SubjectRe: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
FromGordon Lewis
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 08:09:38 +1200
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C653D1.4A369840
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If you are asking for a vote .

I vote #3 (Rune 2.1.5 .)

 

Cheers G.

 

  _____  

From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Errol Cavit
Sent: Wednesday, 29 March 2006 4:06 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap

 

Options as I see them are:

 

1) No vote -  an indication that you don't care, and are happy to let other
decide what to do.
2) Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as the current Rune version in current
play (as a set of rules).- with a strong warning that GMs probably won't let
you play this version etc and probably a link to Wiki
3) Rune 2.1.5 into the new rulebook as the current 'play test version'. -
with link to Wiki page to get latest version and update on status of
playtest.
4) A holder page without Rune details saying look at the wiki for the
current 'play test version' of Rune and update on status of playtest.

 

 


------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C653D1.4A369840
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<title>RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap</title>
<style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
	{font-family:Tahoma;
	panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0cm;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p
	{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0cm;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0cm;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:Arial;
	color:navy;}
@page Section1
	{size:595.3pt 841.9pt;
	margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>

</head>

<body lang=3DEN-GB link=3Dblue vlink=3Dblue>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>If you are asking for a vote =
&#8230;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I vote #3 (Rune 2.1.5 =
&#8230;)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

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

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

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

<div>

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

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

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

<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span lang=3DEN-US
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</spa=
n></font></b><font
size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span lang=3DEN-US =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] <b><span =
style=3D'font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Errol Cavit<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, 29 March =
2006
4:06 p.m.<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [dq] Which =
Rune
version for rulebook Recap</span></font><span =
lang=3DEN-US><o:p></o:p></span></p>

</div>

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

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>Options as I see them =
are:</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

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

</div>

<div>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dblue face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:blue'>1) No vote&nbsp;-&nbsp; an =
indication that
you don't care, and are happy to let other decide what to do.<br>
2) Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as the current Rune version in current =
play
(as a set of rules).- with a strong warning that GMs probably won't let =
you
play this version etc and probably a link to Wiki<br>
3) Rune 2.1.5 into the new rulebook as the current 'play test version'. =
- with
link to Wiki page to get latest version and update on status of =
playtest.<br>
4) A holder page without Rune details saying look at the wiki for the =
current
'play test version' of Rune and update on status of =
playtest.</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

<div>

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

</div>

<div>

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

</div>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C653D1.4A369840--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
FromStruan Judd
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 10:18:44 +1200
I vote 3)


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
FromMandos Mitchinson
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 10:23:53 +1200
I vote for 5. Yes I know it wasn't a listed option. 

The rulebook is planned to be released in a few months. Rune 3.0 is
(according the Jono the mad optomist) due in about a month or so.

If Rune 3 has made considerable headway and is nearing completion I
think we suspend the rulebook for three months and get a decent version
of Rune in the rules. If Rune 3 is as bogged down as other versions then
we should put in 2.1.5 given that most rune mages are playing 2.1.4 and
the differences are minimal. 

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
FromChris Caulfield
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 10:39:28 +1200
------=_Part_2741_12031412.1143671968866
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Question: Why isn't having the present 'playtest' version 2.1.4 an option?

On 3/30/06, Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:

>
> I vote for 5. Yes I know it wasn't a listed option.
>
> The rulebook is planned to be released in a few months. Rune 3.0 is
> (according the Jono the mad optomist) due in about a month or so.
>
> If Rune 3 has made considerable headway and is nearing completion I
> think we suspend the rulebook for three months and get a decent version
> of Rune in the rules. If Rune 3 is as bogged down as other versions then
> we should put in 2.1.5 given that most rune mages are playing 2.1.4 and
> the differences are minimal.
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_2741_12031412.1143671968866
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Question: Why isn't having the present 'playtest' version 2.1.4&nbsp;a=
n option?</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 3/30/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">=
Mandos Mitchinson</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">MandosM@a=
dhb.govt.nz</a>&gt; wrote:</span></div>
<div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>I vote for 5. Yes I know it =
wasn't a listed option.<br><br>The rulebook is planned to be released in a =
few months. Rune=20
3.0 is<br>(according the Jono the mad optomist) due in about a month or so.=
<br><br>If Rune 3 has made considerable headway and is nearing completion I=
<br>think we suspend the rulebook for three months and get a decent version
<br>of Rune in the rules. If Rune 3 is as bogged down as other versions the=
n<br>we should put in 2.1.5 given that most rune mages are playing 2.1.4 an=
d<br>the differences are minimal.<br><br>Mandos<br>/s<br><br><br>-- to unsu=
bscribe notify mailto:
<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<b=
r></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_2741_12031412.1143671968866--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
FromMartin Dickson
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 10:50:33 +1200
------=_Part_7041_4162514.1143672633187
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 3/30/06, Chris Caulfield <chriscaulf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Question: Why isn't having the present 'playtest' version 2.1.4 an option=
?
>

Particularly since 2.1.5 is NOT simply a redacted / converted to English
version of 2.1.4 as originally stated / advertised but contains a number of
contentious additions.

- Martin

------=_Part_7041_4162514.1143672633187
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 3/30/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Chris Caulfield</b> &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:chriscaulf@gmail.com">chriscaulf@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<div><s=
pan 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; padd=
ing-left: 1ex;">
<div style=3D"direction: ltr;"><div>Question: Why isn't having the present =
'playtest' version 2.1.4&nbsp;an option?</div></div></blockquote><div><br>P=
articularly since 2.1.5 is NOT simply a redacted / converted to English ver=
sion of=20
2.1.4 as originally stated / advertised but contains a number of contentiou=
s additions.<br><br>- Martin<br></div></div><br>

------=_Part_7041_4162514.1143672633187--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
FromErrol Cavit
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 10:53:18 +1200
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_01C65383.9260DFA2
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mandos Mitchinson [mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz]
> Sent: Thursday, 30 March 2006 10:24
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
> 
> 
> 
> I vote for 5. Yes I know it wasn't a listed option. 
> 
> The rulebook is planned to be released in a few months. Rune 3.0 is
> (according the Jono the mad optomist) due in about a month or so.
> 
> If Rune 3 has made considerable headway and is nearing completion I
> think we suspend the rulebook for three months and get a 
> decent version
> of Rune in the rules. 


If someone else wants to be editor of a Rulebook that comes out in September
(assuming the group wants another delay), I will happily finish off
everything except Rune and do whatever other handover is required.
Otherwise, you're getting a Rulebook in June, as I'm not prepared to commit
any more of my spare time to the exercise.


If Rune 3 is as bogged down as other 
> versions then
> we should put in 2.1.5 given that most rune mages are playing 
> 2.1.4 and
> the differences are minimal. 

Depending on your definition of minimal. They are more than typo fixes.
While on the subject, a change summary (from the apparently
not-completely-broken 2.1.4) would be useful (it is perhaps already planned
for the near future?).

Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C65383.9260DFA2
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2658.2">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Mandos Mitchinson [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz</A>]</F=
ONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Thursday, 30 March 2006 10:24</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for =
rulebook Recap</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I vote for 5. Yes I know it wasn't a listed =
option. </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; The rulebook is planned to be released in a few =
months. Rune 3.0 is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; (according the Jono the mad optomist) due in =
about a month or so.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; If Rune 3 has made considerable headway and is =
nearing completion I</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; think we suspend the rulebook for three months =
and get a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; decent version</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; of Rune in the rules. </FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>If someone else wants to be editor of a Rulebook that =
comes out in September (assuming the group wants another delay), I will =
happily finish off everything except Rune and do whatever other =
handover is required.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Otherwise, you're getting a Rulebook in June, as I'm =
not prepared to commit any more of my spare time to the =
exercise.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>If Rune 3 is as bogged down as other </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; versions then</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; we should put in 2.1.5 given that most rune =
mages are playing </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; 2.1.4 and</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; the differences are minimal. </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Depending on your definition of minimal. They are =
more than typo fixes.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>While on the subject, a change summary (from the =
apparently not-completely-broken 2.1.4) would be useful (it is perhaps =
already planned for the near future?).</FONT></P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C65383.9260DFA2--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
FromErrol Cavit
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 11:03:34 +1200
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_01C65385.013C5608
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

My understanding is that it has been superseded by 2.1.5, and a desire has
repeatedly been stated for the 'latest' playtest version.
 
People have also said that 2.1.4 'isn't written in English', and I haven't
seen a version that fixes this.
 
Cheers
Errol

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Caulfield [mailto:chriscaulf@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 30 March 2006 10:39
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap


Question: Why isn't having the present 'playtest' version 2.1.4 an option?
 
On 3/30/06, Mandos Mitchinson < MandosM@adhb.govt.nz
<mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> > wrote:


I vote for 5. Yes I know it wasn't a listed option.

The rulebook is planned to be released in a few months. Rune 3.0 is
(according the Jono the mad optomist) due in about a month or so.

If Rune 3 has made considerable headway and is nearing completion I
think we suspend the rulebook for three months and get a decent version 
of Rune in the rules. If Rune 3 is as bogged down as other versions then
we should put in 2.1.5 given that most rune mages are playing 2.1.4 and
the differences are minimal.

Mandos
/s


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




------_=_NextPart_001_01C65385.013C5608
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">


<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1505" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=843154322-29032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>My 
understanding is that it has been superseded by 2.1.5, and a desire has 
repeatedly been stated for the 'latest' playtest version.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=843154322-29032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=843154322-29032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>People 
have also said that 2.1.4 'isn't written in English', and I haven't seen a 
version that fixes this.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=843154322-29032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=843154322-29032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Cheers</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=843154322-29032006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Errol</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid">
  <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
  size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Chris Caulfield 
  [mailto:chriscaulf@gmail.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, 30 March 2006 
  10:39<BR><B>To:</B> dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Which Rune 
  version for rulebook Recap<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV>Question: Why isn't having the present 'playtest' version 2.1.4&nbsp;an 
  option?</DIV>
  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 3/30/06, <B class=gmail_sendername>Mandos 
  Mitchinson</B> &lt;<A 
  href="mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">MandosM@adhb.govt.nz</A>&gt; 
  wrote:</SPAN></DIV>
  <DIV>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote 
  style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><BR>I 
    vote for 5. Yes I know it wasn't a listed option.<BR><BR>The rulebook is 
    planned to be released in a few months. Rune 3.0 is<BR>(according the Jono 
    the mad optomist) due in about a month or so.<BR><BR>If Rune 3 has made 
    considerable headway and is nearing completion I<BR>think we suspend the 
    rulebook for three months and get a decent version <BR>of Rune in the rules. 
    If Rune 3 is as bogged down as other versions then<BR>we should put in 2.1.5 
    given that most rune mages are playing 2.1.4 and<BR>the differences are 
    minimal.<BR><BR>Mandos<BR>/s<BR><BR><BR>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto: <A 
    href="mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</A> 
  --<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C65385.013C5608--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
FromStephen Martin
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 11:23:37 +1200 (NZST)
I vote 4. as I don't believe that we have any version that is rules ready.

1.? was played for many years, has known issues, but has no support from current players and GMs.

2.1.4 needs significant attention from an editor (much of which is done in 2.1.5) and has a few
issues (some of which are resolved in 2.1.5).

2.1.5 needs some more attention from editors and introduces changes and additions which need
discussion/refinement.

3.0 is at the concept stage.

The Rune working group is done with version 2.x and is focused on Rune 3.  That's fine but I think
it is overly optimistic to expect a working version within 1 month, even 3 or 4 months could be
pushing it.


I think the majority of GMs and players want a playable version of Rune in the rulebook.

If we want to achieve this and publish a rulebook for the next guild meeting then I think it will
need to be version 2.1.6 (ver .5 edited & contentious bits resolved or removed), and Rune 3 should
be targeted for the next rulebook in 1-2 years time.

Or we can comit to Rune 3 and not produce a new rulebook until Rune 3 is ready.

Or option 4. Leave it as a blank page and assume that our players and GMs are capable of printing
the latest version of Rune each time it is released.

Cheers, Stephen.

Martin Dickson said:
> On 3/30/06, Chris Caulfield <chriscaulf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Question: Why isn't having the present 'playtest' version 2.1.4 an option?
>>
>
> Particularly since 2.1.5 is NOT simply a redacted / converted to English version of 2.1.4 as
> originally stated / advertised but contains a number of contentious additions.
>
> - Martin


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
FromWilliam Dymock
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 11:46:23 +1200
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C653EF.91F4B360
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap

  Hi Errol,

  Are the options:

  1) No vote
  2) Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as the current Rune version in current
play (as a set of rules).
  3) Rune 2.1.5 into the new rulebook as the current 'play test version'.
  4) A holder page without Rune details saying look at the wiki for the
current 'play test version' of Rune. Printed copies may also be given out at
Guild meetings?

  Are these the only four options we have?

  Jono
  [William Dymock]

  The extermination of all Rune Mages. No damn rune mages, no damn problem.

  William
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.2/293 - Release Date: 26/03/2006

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C653EF.91F4B360
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook =
Recap</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT =
face=3DTahoma=20
  size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>Hi =
Errol,<BR>&nbsp;<BR>Are the=20
  options:<BR></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D852521103-29032006>1) No vote</SPAN>&nbsp;<BR><SPAN=20
  class=3D852521103-29032006>2</SPAN>) Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as =
the=20
  current Rune version in current play (as a set of rules).<BR><SPAN=20
  class=3D852521103-29032006>3</SPAN>) Rune 2.1.5 into the new rulebook =
as the=20
  current 'play test version'.<BR><SPAN =
class=3D852521103-29032006>4</SPAN>) A=20
  holder page without Rune details saying look at the wiki for the =
current 'play=20
  test version' of Rune. Printed copies may also be given out at Guild=20
  meetings?<BR>&nbsp;<BR>Are these the only&nbsp;<SPAN=20
  class=3D852521103-29032006>four</SPAN> options we=20
  have?<BR>&nbsp;<BR>Jono<BR><SPAN class=3D471224423-29032006>[William=20
  Dymock]&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D471224423-29032006></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D471224423-29032006>The extermination of all Rune =
Mages.&nbsp;No damn=20
  rune mages, no damn problem.</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D471224423-29032006></SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
  <DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D471224423-29032006>William</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT=20
  face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff><FONT size=3D2><SPAN=20
  class=3D471224423-29032006>&nbsp;</SPAN><SPAN=20
  =
class=3D471224423-29032006>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOC=
KQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C653EF.91F4B360--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
Fromraro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 11:37:11 +1200
Why stop there, William. Keep going until you've got rid of the entire game.
You'll be happy then.

Jim

Quoting William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>:

> RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
>
>   Hi Errol,
>
>   Are the options:
>
>   1) No vote
>   2) Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as the current Rune version in current
> play (as a set of rules).
>   3) Rune 2.1.5 into the new rulebook as the current 'play test version'.
>   4) A holder page without Rune details saying look at the wiki for the
> current 'play test version' of Rune. Printed copies may also be given out at
> Guild meetings?
>
>   Are these the only four options we have?
>
>   Jono
>   [William Dymock]
>
>   The extermination of all Rune Mages. No damn rune mages, no damn problem.
>
>   William
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.2/293 - Release Date: 26/03/2006
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
FromChris Caulfield
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 11:44:21 +1200
------=_Part_577_25186395.1143675861887
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

I'll vote for option 4 as well.

I believe that while 2.1.4 has been in playtest for some time 2.1.5 doesn't
fix it and the changes added to 2.1.5 needs discussion and ratification by
the gods before it can go into playtest.

Since 2.1.5 is already planned to be superceded by a radical version
3.0which will also need discussion and ratification by the gods before
it can
go into playtest there is little point having something in the rulebook
other than a placeholder which perhaps indicates *'If anyone is looking to
generate a Rune Mage then refer to the DQ wiki site for the latest
version(s)'. *

Cheers - Chris


On 3/30/06, Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net> wrote:
>
> I vote 4. as I don't believe that we have any version that is rules ready=
.
>
> 1.? was played for many years, has known issues, but has no support from
> current players and GMs.
>
> 2.1.4 needs significant attention from an editor (much of which is done i=
n
> 2.1.5) and has a few
> issues (some of which are resolved in 2.1.5).
>
> 2.1.5 needs some more attention from editors and introduces changes and
> additions which need
> discussion/refinement.
>
> 3.0 is at the concept stage.
>
> The Rune working group is done with version 2.x and is focused on Rune
> 3.  That's fine but I think
> it is overly optimistic to expect a working version within 1 month, even =
3
> or 4 months could be
> pushing it.
>
>
> I think the majority of GMs and players want a playable version of Rune i=
n
> the rulebook.
>
> If we want to achieve this and publish a rulebook for the next guild
> meeting then I think it will
> need to be version 2.1.6 (ver .5 edited & contentious bits resolved or
> removed), and Rune 3 should
> be targeted for the next rulebook in 1-2 years time.
>
> Or we can comit to Rune 3 and not produce a new rulebook until Rune 3 is
> ready.
>
> Or option 4. Leave it as a blank page and assume that our players and GMs
> are capable of printing
> the latest version of Rune each time it is released.
>
> Cheers, Stephen.
>
> Martin Dickson said:
> > On 3/30/06, Chris Caulfield <chriscaulf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Question: Why isn't having the present 'playtest' version 2.1.4 an
> option?
> >>
> >
> > Particularly since 2.1.5 is NOT simply a redacted / converted to Englis=
h
> version of 2.1.4 as
> > originally stated / advertised but contains a number of contentious
> additions.
> >
> > - Martin
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_577_25186395.1143675861887
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>I'll vote for option&nbsp;4 as well.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I believe that while 2.1.4 has been in playtest for some time 2.1.5 do=
esn't fix it and the changes added to 2.1.5 needs discussion and ratificati=
on by the gods before it can go into playtest.&nbsp; </div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Since 2.1.5 is already planned to be superceded by a radical version 3=
.0 which will also need&nbsp;discussion and ratification by the gods before=
 it can go into playtest there is little point having something in the rule=
book other than a placeholder which perhaps indicates=20
<u><strong>'If anyone is looking to generate a Rune Mage then refer to the =
DQ wiki site for the latest version(s)'.&nbsp;</strong></u>&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;=
</div>
<div>Cheers - Chris</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 3/30/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">=
Stephen Martin</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:stephenm@castle.pointclark.net">st=
ephenm@castle.pointclark.net</a>&gt; wrote:</span>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0=
px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">I vote 4. as I don't believe tha=
t we have any version that is rules ready.<br><br>1.? was played for many y=
ears, has known issues, but has no support from current players and GMs.
<br><br>2.1.4 needs significant attention from an editor (much of which is =
done in 2.1.5) and has a few<br>issues (some of which are resolved in 2.1.5=
).<br><br>2.1.5 needs some more attention from editors and introduces chang=
es and additions which need
<br>discussion/refinement.<br><br>3.0 is at the concept stage.<br><br>The R=
une working group is done with version 2.x and is focused on Rune 3.&nbsp;&=
nbsp;That's fine but I think<br>it is overly optimistic to expect a working=
 version within 1 month, even 3 or 4 months could be
<br>pushing it.<br><br><br>I think the majority of GMs and players want a p=
layable version of Rune in the rulebook.<br><br>If we want to achieve this =
and publish a rulebook for the next guild meeting then I think it will<br>
need to be version 2.1.6 (ver .5 edited &amp; contentious bits resolved or =
removed), and Rune 3 should<br>be targeted for the next rulebook in 1-2 yea=
rs time.<br><br>Or we can comit to Rune 3 and not produce a new rulebook un=
til Rune 3 is ready.
<br><br>Or option 4. Leave it as a blank page and assume that our players a=
nd GMs are capable of printing<br>the latest version of Rune each time it i=
s released.<br><br>Cheers, Stephen.<br><br>Martin Dickson said:<br>&gt; On =
3/30/06, Chris Caulfield &lt;
<a href=3D"mailto:chriscaulf@gmail.com">chriscaulf@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:=
<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; Question: Why isn't having the present 'playtest' =
version 2.1.4 an option?<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Particularly since 2.1=
.5
 is NOT simply a redacted / converted to English version of 2.1.4 as<br>&gt=
; originally stated / advertised but contains a number of contentious addit=
ions.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; - Martin<br><br><br>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:
<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<b=
r></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_577_25186395.1143675861887--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
FromAndrew Luxton-Reilly
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 11:46:11 +1200
I vote 3.

It get the impression that some people are fixated on the belief that 
the rulebook is "the law" and that the material in the book must be 100% 
accurate since it defines the game until the next release.  IMO, the 
rulebook "suggests" the game rather than defines it :)

In every game I have played in, the GM chooses to ignore some rules or 
has replaced other rules.  I expect the rules to work slightly 
differently in different games.  The rules will always vary.

The Rulebook is there for convenience, so that everyone has a point of 
reference.  It should contain information that will be useful to people 
running and playing games in the DQ world.  Having *a* version of Rune 
would therefore be useful as a reference (better than a blank page). 
Since *all* versions of rune are in "play-test", we might as well have 
the latest one.

I personally don't see much difference between a "play-test" version and 
an "official" version.  The "official" version changes slightly less 
frequently?  A "play-test" version is a set of rules that we currently 
use and that is subject to change in the future.  Some people don't like 
the "play-test" version and don't want to use those rules.  Sounds like 
any other rule in DQ to me :)

Ciao,
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 --
SubjectRe: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
FromErrol Cavit
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 11:47:43 +1200
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_01C6538B.2C5BB9EA
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
William Dymock
Sent: Thursday, 30 March 2006 11:46
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap




Hi Errol,
 
Are the options:

1) No vote 
2) Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as the current Rune version in current
play (as a set of rules).
3) Rune 2.1.5 into the new rulebook as the current 'play test version'.
4) A holder page without Rune details saying look at the wiki for the
current 'play test version' of Rune. Printed copies may also be given out at
Guild meetings?
 
Are these the only four options we have?
 
Jono
[William Dymock] 

The extermination of all Rune Mages. No damn rune mages, no damn problem.

William  

[Errol]

Actually, If I didn't see progress being made over the next 6 months (like
hasn't happened with Theif, for instance), I was going to move that we
remove the College has not worth the hassle of having a broken college in
the game. Progress is being made, which is good.

Cheers
Errol

------_=_NextPart_001_01C6538B.2C5BB9EA
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2658.2">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<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 William Dymock</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Thursday, 30 March 2006 11:46</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook =
Recap</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Hi Errol,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Are the options:</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>1) No vote </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>2) Rune 1.1 into the new rulebook as the current =
Rune version in current play (as a set of rules).</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>3) Rune 2.1.5 into the new rulebook as the current =
'play test version'.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>4) A holder page without Rune details saying look at =
the wiki for the current 'play test version' of Rune. Printed copies =
may also be given out at Guild meetings?</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Are these the only four options we have?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&nbsp;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Jono</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>[William Dymock] </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The extermination of all Rune Mages. No damn rune =
mages, no damn problem.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>William&nbsp; </FONT>
</P>

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

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Actually, If I didn't see progress being made over =
the next 6 months (like hasn't happened with Theif, for instance), I =
was going to move that we remove the College has not worth the hassle =
of having a broken college in the game. Progress is being made, which =
is good.</FONT></P>

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

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C6538B.2C5BB9EA--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
FromWilliam Dymock
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 12:46:07 +1200


Why stop there, William. Keep going until you've got rid of the entire game.
You'll be happy then.

Jim


Get a free slippery slope argument with your cornflakes, today? Did I say
get rid of everyone? Keep your falacies to yourself.

Rune mages have been a pain for ages. Like bards they bring absolutely
nothing but annoyance to the game. And like bards they are more a methodolgy
of magic than deserving of a college in their own right. And they are rare,
everytime I have GM'd a rune mage they have had a new college. Trying to
remember what a rune mage can and cannot do in any particular game when you
are GMing them is an annoyance I would like to wish away.

Rune has been 'in probation' for as long as I can remember. I say give it a
quick bullet to the head and a burial.
If anything I won't have to worry about all the spam about rune any more.






--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.2/293 - Release Date: 26/03/2006


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Which Rune version for rulebook Recap
Fromraro002@ec.auckland.ac.nz
DateThu, 30 Mar 2006 12:40:38 +1200
Quoting William Dymock <dworkin@ihug.co.nz>:

>
>
>
> Why stop there, William. Keep going until you've got rid of the entire game.
> You'll be happy then.
>
> Jim
>
>
> Get a free slippery slope argument with your cornflakes, today? Did I say
> get rid of everyone? Keep your falacies to yourself.
>
> Rune mages have been a pain for ages. Like bards they bring absolutely
> nothing but annoyance to the game.

I disagree. There's a lot that bards bring to the game that isn't covered in the
ruleset. Without them, we wouldn't have magic that allows players to lie past
institutionalised truth telling.


And like bards they are more a methodolgy
> of magic than deserving of a college in their own right.


So are illusionists, so are mind mages, so, at some level, is any group of
abilities  gathered together under one theme.

And they are rare,
> everytime I have GM'd a rune mage they have had a new college. Trying to
> remember what a rune mage can and cannot do in any particular game when you
> are GMing them is an annoyance I would like to wish away.

Your solution is extremely final. It's also narrowing, and encourages the
development of a game which is ultimately flavourless.
>
> Rune has been 'in probation' for as long as I can remember. I say give it a
> quick bullet to the head and a burial.
> If anything I won't have to worry about all the spam about rune any more.

Don't worry about it. Stop reading it. That's the easiest solution, and one you
can take charge of now.

Jim


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