) goes a long way towards making them &quo= t;feel" more reasonable (even if not real). <br><br>Using this simple change with Andrew's questions:<br><br>> 1. &n= bsp;Now, what does an onlooker see?  Anything?<br><br>A big shadowy bl= ock / a big glowy block<br><br>> 2.  Let us suppose that an entity = walks from outside the area, into the <br>> light cube, then into the dark cube, then out the other side. &nbs= p;What does<br>> an onlooker see?<br><br>The entity in the light area lo= ok like they are in a very bright searchlight beam, when they enter the dar= k area they'll probably disappear... or mostly disappear depending on the v= iewer's vision.  The example said Rk 19, but the point is the darker t= he dark then the less visible the entity will be, the brighter the light th= e more so... until it becomes so bright the viewer can't distinguish the en= tity amongst the glare. <br><br>>3.  Imagine that this happens in the middle of the day. &n= bsp;Does this<br>>change anything?  What about if it was in the mid= dle of the night?<br><br>The glowy area will be less obvious or even invisi= ble in the day (can you see a torch in daylight?), the dark will be less ob= vious at night.  And each will be more obvious when in the opposite li= ghting area. <br><br>>4.  Does anything appear different to an onlooker if the R= k of the<br>>spells is 20 instead of 19?<br><br>In both cases the entity= will be invisible -- obscured by the dark or lost in the glare of the ligh= t. <br><br>And Errol's question:<br><br><font size=3D"2">>6. A large fire i= s lit inside the Dark. What does an onlooker see (both inside the Dark, <br= >> and just outside its edge).</font><br><br>The fire doesn't give out a= s much lit as normal, whether seen from inside the darkness or without. <br><br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br> ------=_Part_5188_16950830.1142557969732-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Michael Woodhams
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:20:37 +1300
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 14:06, Stephen Martin wrote: > > 5. A bonfire in the areas? > > Light - if the light level is higher than that of a Bonfire (which I believe Rk 19 is) then the > burning wood is will lit, the flames are not visible. > > Dark - the Bonfire (above the first few inches) is not visible unless appropriate magical vision > is available. > > In both cases the area normally illuminated by the bonfire (outside the light&dark) is illuminated > to normal levels. Do you mean normal for the environment, or normal for being that distance from a bonfire? It isn't so clear from the current writeup which is correct. It could be either without being inconsistent with the mechanism. > With the Simple Light & Dark as posted and scorned by Andrew W, these are my answers based on my > (possibly flawed) understanding: All the darkness effects you describe are as I'd expect from the tinted-glass mechanism. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:22:33 +1300 (NZDT)
> > the main thing is to have an area of effect, and all is normal outside that area of effect. It > is simple even if counter intuitive for you. > > Ian Why is this so important? A Wall of Stone is 20x10x1, that is the magically affected area, but it still stops arrows, wind, line of sight, etc. of people and things that are on either side of the affected are. A Windstorm makes a complete mess of things inside its area of effect. If you cast it on a still day and stand just outside its effect, should it be dead still? Or should there be swirls and eddies escaping the area? A Rainstorm drops a lot of water in a defined area, is it completely dry outside that area or does water deflect of people in the area and the water that hits the gound run-off normally? What is wrong with having a Darkness that casts shadows, a Light that brightens the area around it? I know that this is not what the current writeup does, but you seem deadset against changing that aspect and I am unclear why. Cheers, Stephen. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:34:14 +1300 (NZDT)
Michael Woodhams said: > On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 14:06, Stephen Martin wrote: >> > 5. A bonfire in the areas? >> >> Light - if the light level is higher than that of a Bonfire (which I believe Rk 19 is) then >> the burning wood is will lit, the flames are not visible. >> >> Dark - the Bonfire (above the first few inches) is not visible unless appropriate magical >> vision is available. >> >> In both cases the area normally illuminated by the bonfire (outside the light&dark) is >> illuminated to normal levels. > > Do you mean normal for the environment, or normal for being that > distance from a bonfire? It isn't so clear from the current writeup which is correct. It could > be either without being inconsistent with the mechanism. NB This is wrt Current Writeup. If you are outside the light and dark, then work out the level of illumination where you are relative to the bonfire as if the Light and Dark are not there at all. Cheers, Stephen. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Simple Light & Dark
From	Michael Woodhams
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:57:34 +1300
On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 14:34, Stephen Martin wrote: > NB This is wrt Current Writeup. > > If you are outside the light and dark, then work out the level of illumination where you are > relative to the bonfire as if the Light and Dark are not there at all. Interesting. So you can keep a lantern inside a small permanent darkness volume and have a really nifty indirect lighting effect :-) In an extreme version of this, you put a searchlight in rank 19 darkness, shine it fully into the face of someone so their face is intensely illuminated, but they are not at all dazzled, as they can't see the searchlight. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] When should I warn players
From	Jonathan Bean - TME
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:05:29 +1300
Hi all, I have worked to provide movement within the game to change the environment if a player is being disruptive. When should I start warning players, if I as a GM feel that they are being disruptive to the game / storyline / enjoyment of the game? Should I stop the game and directly tell the player at the time? I have tried to tell players after the game, but the moment has passed and they do not recall teh time or moment when the problems occur. Do other GMs have a view on this? Thanks in advance, Jono -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] When should I warn players
From	Andrew Withy \(DSL AK\)
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:16:00 +1300
"Bob, can you please give me a hand making coffee?" Andrew -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Jonathan Bean - TME Sent: Friday, 17 March 2006 3:05 p.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: [dq] When should I warn players Hi all, I have worked to provide movement within the game to change the environment if a player is being disruptive. When should I start warning players, if I as a GM feel that they are being disruptive to the game / storyline / enjoyment of the game? Should I stop the game and directly tell the player at the time? I have tried to tell players after the game, but the moment has passed and they do not recall teh time or moment when the problems occur. Do other GMs have a view on this? Thanks in advance, Jono -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] When should I warn players
From	Chris Caulfield
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:17:16 +1300
------=_Part_4036_20514029.1142561836640 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Jono, You could pass them a note (as it was done in the old days) and they either get the message or you take them outside and beat them (like the old days) CC On 3/17/06, Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have worked to provide movement within the game to change the > environment > if a player is being disruptive. > > When should I start warning players, if I as a GM feel that they are bein= g > disruptive to the game / storyline / enjoyment of the game? > > Should I stop the game and directly tell the player at the time? > I have tried to tell players after the game, but the moment has passed an= d > they do not recall teh time or moment when the problems occur. > > Do other GMs have a view on this? > > Thanks in advance, > > Jono > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > ------=_Part_4036_20514029.1142561836640 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline <div>Jono, </div> <div>You could pass them a note (as it was done in the old days) and they e= ither get the message or you take them outside and beat them (like the old = days)</div> <div>CC<br><br> </div> <div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 3/17/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">= Jonathan Bean - TME</b> <<a href=3D"mailto:Jonathan@tme.co.nz">Jonathan@= tme.co.nz</a>> wrote:</span> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0= px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Hi all,<br><br>I have worked to = provide movement within the game to change the environment<br>if a player i= s being disruptive. <br><br>When should I start warning players, if I as a GM feel that they ar= e being<br>disruptive to the game / storyline / enjoyment of the game?<br><= br>Should I stop the game and directly tell the player at the time?<br> I have tried to tell players after the game, but the moment has passed and<= br>they do not recall teh time or moment when the problems occur.<br><br>Do= other GMs have a view on this?<br><br>Thanks in advance,<br><br>Jono<br> <br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.= org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br></blockquote></div><br> ------=_Part_4036_20514029.1142561836640-- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] When should I warn players
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:17:35 +1300
Do it right away, as soon as you see it. It's handy to keep a rolled up newspaper nearby, too. The chances are that they have no clue what you're talking about if you leave it till afterwards. They certainly seem not to understand when I have tried the technique of mentioning it later. On the other hand, when you do it as soon as you see it, they seem to quite readily see the problem. Jim. Quoting Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>: > Hi all, > > I have worked to provide movement within the game to change the environment > if a player is being disruptive. > > When should I start warning players, if I as a GM feel that they are being > disruptive to the game / storyline / enjoyment of the game? > > Should I stop the game and directly tell the player at the time? > I have tried to tell players after the game, but the moment has passed and > they do not recall teh time or moment when the problems occur. > > Do other GMs have a view on this? > > Thanks in advance, > > Jono > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] When should I warn players
From	Mandos Mitchinson
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:19:58 +1300
> I have worked to provide movement within the game to change > the environment if a player is being disruptive. > > When should I start warning players, if I as a GM feel that > they are being disruptive to the game / storyline / enjoyment > of the game? > > Should I stop the game and directly tell the player at the > time? I have tried to tell players after the game, but the > moment has passed and they do not recall teh time or moment > when the problems occur. > > Do other GMs have a view on this? If you have informed the players and nothing has changed I would suggest asking them to leave the game. If nothing is changing it will only ruin things for the other players. Also checking with the other player to see if they find the player a problem is always good, it might just be a lone perception. If all else fails at the start of a session explain your feelings about the game and have the group chat about it. When the player realises others are annoyed to it might help them accept the issue. Mandos /s -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] When should I warn players
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:28:52 +1300
Quoting "Andrew Withy (DSL AK)" <AndrewW@datacom.co.nz>: > "Bob, can you please give me a hand making coffee?" > Quoting Chris Caulfield <chriscaulf@gmail.com>: > Jono, > You could pass them a note (as it was done in the old days) and they either > get the message or you take them outside and beat them (like the old days) > CC I do not recommend either of these two approaches. The direct approach is harder, because you actually have to say something reasonably unpleasant to people, and it's on the order of trying to tell someone that they have bad breath by shouting it to them in a crowded room. Frankly, too bad. Stopping the disruptive behaviour needs to be done in a direct way for two reasons. 1) It's more effective and people (not just the offender) know what you're talking about. 2) It lets the rest of the players know that you have identified the disruption and have moved to deal with it. When you take someone aside and have a quiet word with them, the other players don't know that the problem has been addressed. As the person with the most leverage on the enjoyment of the evening, the DM has to make sure that everyone knows what the boundaries are and that they will be policed. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	[dq] Bonus Exp
From	Jonathan Bean - TME
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:37:28 +1300
What do people think about Bonus Exp? I give bonus Exp at the time for moving the story along, or for very funny/enjoyable moments. Also I am thinking of getting my players to award bonus Exp to other players for X at the start of the night for last weeks game. The players would have to say what X was from last week. I would hold veto. Person with the most X for a night would get the single bonus on offer. It does seem to be a bit like a cross over of DQ and Reality TV shows of 'The tribe has voted you bonus Exp'. I will see. Kind regards, Jonathan Bean Business Development Manager TME -it's all about time NZ Toll Free 0800 55 33 66 Aust Toll Free 1800 30 51 75 021 173 4060 www.tme.co.nz -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Bonus Exp
From	Stephen Martin
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 16:39:54 +1300 (NZDT)
The potential xp award per night of up to 1500 + level award is enough, bonuses above this are not needed. But within that amount Awarded Exp is split into 4 Categories. Level & Preparation are simple and easy to award. Contribution & Roleplaying are the areas where the GMs judgement comes into play. Splitting them into base and bonus is a great way to work out who deserves more or less. 250 out of 500 is supposed to be an average level of play, neither obstructing the game nor standing out. Award 250 from each as the baseline, keep a tally of ticks and crosses each night, each tick is worth 50xp, each cross -50xp, capped at +/- 500xp. Or similar depending on where you want to set your base level and what range you want. I consider the level of play in most of my parties to be relatively high and start with a higher base and vary it by +/-10 25xp chunks. I think a player award or player voted award would just end up being disruptive, drawing focus away from the action in the game. Cheers, Stephen. Jonathan Bean - TME said: > What do people think about Bonus Exp? > > I give bonus Exp at the time for moving the story along, or for very funny/enjoyable moments. > > Also I am thinking of getting my players to award bonus Exp to other players for X at the start > of the night for last weeks game. The players would have to say what X was from last week. I > would hold veto. Person with the most X for a night would get the single bonus on offer. > > It does seem to be a bit like a cross over of DQ and Reality TV shows of 'The tribe has voted > you bonus Exp'. > > I will see. > > Kind regards, > > Jonathan Bean > Business Development Manager > TME -it's all about time > NZ Toll Free 0800 55 33 66 > Aust Toll Free 1800 30 51 75 > 021 173 4060 www.tme.co.nz > > > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Bonus Exp
From	William Dymock
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:41:00 +1300
When I am GMing and playing it becomes hard enough to work out what happened last week. Six days from now I'll have only a dim memory of last night's game. I also don't like the idea of bonus ep. I feel a 4-5 hundred award in either contribution or roleplaying for excellent roleplaying is sufficient. Especially when it's so easy to lose ep. William -----Original Message----- From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of Jonathan Bean - TME Sent: Friday, 17 March 2006 3:37 p.m. To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Subject: [dq] Bonus Exp What do people think about Bonus Exp? I give bonus Exp at the time for moving the story along, or for very funny/enjoyable moments. Also I am thinking of getting my players to award bonus Exp to other players for X at the start of the night for last weeks game. The players would have to say what X was from last week. I would hold veto. Person with the most X for a night would get the single bonus on offer. It does seem to be a bit like a cross over of DQ and Reality TV shows of 'The tribe has voted you bonus Exp'. I will see. Kind regards, Jonathan Bean Business Development Manager TME -it's all about time NZ Toll Free 0800 55 33 66 Aust Toll Free 1800 30 51 75 021 173 4060 www.tme.co.nz -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz -- -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.4/283 - Release Date: 16/03/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.4/283 - Release Date: 16/03/2006 -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Bonus Exp
From	Keith Smith
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 21:18:29 +1300
>What do people think about Bonus Exp? > >I give bonus Exp at the time for moving the story along, or for very >funny/enjoyable moments. I've got no problems with the idea. I have a tendency to do this in my games as a reward for entertainment or something extrememly well played. Keith -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Bonus Exp
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:26:07 +1300
Quoting Jonathan Bean - TME <Jonathan@tme.co.nz>: > What do people think about Bonus Exp? > > I give bonus Exp at the time for moving the story along, or for very > funny/enjoyable moments. It's fine, really, because it indicates directly what kind of performance you want to see, so it tells players how to improve their playing. > > Also I am thinking of getting my players to award bonus Exp to other players > for X at the start of the night for last weeks game. The players would have > to say what X was from last week. I would hold veto. Person with the most X > for a night would get the single bonus on offer. > > It does seem to be a bit like a cross over of DQ and Reality TV shows of > 'The tribe has voted you bonus Exp'. This is apalling. The role of the DM with respect to xp is to assign the coin of development to players in a way that promotes better play. What game do you think you're playing? > > I will see. Not with me, you won't. I won't be playing ANY game where you try to inflict this on me. I am so uninterested, I would rather not play. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Subject	Re: [dq] Bonus Exp
From	raro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
Date	Fri, 17 Mar 2006 23:11:42 +1300
Whatever planet you are on, Stephen, you need to come back to this one. ALL xp is awarded by the DM, and EVERY SINGLE POINT of it is awarded at the DM's discretion. DMs award xp for anything that they damned well please, but their central role is to provide a critical function so that the player can find ways to improve their performance.1 The guidelines on how a DM assigns xp are just that. They are ignored as frequently as the DM wants to ignore them, and they can always account a way to add the xp that they want. The Guild has no means to enforce compliance upon DMs. And, in fact, the effect of awarding xp above and beyond the norm has precious little effect on the game in general. There are people who worry about pathetic things like bonuses to base chances and other trivia. Frankly, if a player comes away from a game with twice the award that the guidelines suggest, the impact would be invisible well within the three games they played. Quoting Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>: > The potential xp award per night of up to 1500 + level award is enough, > bonuses above this are not > needed. But within that amount Awarded Exp is split into 4 Categories. It's only enough if the DM believes that it's enough. > > Level & Preparation are simple and easy to award. Depends how you define preparation and level. Up to the DM. > > Contribution & Roleplaying are the areas where the GMs judgement comes into > play. The DM comes into EVERY SINGLE AREA where awarding xp is involved. He is the ONLY one who makes the awards. His decisions have never been subject to review, even when they are considered by some unreasonable. > Splitting them into base and bonus is a great way to work out who deserves > more or less. It's a way. Not even a very good way. Jim. -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --