SubjectRe: [dq] Healer - Regeneration (Off topic response to insult)
FromSeagate Editors
DateTue, 29 Apr 2008 17:35:05 +0100
You should calm down Stephen, your response is irrational and rude 
you're coming across as a bully. I thought Ian response was rather
restrained given *your* previous insulting email. Three of us in
London have read this thread, and your email thread about healing you
sent a while ago. Whether of not you intentions are self-serving, that
the impression we've formed given the way you've chosen to
communicate.

Changing a rule to cater to one character is not an effective way to
develop game mechanics. Perhaps you should have have raise this before
you spent the time and XP to reach rank 12 healer.  I would suggestion
the best approach for rank 12 healer, or any other similarly unique
circumstances,  would be to write up your own benefits in conjunction
with a GM.


On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Stephen Martin <stephenm@aklnz.net> wrote:
> Ian,
>  What are you reading?
>  Are you deliberately trying to be insulting?
>  Do you ascribe everyone with greedy self-serving motivations for all their actions or is it just me?
>  Do you consider it at all hypocritical to chastise others for working on things that affect their
>  own characters when that is exactly what you have done in the past?
>  Perhaps you assume that everyone else seeks changes to advantage themselves because that is your
>  sole motivation.
>
>  I thought I was quite clear in what I said, my motivations, my reasons.
>
>  Your interpretation of what I said is wrong.
>  I would appreciate it if you ceased interpreting my actions and motivations in public as you
>  obviously have no idea.
>
>  --
>  To everyone else, apologies for cluttering your inbox as this isn't really on topic any more.
>
>
>  Ian Wood wrote:
>  > you are welcome Stephen :-)
>  > Now I know why it is important to you.
>  >
>  > You want a rule change to benefit your character.
>  > That takes me back to the Gods meetings of the 1980s when rule changes were pushed through for the
>  > sole benefit of a GM/God/player's PC.
>  > <sigh>
>  >
>  > My approach would be to write a special ability for your NPC with respect to this and linked to
>  > your Rank10+ Healer skill, rather than to change the rules to suit you.
>  > Different strokes for different folks.
>  >
>  >
>  > Ian
>  >
>  > ----- Original Message ----
>  > From: Stephen Martin <stephenm@aklnz.net>
>  > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
>  > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April, 2008 10:38:01 AM
>  > Subject: Re: [dq] Healer - Regeneration
>  >
>  > Oh no, you've rumbled me, I raised this issue specifically for the purpose of wasting your time.
>  > If you don't care about the issue, or don't want to discuss it then don't.  Just put the mouse
>  > down and walk away.  Nobody is forcing you to inhale - it's one of the beauties of an on-line
>  > discussion, nobody else will even know that you saw the Subject line and hit delete.
>  >
>  > For those that do care, I raised this because I play a Rk10+ Healer and on trying to Regenerate
>  > wounds to other characters I found it unusable.
>  > It is dis-satisfying to me as a player when my character with extraordinary skill and artifacts
>  > does not get to use the skill because it is too slow and disruptive to the flow of the game.
>  > Instead NPCs and other non-standard gm widgets get used to do the job and continue the game.
>  >
>  > btw Thanks to all those who have been constructively contributing, I think there is general
>  > agreement of principals, I'll see if I can phrase it reasonably in rule-speak.
>  >
>  > Cheers, Stephen.
>  >
>  > Ian Wood wrote:
>  >> Also, I really wonder on the merits of this discussion. It is a sub skil that kicks in at Rank
>  >> 9,
>  >> so few have it. We are arguing that a Rank 10 Healer should regenerate quicker than a Rank 9,
>  >> and
>  >> I dont care for the distinction. Then there are the Demons at Rank 15. Most Demons are NPCs and
>  >> GMs can do as they wish. May be we want guidelines for GMs, but it does not take huge rule
>  >> discussions for those.
>  >>
>  >> At the risk of sounding like Jim, what are the benefits to the game of changing this rule? Rank
>  >> 10
>  >> and Rank 15 Healers get to reduce the time taken to regenerate limbs etc. We (hopefully) respect
>  >> the magical component and the need for simplicity in the rules and specify that regeneration
>  >> takes
>  >> some time, regardless of proportion, size or race.
>  >> I argue for proportion as I cannot see, in game terms, any difference between amputation below
>  >> the
>  >> knee or above the knee. You hop, or struggle with a crutch regardless, and same for an arm. A
>  >> minor element, such as a finger or ear, may be less.
>  >>
>  >> My recomendation therefore is to either stop dicussing this rule, or ask someone clever like
>  >> Errol
>  >> to propose an amendment, something like:
>  >> Higher ranks in Healer may reduce the time taken to regenerate a limb. The regeneration takes
>  >> the
>  >> same time regardless of race, size and proportion of limb to be regenerated. Minor elements,
>  >> such
>  >> as ears and fingers may be regenerated in a much shorter time, but no less than a full day.
>  >>
>  >> Ian
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> ----- Original Message ----
>  >> From: Andrew Withy <awithy@ihug.co.nz>
>  >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
>  >> Sent: Tuesday, 29 April, 2008 12:13:31 AM
>  >> Subject: Re: [dq] Healer - Regeneration
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Science says âᅵᅵyesâᅵᅵ. A mouse and an elephant with the same
>  > proportionally-sized wound heal in
>  >> quite different times. I think this is because the proportionality of the wound is 3-D, and the
>  >> cells growing to close the width of the cut that needs healing is what takes the time (healing
>  >> is
>  >> square, elephants are cubic). The equivalent process for regeneration would be the length of the
>  >> limb, which is also based on the number of cells in a straight line (different dimension, still
>  >> proportional) âᅵᅵ unless regeneration uses pure/optimsed binary fission, in which
>  > case its
>  >> proportional to ln(x^3), and thus only a small constant is added for larger creatures.
>  >>
>  >> Fantasy says âᅵᅵwho caresâᅵᅵ. Letâᅵᅵs keep it simple.
>  > Big regen takes up to a week. Little regen
>  >> takes as little as a day. Having the missing body part saves significant time, depending on its
>  >> condition. End of rule. (might need to be re-written in rules English). The GM can make up
>  >> numbers
>  >> based on the dramatic tension of the plot, and whether they want partially-healed adventurers
>  >> hobbling into combat on peg legs, or fully healed adventurers raring to go - obviously if
>  > itâᅵᅵs a
>  >> pirate scenario, the former is a dramatic necessity. I suggest a minimum of a day, to stop PCs
>  >> chopping off their own fingers for entertainment/garnish and regening them while cooking.
>  >>
>  >> Andrew
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Martin Dickson
>  >> Sent: Monday, 28 April 2008 10:25 a.m.
>  >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
>  >> Subject: Re: [dq] Healer - Regeneration
>  >>
>  >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Michael Woodhams <mdw@free.net.nz> wrote:
>  >> The size increment could be by length, mass, volume or percentage of body mass/length. (Should
>  >> it
>  >> take twice as long to regenerate a giant's leg compared to a human's?)
>  >>
>  >> Do giants take twice as long to heal normal wounds compared to a human?  If a human and a giant
>  >> (and a halfling to further illustrate) each get a wicked slash the length of their forearm that
>  >> has to heal naturally does the halfling heal faster than the human, and the human faster than
>  >> giant because their arms are shorter? No?  Then why would regeneration have a size variance
>  >> factor?
>  >>
>  >> Cheers,
>  >> Martin
>  >>
>  >
>  >
>  > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>  >
>
>
>  -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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


SubjectRe: [dq] Identification
FromErrol Cavit
DateWed, 30 Apr 2008 08:51:30 +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_01C8AA3A.CD4E4806
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Please sign your posts if you (for some reason) need to use an email account
that doesn't make your name clear.
Likewise please don't regularly share DQWiki logons for other than the most
minor things.

Cheers
Errol

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Seagate Editors
Sent: Wednesday, 30 April 2008 04:35
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Healer - Regeneration (Off topic response to insult)


You should calm down Stephen, your response is irrational and rude -
you're coming across as a bully. I thought Ian response was rather
restrained given *your* previous insulting email. Three of us in
London have read this thread, and your email thread about healing you


<snip>

------_=_NextPart_001_01C8AA3A.CD4E4806
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

<!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] Identification</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Please sign your posts if you (for some reason) need to use an email account that doesn't make your name clear.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Likewise please don't regularly share DQWiki logons for other than the most minor things.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>Cheers</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Errol</FONT>
</P>

<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>Seagate Editors</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Wednesday, 30 April 2008 04:35</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re: [dq] Healer - Regeneration (Off topic response to insult)</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>You should calm down Stephen, your response is irrational and rude -</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>you're coming across as a bully. I thought Ian response was rather</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>restrained given *your* previous insulting email. Three of us in</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>London have read this thread, and your email thread about healing you</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=2>&lt;snip&gt;</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C8AA3A.CD4E4806--


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


SubjectRe: [dq] Healer - Regeneration (Off topic response to insult)
FromHamish & Johanna
DateWed, 30 Apr 2008 09:03:49 +1200
This whole area of when a person PC is influencing there thoughts as a GM is very murky.

I personally think that the best approach is to expect that there is always some degree of influence and we should not worry about it.  (the so what approach).  

If someone raises something that others find compelling who cares where it came from.

This because i do not believe in objectivity everything is influenced by everything according to strange science and quantum physics.

Also best not to get into accusations about it because everyone will be exactly right about what they are saying.  Sure there is some influence, and the person in question probably does have there GM hat on when making the suggestion.  IS the suggestion a good idea thou?  We can only find that our by talking about the idea.

Hamish  



-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Seagate Editors
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:35 AM
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Healer - Regeneration (Off topic response to insult)

You should calm down Stephen, your response is irrational and rude –
you're coming across as a bully. I thought Ian response was rather
restrained given *your* previous insulting email. Three of us in
London have read this thread, and your email thread about healing you
sent a while ago. Whether of not you intentions are self-serving, that
the impression we've formed given the way you've chosen to
communicate.

Changing a rule to cater to one character is not an effective way to
develop game mechanics. Perhaps you should have have raise this before
you spent the time and XP to reach rank 12 healer.  I would suggestion
the best approach for rank 12 healer, or any other similarly unique
circumstances,  would be to write up your own benefits in conjunction
with a GM.


On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Stephen Martin <stephenm@aklnz.net> wrote:
> Ian,
>  What are you reading?
>  Are you deliberately trying to be insulting?
>  Do you ascribe everyone with greedy self-serving motivations for all their actions or is it just me?
>  Do you consider it at all hypocritical to chastise others for working on things that affect their
>  own characters when that is exactly what you have done in the past?
>  Perhaps you assume that everyone else seeks changes to advantage themselves because that is your
>  sole motivation.
>
>  I thought I was quite clear in what I said, my motivations, my reasons.
>
>  Your interpretation of what I said is wrong.
>  I would appreciate it if you ceased interpreting my actions and motivations in public as you
>  obviously have no idea.
>
>  --
>  To everyone else, apologies for cluttering your inbox as this isn't really on topic any more.
>
>
>  Ian Wood wrote:
>  > you are welcome Stephen :-)
>  > Now I know why it is important to you.
>  >
>  > You want a rule change to benefit your character.
>  > That takes me back to the Gods meetings of the 1980s when rule changes were pushed through for the
>  > sole benefit of a GM/God/player's PC.
>  > <sigh>
>  >
>  > My approach would be to write a special ability for your NPC with respect to this and linked to
>  > your Rank10+ Healer skill, rather than to change the rules to suit you.
>  > Different strokes for different folks.
>  >
>  >
>  > Ian
>  >
>  > ----- Original Message ----
>  > From: Stephen Martin <stephenm@aklnz.net>
>  > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
>  > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April, 2008 10:38:01 AM
>  > Subject: Re: [dq] Healer - Regeneration
>  >
>  > Oh no, you've rumbled me, I raised this issue specifically for the purpose of wasting your time.
>  > If you don't care about the issue, or don't want to discuss it then don't.  Just put the mouse
>  > down and walk away.  Nobody is forcing you to inhale - it's one of the beauties of an on-line
>  > discussion, nobody else will even know that you saw the Subject line and hit delete.
>  >
>  > For those that do care, I raised this because I play a Rk10+ Healer and on trying to Regenerate
>  > wounds to other characters I found it unusable.
>  > It is dis-satisfying to me as a player when my character with extraordinary skill and artifacts
>  > does not get to use the skill because it is too slow and disruptive to the flow of the game.
>  > Instead NPCs and other non-standard gm widgets get used to do the job and continue the game.
>  >
>  > btw Thanks to all those who have been constructively contributing, I think there is general
>  > agreement of principals, I'll see if I can phrase it reasonably in rule-speak.
>  >
>  > Cheers, Stephen.
>  >
>  > Ian Wood wrote:
>  >> Also, I really wonder on the merits of this discussion. It is a sub skil that kicks in at Rank
>  >> 9,
>  >> so few have it. We are arguing that a Rank 10 Healer should regenerate quicker than a Rank 9,
>  >> and
>  >> I dont care for the distinction. Then there are the Demons at Rank 15. Most Demons are NPCs and
>  >> GMs can do as they wish. May be we want guidelines for GMs, but it does not take huge rule
>  >> discussions for those.
>  >>
>  >> At the risk of sounding like Jim, what are the benefits to the game of changing this rule? Rank
>  >> 10
>  >> and Rank 15 Healers get to reduce the time taken to regenerate limbs etc. We (hopefully) respect
>  >> the magical component and the need for simplicity in the rules and specify that regeneration
>  >> takes
>  >> some time, regardless of proportion, size or race.
>  >> I argue for proportion as I cannot see, in game terms, any difference between amputation below
>  >> the
>  >> knee or above the knee. You hop, or struggle with a crutch regardless, and same for an arm. A
>  >> minor element, such as a finger or ear, may be less.
>  >>
>  >> My recomendation therefore is to either stop dicussing this rule, or ask someone clever like
>  >> Errol
>  >> to propose an amendment, something like:
>  >> Higher ranks in Healer may reduce the time taken to regenerate a limb. The regeneration takes
>  >> the
>  >> same time regardless of race, size and proportion of limb to be regenerated. Minor elements,
>  >> such
>  >> as ears and fingers may be regenerated in a much shorter time, but no less than a full day.
>  >>
>  >> Ian
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> ----- Original Message ----
>  >> From: Andrew Withy <awithy@ihug.co.nz>
>  >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
>  >> Sent: Tuesday, 29 April, 2008 12:13:31 AM
>  >> Subject: Re: [dq] Healer - Regeneration
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Science says âᅵᅵyesâᅵᅵ. A mouse and an elephant with the same
>  > proportionally-sized wound heal in
>  >> quite different times. I think this is because the proportionality of the wound is 3-D, and the
>  >> cells growing to close the width of the cut that needs healing is what takes the time (healing
>  >> is
>  >> square, elephants are cubic). The equivalent process for regeneration would be the length of the
>  >> limb, which is also based on the number of cells in a straight line (different dimension, still
>  >> proportional) âᅵᅵ unless regeneration uses pure/optimsed binary fission, in which
>  > case its
>  >> proportional to ln(x^3), and thus only a small constant is added for larger creatures.
>  >>
>  >> Fantasy says âᅵᅵwho caresâᅵᅵ. Letâᅵᅵs keep it simple.
>  > Big regen takes up to a week. Little regen
>  >> takes as little as a day. Having the missing body part saves significant time, depending on its
>  >> condition. End of rule. (might need to be re-written in rules English). The GM can make up
>  >> numbers
>  >> based on the dramatic tension of the plot, and whether they want partially-healed adventurers
>  >> hobbling into combat on peg legs, or fully healed adventurers raring to go - obviously if
>  > itâᅵᅵs a
>  >> pirate scenario, the former is a dramatic necessity. I suggest a minimum of a day, to stop PCs
>  >> chopping off their own fingers for entertainment/garnish and regening them while cooking.
>  >>
>  >> Andrew
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Martin Dickson
>  >> Sent: Monday, 28 April 2008 10:25 a.m.
>  >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
>  >> Subject: Re: [dq] Healer - Regeneration
>  >>
>  >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Michael Woodhams <mdw@free.net.nz> wrote:
>  >> The size increment could be by length, mass, volume or percentage of body mass/length. (Should
>  >> it
>  >> take twice as long to regenerate a giant's leg compared to a human's?)
>  >>
>  >> Do giants take twice as long to heal normal wounds compared to a human?  If a human and a giant
>  >> (and a halfling to further illustrate) each get a wicked slash the length of their forearm that
>  >> has to heal naturally does the halfling heal faster than the human, and the human faster than
>  >> giant because their arms are shorter? No?  Then why would regeneration have a size variance
>  >> factor?
>  >>
>  >> Cheers,
>  >> Martin
>  >>
>  >
>  >
>  > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>  >
>
>
>  -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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


SubjectRe: [dq] Healer - Regeneration (Off topic response to insult)
FromJonathan Bean
DateWed, 30 Apr 2008 09:05:54 +1200
------=_Part_138_27921683.1209503154788
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi London people.

I have also seen and read the posts.

First off; Stephen is talking about it in general, and it is not solely for
the benefit of his character.
He made that clear in his first post. Other people (including myself) have
talk about this issue for some time.
Most other high ranked healers are effected by this.

Ian's and now your (the London peoples) comments are out of line.

Both you and Ian charged Stephen with wanting to change the rules to cater
to one character.

This isn't the case, and if you really have read the posts (which I must
conclude you haven't) and come to this conclusion then everyone is failing
at communicating, (which email tends to do). I think you should read them
again with an eye to this problem effecting many healers, and Stephen being
the voice of those concerns.

Jono


2008/4/30 Seagate Editors <seagate.editor@googlemail.com>:

> You should calm down Stephen, your response is irrational and rude =96
> you're coming across as a bully. I thought Ian response was rather
> restrained given *your* previous insulting email. Three of us in
> London have read this thread, and your email thread about healing you
> sent a while ago. Whether of not you intentions are self-serving, that
> the impression we've formed given the way you've chosen to
> communicate.
>
> Changing a rule to cater to one character is not an effective way to
> develop game mechanics. Perhaps you should have have raise this before
> you spent the time and XP to reach rank 12 healer.  I would suggestion
> the best approach for rank 12 healer, or any other similarly unique
> circumstances,  would be to write up your own benefits in conjunction
> with a GM.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Stephen Martin <stephenm@aklnz.net>
> wrote:
> > Ian,
> >  What are you reading?
> >  Are you deliberately trying to be insulting?
> >  Do you ascribe everyone with greedy self-serving motivations for all
> their actions or is it just me?
> >  Do you consider it at all hypocritical to chastise others for working
> on things that affect their
> >  own characters when that is exactly what you have done in the past?
> >  Perhaps you assume that everyone else seeks changes to advantage
> themselves because that is your
> >  sole motivation.
> >
> >  I thought I was quite clear in what I said, my motivations, my reasons=
.
> >
> >  Your interpretation of what I said is wrong.
> >  I would appreciate it if you ceased interpreting my actions and
> motivations in public as you
> >  obviously have no idea.
> >
> >  --
> >  To everyone else, apologies for cluttering your inbox as this isn't
> really on topic any more.
> >
> >
> >  Ian Wood wrote:
> >  > you are welcome Stephen :-)
> >  > Now I know why it is important to you.
> >  >
> >  > You want a rule change to benefit your character.
> >  > That takes me back to the Gods meetings of the 1980s when rule
> changes were pushed through for the
> >  > sole benefit of a GM/God/player's PC.
> >  > <sigh>
> >  >
> >  > My approach would be to write a special ability for your NPC with
> respect to this and linked to
> >  > your Rank10+ Healer skill, rather than to change the rules to suit
> you.
> >  > Different strokes for different folks.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > Ian
> >  >
> >  > ----- Original Message ----
> >  > From: Stephen Martin <stephenm@aklnz.net>
> >  > To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> >  > Sent: Tuesday, 29 April, 2008 10:38:01 AM
> >  > Subject: Re: [dq] Healer - Regeneration
> >  >
> >  > Oh no, you've rumbled me, I raised this issue specifically for the
> purpose of wasting your time.
> >  > If you don't care about the issue, or don't want to discuss it then
> don't.  Just put the mouse
> >  > down and walk away.  Nobody is forcing you to inhale - it's one of
> the beauties of an on-line
> >  > discussion, nobody else will even know that you saw the Subject line
> and hit delete.
> >  >
> >  > For those that do care, I raised this because I play a Rk10+ Healer
> and on trying to Regenerate
> >  > wounds to other characters I found it unusable.
> >  > It is dis-satisfying to me as a player when my character with
> extraordinary skill and artifacts
> >  > does not get to use the skill because it is too slow and disruptive
> to the flow of the game.
> >  > Instead NPCs and other non-standard gm widgets get used to do the jo=
b
> and continue the game.
> >  >
> >  > btw Thanks to all those who have been constructively contributing, I
> think there is general
> >  > agreement of principals, I'll see if I can phrase it reasonably in
> rule-speak.
> >  >
> >  > Cheers, Stephen.
> >  >
> >  > Ian Wood wrote:
> >  >> Also, I really wonder on the merits of this discussion. It is a sub
> skil that kicks in at Rank
> >  >> 9,
> >  >> so few have it. We are arguing that a Rank 10 Healer should
> regenerate quicker than a Rank 9,
> >  >> and
> >  >> I dont care for the distinction. Then there are the Demons at Rank
> 15. Most Demons are NPCs and
> >  >> GMs can do as they wish. May be we want guidelines for GMs, but it
> does not take huge rule
> >  >> discussions for those.
> >  >>
> >  >> At the risk of sounding like Jim, what are the benefits to the game
> of changing this rule? Rank
> >  >> 10
> >  >> and Rank 15 Healers get to reduce the time taken to regenerate limb=
s
> etc. We (hopefully) respect
> >  >> the magical component and the need for simplicity in the rules and
> specify that regeneration
> >  >> takes
> >  >> some time, regardless of proportion, size or race.
> >  >> I argue for proportion as I cannot see, in game terms, any
> difference between amputation below
> >  >> the
> >  >> knee or above the knee. You hop, or struggle with a crutch
> regardless, and same for an arm. A
> >  >> minor element, such as a finger or ear, may be less.
> >  >>
> >  >> My recomendation therefore is to either stop dicussing this rule, o=
r
> ask someone clever like
> >  >> Errol
> >  >> to propose an amendment, something like:
> >  >> Higher ranks in Healer may reduce the time taken to regenerate a
> limb. The regeneration takes
> >  >> the
> >  >> same time regardless of race, size and proportion of limb to be
> regenerated. Minor elements,
> >  >> such
> >  >> as ears and fingers may be regenerated in a much shorter time, but
> no less than a full day.
> >  >>
> >  >> Ian
> >  >>
> >  >>
> >  >> ----- Original Message ----
> >  >> From: Andrew Withy <awithy@ihug.co.nz>
> >  >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> >  >> Sent: Tuesday, 29 April, 2008 12:13:31 AM
> >  >> Subject: Re: [dq] Healer - Regeneration
> >  >>
> >  >>
> >  >> Science says =C3=A2=EF=BF=9C=EF=BF=9Cyes=C3=A2=EF=BF=9C=EF=BF=9C. A=
 mouse and an elephant with the
> same
> >  > proportionally-sized wound heal in
> >  >> quite different times. I think this is because the proportionality
> of the wound is 3-D, and the
> >  >> cells growing to close the width of the cut that needs healing is
> what takes the time (healing
> >  >> is
> >  >> square, elephants are cubic). The equivalent process for
> regeneration would be the length of the
> >  >> limb, which is also based on the number of cells in a straight line
> (different dimension, still
> >  >> proportional) =C3=A2=EF=BF=9C=EF=BF=9C unless regeneration uses pur=
e/optimsed binary
> fission, in which
> >  > case its
> >  >> proportional to ln(x^3), and thus only a small constant is added fo=
r
> larger creatures.
> >  >>
> >  >> Fantasy says =C3=A2=EF=BF=9C=EF=BF=9Cwho cares=C3=A2=EF=BF=9C=EF=BF=
=9C. Let=C3=A2=EF=BF=9C=EF=BF=9Cs keep it simple.
> >  > Big regen takes up to a week. Little regen
> >  >> takes as little as a day. Having the missing body part saves
> significant time, depending on its
> >  >> condition. End of rule. (might need to be re-written in rules
> English). The GM can make up
> >  >> numbers
> >  >> based on the dramatic tension of the plot, and whether they want
> partially-healed adventurers
> >  >> hobbling into combat on peg legs, or fully healed adventurers rarin=
g
> to go - obviously if
> >  > it=C3=A2=EF=BF=9C=EF=BF=9Cs a
> >  >> pirate scenario, the former is a dramatic necessity. I suggest a
> minimum of a day, to stop PCs
> >  >> chopping off their own fingers for entertainment/garnish and
> regening them while cooking.
> >  >>
> >  >> Andrew
> >  >>
> >  >>
> >  >>
> >  >>
> >  >> From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behal=
f
> Of Martin Dickson
> >  >> Sent: Monday, 28 April 2008 10:25 a.m.
> >  >> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> >  >> Subject: Re: [dq] Healer - Regeneration
> >  >>
> >  >> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Michael Woodhams <mdw@free.net.nz>
> wrote:
> >  >> The size increment could be by length, mass, volume or percentage o=
f
> body mass/length. (Should
> >  >> it
> >  >> take twice as long to regenerate a giant's leg compared to a
> human's?)
> >  >>
> >  >> Do giants take twice as long to heal normal wounds compared to a
> human?  If a human and a giant
> >  >> (and a halfling to further illustrate) each get a wicked slash the
> length of their forearm that
> >  >> has to heal naturally does the halfling heal faster than the human,
> and the human faster than
> >  >> giant because their arms are shorter? No?  Then why would
> regeneration have a size variance
> >  >> factor?
> >  >>
> >  >> Cheers,
> >  >> Martin
> >  >>
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >  >
> >
> >
> >  -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>



--=20
Kind regards,

Jonathan Bean
W: +64 9 302 9683
H: +64 9 828 2959
M: +64 21 917 173
G: jonobean@gmail.com

------=_Part_138_27921683.1209503154788
Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi London people.<br><br>I have also seen and read the posts.<br><br>First =
off; Stephen is talking about it in general, and it is not solely for the b=
enefit of his character.<br>He made that clear in his first post. Other peo=
ple (including myself) have talk about this issue for some time.<br>
Most other high ranked healers are effected by this.<br><br>Ian&#39;s and n=
ow your (the London peoples) comments are out of line.<br><br>Both you and =
Ian charged Stephen with wanting to change the rules to cater to one charac=
ter.<br>
<br>This isn&#39;t the case, and if you really have read the posts (which I=
 must conclude you haven&#39;t) and come to this conclusion then everyone i=
s failing at communicating, (which email tends to do). I think you should r=
ead them again with an eye to this problem effecting many healers, and Step=
hen being the voice of those concerns.<br>
<br>Jono<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2008/4/30 Seagate Editors &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:seagate.editor@googlemail.com">seagate.editor@googlemai=
l.com</a>&gt;:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1=
px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"=
>
You should calm down Stephen, your response is irrational and rude =96<br>
you&#39;re coming across as a bully. I thought Ian response was rather<br>
restrained given *your* previous insulting email. Three of us in<br>
London have read this thread, and your email thread about healing you<br>
sent a while ago. Whether of not you intentions are self-serving, that<br>
the impression we&#39;ve formed given the way you&#39;ve chosen to<br>
communicate.<br>
<br>
Changing a rule to cater to one character is not an effective way to<br>
develop game mechanics. Perhaps you should have have raise this before<br>
you spent the time and XP to reach rank 12 healer. &nbsp;I would suggestion=
<br>
the best approach for rank 12 healer, or any other similarly unique<br>
circumstances, &nbsp;would be to write up your own benefits in conjunction<=
br>
with a GM.<br>
<div><div></div><div class=3D"Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Stephen Martin &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:steph=
enm@aklnz.net">stephenm@aklnz.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; Ian,<br>
&gt; &nbsp;What are you reading?<br>
&gt; &nbsp;Are you deliberately trying to be insulting?<br>
&gt; &nbsp;Do you ascribe everyone with greedy self-serving motivations for=
 all their actions or is it just me?<br>
&gt; &nbsp;Do you consider it at all hypocritical to chastise others for wo=
rking on things that affect their<br>
&gt; &nbsp;own characters when that is exactly what you have done in the pa=
st?<br>
&gt; &nbsp;Perhaps you assume that everyone else seeks changes to advantage=
 themselves because that is your<br>
&gt; &nbsp;sole motivation.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;I thought I was quite clear in what I said, my motivations, my r=
easons.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;Your interpretation of what I said is wrong.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;I would appreciate it if you ceased interpreting my actions and =
motivations in public as you<br>
&gt; &nbsp;obviously have no idea.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;--<br>
&gt; &nbsp;To everyone else, apologies for cluttering your inbox as this is=
n&#39;t really on topic any more.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;Ian Wood wrote:<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; you are welcome Stephen :-)<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Now I know why it is important to you.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; You want a rule change to benefit your character.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; That takes me back to the Gods meetings of the 1980s when r=
ule changes were pushed through for the<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; sole benefit of a GM/God/player&#39;s PC.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; &lt;sigh&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; My approach would be to write a special ability for your NP=
C with respect to this and linked to<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; your Rank10+ Healer skill, rather than to change the rules =
to suit you.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Different strokes for different folks.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Ian<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; ----- Original Message ----<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; From: Stephen Martin &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:stephenm@aklnz.n=
et">stephenm@aklnz.net</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; To: <a href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a><=
br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Sent: Tuesday, 29 April, 2008 10:38:01 AM<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Healer - Regeneration<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Oh no, you&#39;ve rumbled me, I raised this issue specifica=
lly for the purpose of wasting your time.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; If you don&#39;t care about the issue, or don&#39;t want to=
 discuss it then don&#39;t. &nbsp;Just put the mouse<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; down and walk away. &nbsp;Nobody is forcing you to inhale -=
 it&#39;s one of the beauties of an on-line<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; discussion, nobody else will even know that you saw the Sub=
ject line and hit delete.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; For those that do care, I raised this because I play a Rk10=
+ Healer and on trying to Regenerate<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; wounds to other characters I found it unusable.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; It is dis-satisfying to me as a player when my character wi=
th extraordinary skill and artifacts<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; does not get to use the skill because it is too slow and di=
sruptive to the flow of the game.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Instead NPCs and other non-standard gm widgets get used to =
do the job and continue the game.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; btw Thanks to all those who have been constructively contri=
buting, I think there is general<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; agreement of principals, I&#39;ll see if I can phrase it re=
asonably in rule-speak.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Cheers, Stephen.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Ian Wood wrote:<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; Also, I really wonder on the merits of this discussion.=
 It is a sub skil that kicks in at Rank<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; 9,<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; so few have it. We are arguing that a Rank 10 Healer sh=
ould regenerate quicker than a Rank 9,<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; and<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; I dont care for the distinction. Then there are the Dem=
ons at Rank 15. Most Demons are NPCs and<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; GMs can do as they wish. May be we want guidelines for =
GMs, but it does not take huge rule<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; discussions for those.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; At the risk of sounding like Jim, what are the benefits=
 to the game of changing this rule? Rank<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; 10<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; and Rank 15 Healers get to reduce the time taken to reg=
enerate limbs etc. We (hopefully) respect<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; the magical component and the need for simplicity in th=
e rules and specify that regeneration<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; takes<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; some time, regardless of proportion, size or race.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; I argue for proportion as I cannot see, in game terms, =
any difference between amputation below<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; the<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; knee or above the knee. You hop, or struggle with a cru=
tch regardless, and same for an arm. A<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; minor element, such as a finger or ear, may be less.<br=
>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; My recomendation therefore is to either stop dicussing =
this rule, or ask someone clever like<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; Errol<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; to propose an amendment, something like:<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; Higher ranks in Healer may reduce the time taken to reg=
enerate a limb. The regeneration takes<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; the<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; same time regardless of race, size and proportion of li=
mb to be regenerated. Minor elements,<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; such<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; as ears and fingers may be regenerated in a much shorte=
r time, but no less than a full day.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; Ian<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; ----- Original Message ----<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; From: Andrew Withy &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:awithy@ihug.co=
.nz">awithy@ihug.co.nz</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; To: <a href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz">dq@dq.sf.org.nz<=
/a><br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; Sent: Tuesday, 29 April, 2008 12:13:31 AM<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Healer - Regeneration<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; Science says =C3=A2=EF=BF=9C=EF=BF=9Cyes=C3=A2=EF=BF=9C=
=EF=BF=9C. A mouse and an elephant with the same<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; proportionally-sized wound heal in<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; quite different times. I think this is because the prop=
ortionality of the wound is 3-D, and the<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; cells growing to close the width of the cut that needs =
healing is what takes the time (healing<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; is<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; square, elephants are cubic). The equivalent process fo=
r regeneration would be the length of the<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; limb, which is also based on the number of cells in a s=
traight line (different dimension, still<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; proportional) =C3=A2=EF=BF=9C=EF=BF=9C unless regenerat=
ion uses pure/optimsed binary fission, in which<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; case its<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; proportional to ln(x^3), and thus only a small constant=
 is added for larger creatures.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; Fantasy says =C3=A2=EF=BF=9C=EF=BF=9Cwho cares=C3=A2=EF=
=BF=9C=EF=BF=9C. Let=C3=A2=EF=BF=9C=EF=BF=9Cs keep it simple.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; Big regen takes up to a week. Little regen<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; takes as little as a day. Having the missing body part =
saves significant time, depending on its<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; condition. End of rule. (might need to be re-written in=
 rules English). The GM can make up<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; numbers<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; based on the dramatic tension of the plot, and whether =
they want partially-healed adventurers<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; hobbling into combat on peg legs, or fully healed adven=
turers raring to go - obviously if<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; it=C3=A2=EF=BF=9C=EF=BF=9Cs a<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; pirate scenario, the former is a dramatic necessity. I =
suggest a minimum of a day, to stop PCs<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; chopping off their own fingers for entertainment/garnis=
h and regening them while cooking.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; Andrew<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; From: <a href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-owner=
@dq.sf.org.nz</a> [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-owner=
@dq.sf.org.nz</a>] On Behalf Of Martin Dickson<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; Sent: Monday, 28 April 2008 10:25 a.m.<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; To: <a href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz">dq@dq.sf.org.nz<=
/a><br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; Subject: Re: [dq] Healer - Regeneration<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Michael Woodhams &lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:mdw@free.net.nz">mdw@free.net.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; The size increment could be by length, mass, volume or =
percentage of body mass/length. (Should<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; it<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; take twice as long to regenerate a giant&#39;s leg comp=
ared to a human&#39;s?)<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; Do giants take twice as long to heal normal wounds comp=
ared to a human? &nbsp;If a human and a giant<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; (and a halfling to further illustrate) each get a wicke=
d slash the length of their forearm that<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; has to heal naturally does the halfling heal faster tha=
n the human, and the human faster than<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; giant because their arms are shorter? No? &nbsp;Then wh=
y would regeneration have a size variance<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; factor?<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; Cheers,<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt; Martin<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt; -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-reques=
t@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br>
&gt; &nbsp;&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &nbsp;-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.=
sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br>
&gt;<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Kind regard=
s,<br><br>Jonathan Bean<br>W: +64 9 302 9683<br>H: +64 9 828 2959<br>M: +64=
 21 917 173<br>G: <a href=3D"mailto:jonobean@gmail.com">jonobean@gmail.com<=
/a>

------=_Part_138_27921683.1209503154788--


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


SubjectRe: [dq] Healer - Regeneration (Off topic response to insult)
FromClare Baldock
DateWed, 30 Apr 2008 09:34:48 +1200
Greetings all.

There tend to be two main ways that perceived problems with the rules  
come to light. Firstly a GM may try to get an NPC to use a skill/spell/ 
whatever and discover that it doesn't work in a useful way. Secondly a  
player may try to use a skill/spell/whatever and gets frustrated with  
how it works. Here we have the second situation.

Neither situation necessarily will bring about a change in the rules.  
People can't change the rules in a self-serving manner because a  
single person can't change the rules. A reasonable number of GMs need  
to be convinced that the change is desirable, and I think we can trust  
the GMs as a group to work for the good of the game not one player. So  
it really doesn't matter why a problem gets brought up. Even if  
Stephen were doing so in an entirely self-serving manner (which I  
don't believe he is) it wouldn't matter. What matters is the ensuing  
discussion. In that discussion there seems to me that there are enough  
people concerned about this rule to make drafting a rule change and  
putting it to the vote worthwhile.

Lastly - please sign your posts. Even if your name appears clearly in  
the headers it is polite to sign your words, and when your name does  
not appear in the headers it is an imperative. Anonymous words should  
be disregarded in my opinion.

cheers,

Clare


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


SubjectRe: [dq] Healer - Regeneration
FromMartin Dickson
DateWed, 30 Apr 2008 11:01:50 +1200
------=_Part_10320_48798.1209510110113
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Ian Wood <dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

> you are welcome Stephen :-)
> Now I know why it is important to you.
>
> You want a rule change to benefit your character.
> That takes me back to the Gods meetings of the 1980s when rule changes
> were pushed through for the sole benefit of a GM/God/player's PC.
> <sigh>


Hi Ian,

Tone can be very hard to detect in email, so I'm assuming that you're joking
here -- because the alternative is quite insulting.

I agree with Jacqui: even if we did trawl through the rules looking for
oddities they are far more obvious when encountered in play than from
reading of of hypothetical problems, and thus much more likely to be found
by players of characters with certain abilities, or by GMs running those
characters.

It is quite appropriate for a player to propose changes that "benefit" their
character by revising unwieldy or sub-optimal rules, and it is the role of
all of us to review and comment on these proposals to strive for fun,
workable, and (to a point) balanced rules.

Cheers,
Martin

------=_Part_10320_48798.1209510110113
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Ian Wood &lt;<a href="mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz">dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
you are welcome Stephen :-)<br>
Now I know why it is important to you.<br>
<br>
You want a rule change to benefit your character.<br>
That takes me back to the Gods meetings of the 1980s when rule changes were pushed through for the sole benefit of a GM/God/player&#39;s PC.<br>
&lt;sigh&gt;</blockquote><div><br>Hi Ian, <br><br>Tone can be very hard to detect in email, so I&#39;m assuming that you&#39;re joking here -- because the alternative is quite insulting.<br><br>I agree with Jacqui: even if we did trawl through the rules looking for oddities they are far more
obvious when encountered in play than from reading of of hypothetical
problems, and thus much more likely to be found by players of characters with certain abilities, or by GMs running those characters.<br><br>It is quite appropriate for a player to propose changes that &quot;benefit&quot; their character by revising unwieldy or sub-optimal rules, and it is the role of all of us to review and comment on these proposals to strive for fun, workable, and (to a point) balanced rules.<br>
<br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br>

------=_Part_10320_48798.1209510110113--


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


SubjectRe: [dq] Healer - Regeneration (Off topic response to insult)
FromMartin Dickson
DateWed, 30 Apr 2008 11:15:20 +1200
------=_Part_10347_11561825.1209510920086
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On review of recent posts: what Clare said in spades!

The alternative of only allowing people utterly disinterested in a rule to
comment on it or propose changes is unworkable as it requires that we can
determine disinterest and that those parties both have experience of the
issues and (being as how all are volunteers) have the desire to work through
proposals and changes.

Cheers,
Martin



On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Clare Baldock <clare@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

> Neither situation necessarily will bring about a change in the rules.
> People can't change the rules in a self-serving manner because a single
> person can't change the rules. A reasonable number of GMs need to be
> convinced that the change is desirable, and I think we can trust the GMs as
> a group to work for the good of the game not one player. So it really
> doesn't matter why a problem gets brought up. Even if Stephen were doing so
> in an entirely self-serving manner (which I don't believe he is) it wouldn't
> matter. What matters is the ensuing discussion. In that discussion there
> seems to me that there are enough people concerned about this rule to make
> drafting a rule change and putting it to the vote worthwhile.
>
>

------=_Part_10347_11561825.1209510920086
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On review of recent posts: what Clare said in spades!<br><br>The alternative of only allowing people utterly disinterested in a rule to comment on it or propose changes is unworkable as it requires that we can determine disinterest and that those parties both have experience of the issues and (being as how all are volunteers) have the desire to work through proposals and changes.<br>
<br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Clare Baldock &lt;<a href="mailto:clare@orcon.net.nz">clare@orcon.net.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">

Neither situation necessarily will bring about a change in the rules. People can&#39;t change the rules in a self-serving manner because a single person can&#39;t change the rules. A reasonable number of GMs need to be convinced that the change is desirable, and I think we can trust the GMs as a group to work for the good of the game not one player. So it really doesn&#39;t matter why a problem gets brought up. Even if Stephen were doing so in an entirely self-serving manner (which I don&#39;t believe he is) it wouldn&#39;t matter. What matters is the ensuing discussion. In that discussion there seems to me that there are enough people concerned about this rule to make drafting a rule change and putting it to the vote worthwhile.<br>

<br></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_10347_11561825.1209510920086--


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


SubjectRe: [dq] Healer - Regeneration
FromBen Taberner
DateWed, 30 Apr 2008 11:24:25 +1200
------=_Part_1589_21653746.1209511465748
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

To concur and elaborate slightly;

The other, possibly less confrontational, method of resolving a player's
issues with a particular rules or interaction or rules is to make a
item/ability/gift that excuses that player's character specifically.

This may only benefit from the oversight of a single GM and will usually
only effect that character. Though it's often the most expedient way in
cases of a peculiar niche ability, but there are quite a huge number of high
ranked healers in the game.

Consequently I'd applaud an attempt to make the game less frustrating and
weird for a large groups of people, when the option of sidestepping the
problem clearly exists.  Espicially when it can make you focus of so much
suspicion and, dare I say, spite?

Personal attacks more resemble an attack on the process, which for it's
flaws is the best we have, rather than a valid criticism of any proposal.


ben


On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Ian Wood <dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > you are welcome Stephen :-)
> > Now I know why it is important to you.
> >
> > You want a rule change to benefit your character.
> > That takes me back to the Gods meetings of the 1980s when rule changes
> > were pushed through for the sole benefit of a GM/God/player's PC.
> > <sigh>
>
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> Tone can be very hard to detect in email, so I'm assuming that you're
> joking here -- because the alternative is quite insulting.
>
> I agree with Jacqui: even if we did trawl through the rules looking for
> oddities they are far more obvious when encountered in play than from
> reading of of hypothetical problems, and thus much more likely to be found
> by players of characters with certain abilities, or by GMs running those
> characters.
>
> It is quite appropriate for a player to propose changes that "benefit"
> their character by revising unwieldy or sub-optimal rules, and it is the
> role of all of us to review and comment on these proposals to strive for
> fun, workable, and (to a point) balanced rules.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>

------=_Part_1589_21653746.1209511465748
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

To concur and elaborate slightly;<br><br>The other, possibly less confrontational, method of resolving a player&#39;s issues with a particular rules or interaction or rules is to make a item/ability/gift that excuses that player&#39;s character specifically.<br>
<br>This may only benefit from the oversight of a single GM and will usually only effect that character. Though it&#39;s often the most expedient way in cases of a peculiar niche ability, but there are quite a huge number of high ranked healers in the game.<br>
<br>Consequently I&#39;d applaud an attempt to make the game less frustrating and weird for a large groups of people, when the option of sidestepping the problem clearly exists.&nbsp; Espicially when it can make you focus of so much suspicion and, dare I say, spite? <br>
<br>Personal attacks more resemble an attack on the process, which for it&#39;s flaws is the best we have, rather than a valid criticism of any proposal.<br><br><br>ben<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Martin Dickson &lt;<a href="mailto:martin.dickson@gmail.com">martin.dickson@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Ian Wood &lt;<a href="mailto:dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz" target="_blank">dawnhaven@xtra.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
</div><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
you are welcome Stephen :-)<br>
Now I know why it is important to you.<br>
<br>
You want a rule change to benefit your character.<br>
That takes me back to the Gods meetings of the 1980s when rule changes were pushed through for the sole benefit of a GM/God/player&#39;s PC.<br>
&lt;sigh&gt;</blockquote></div><div><br>Hi Ian, <br><br>Tone can be very hard to detect in email, so I&#39;m assuming that you&#39;re joking here -- because the alternative is quite insulting.<br><br>I agree with Jacqui: even if we did trawl through the rules looking for oddities they are far more
obvious when encountered in play than from reading of of hypothetical
problems, and thus much more likely to be found by players of characters with certain abilities, or by GMs running those characters.<br><br>It is quite appropriate for a player to propose changes that &quot;benefit&quot; their character by revising unwieldy or sub-optimal rules, and it is the role of all of us to review and comment on these proposals to strive for fun, workable, and (to a point) balanced rules.<br>

<br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br></div></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_1589_21653746.1209511465748--


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


SubjectRe: [dq] Healer - Regeneration (Off topic response to insult)
FromJacqui Smith
DateWed, 30 Apr 2008 13:07:20 +1200
Seagate Editors wrote:
> You should calm down Stephen, your response is irrational and rude 
> you're coming across as a bully. I thought Ian response was rather
> restrained given *your* previous insulting email. Three of us in
> London have read this thread, and your email thread about healing you
> sent a while ago. Whether of not you intentions are self-serving, that
> the impression we've formed given the way you've chosen to
> communicate.
>
> Changing a rule to cater to one character is not an effective way to
> develop game mechanics. Perhaps you should have have raise this before
> you spent the time and XP to reach rank 12 healer.  I would suggestion
> the best approach for rank 12 healer, or any other similarly unique
> circumstances,  would be to write up your own benefits in conjunction
> with a GM.
>   
Could whoever this is please desist from using a email adress which 
makes it seem that they are involved which the producers of the Seagate 
Times - especially when making inflamatory remarks. It's not only 
confusing, but embarrassing for the current editorial staff... 
especially when they don't sign their email.

Jacqui


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


SubjectRe: [dq] Healer - Regeneration - Solutions
FromStephen Martin
DateWed, 30 Apr 2008 17:38:02 +1200 (NZST)
Proposed Solutions (in essence, exact wording to be finalised)

1. A body part for the purposes of healer is an arm, a leg, the torso, or the head.
NB Major organs are already defined and must be repaired/regenerated separately (existing rules).

2. Repair may repair a body part (or part of a body part) provided it is mostly intact and no more
than half damaged.

3. A (Rk9+) Healer may initiate Regeneration of a body part in (50 - 3*Rank) Hours. NB. This is
the same time as repair takes.
Regeneration will regenerate Rank percent of a missing body part per day costing the target Rank
FT per day.

4. Repair may reattach a severed body part in (30 - 2*Rank) minutes.  And may Repair it (at the
standard 50 -3*Rk Hrs) to full functionality provided it was separated for no more than Rank
minutes.
Or may Regenerate it (taking 50-3*Rk Hrs) to full functionality provided it was separated for no
more than Rank hours.

------------

Pre-emptive comment...

1.  The 'body parts' are big and chunky and not of equal mass/size/complexity, but I think it
keeps the overall solution reasonably simple.

2. Small change in wording from the current rule.  Hopefully making a bit clearer where repair
cuts out and regen comes in.

3. The idea here is that a Healer gets to spend 1 day starting the regeneration and smaller
regeneration (e.g. a finger or two) will be complete at the end of that time, full regeneration of
an arm or leg will take up to 9 days after the healer finishes before it is complete.
And a hardened adventurer will probably take to the field again with proportionately more arm/leg
each day.
The daily FT cost on the target is representing the drain on the body and setting inherent limits
on how much simultaneous regen can be done.  Most adventurers could carry on with one limb
regrowing but would struggle to keep up while regrowing two.  Sabrona the half-god (using a
fictitious example) could probably continue adventuring while regrowing all 4 limbs.

4. Re-attaching bits is not covered at all in the current rules.  But the intention is that it's
worthwhile saving the missing bit if you can (and have quick access to a Rk6+ Healer).  But 20
hours at rank 10 or 5 hours for demons is still the minimum to get you functioning again.

Cheers, Stephen.


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


SubjectRe: [dq] Healer - Regeneration - Solutions
From
DateWed, 30 Apr 2008 18:28:42 +1200
A couple of thoughts .... 
 
> 1. A body part for the purposes of healer is an arm, a leg, the torso, or
> the head.
> NB Major organs are already defined and must be repaired/regenerated
> separately (existing rules).

I'd like to see skin added as an organ .. as I'm not sure there's any rules
for regenerating it (a distinct possibility in our current adventure).

> 4. Repair may reattach a severed body part in (30 - 2*Rank) minutes.  And
> may Repair it (at the
> standard 50 -3*Rk Hrs) to full functionality provided it was separated
for
> no more than Rank
> minutes.
> Or may Regenerate it (taking 50-3*Rk Hrs) to full functionality provided
> it was separated for no
> more than Rank hours.

I guess it also depends on how clean a cut it was too. I wouldn't be
surprised that bits of the severed sections would need to be removed to
clean the repair site. 

> 4. Re-attaching bits is not covered at all in the current rules.  But the
> intention is that it's
> worthwhile saving the missing bit if you can (and have quick access to a
> Rk6+ Healer).  But 20
> hours at rank 10 or 5 hours for demons is still the minimum to get you
> functioning again.

Yes. As I said above, I suspect the would would need to be 'cleaned' in
order to ensure it is healthy tissue that is being joined to healthy
tissue. So I suspect that some regeneration could be necessary to perform a
successful re-attachment. 

Now .. where did I put those leeches? 

Keith


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


Subject[dq] Warrior - weapons training time
FromJulia McSpadden
DateWed, 30 Apr 2008 18:51:46 +1200
Hi All

I have been thinking about weapons training, having just spent some time 
where my character got tougher if I didn't play much and I would like some 
feed back/ discussion on a small change that I think might make the game a 
little bit more fun for those in the same boat.

Basically I think it would be nice if warriors can rank a weapon in both 
their ranking slots.

So for a warrior to go from rank 3 to 4 in glaive, they can either spend 8 
half day weeks ranking glaive, and rank another weapon or skill alongside 
this as usual
or 4 full day weeks with no other training taking place.

The benefit of this is at high ranks you can do 10 full weeks on dagger or 
unarmed or whatever... and go out on your next adventure with a new shiney 
ability to play with.

The reason I have suggested this as a warrior ability is purely that the 
warrior skill requires so many highly ranked weapons.

Thanks all
 Julia


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


SubjectRe: [dq] Warrior - weapons training time
FromRPer 4eva
DateWed, 30 Apr 2008 08:05:38 +0100
------=_Part_5606_26198416.1209539142053
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Should rank of warrior relative to rank in weapon come in to play? Or should
rank 0 warriors be able to do this with rank 10 in a weapon skill?

Dylan

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Julia McSpadden <mcspadden@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:

> Hi All
>
> I have been thinking about weapons training, having just spent some time
> where my character got tougher if I didn't play much and I would like some
> feed back/ discussion on a small change that I think might make the game a
> little bit more fun for those in the same boat.
>
> Basically I think it would be nice if warriors can rank a weapon in both
> their ranking slots.
>
> So for a warrior to go from rank 3 to 4 in glaive, they can either spend 8
> half day weeks ranking glaive, and rank another weapon or skill alongside
> this as usual
> or 4 full day weeks with no other training taking place.
>
> The benefit of this is at high ranks you can do 10 full weeks on dagger or
> unarmed or whatever... and go out on your next adventure with a new shiney
> ability to play with.
>
> The reason I have suggested this as a warrior ability is purely that the
> warrior skill requires so many highly ranked weapons.
>
> Thanks all
> Julia
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_5606_26198416.1209539142053
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Should rank of warrior relative to rank in weapon come in to play? Or should rank 0 warriors be able to do this with rank 10 in a weapon skill?<br><br>Dylan<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Julia McSpadden &lt;<a href="mailto:mcspadden@xtra.co.nz">mcspadden@xtra.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi All<br>
<br>
I have been thinking about weapons training, having just spent some time where my character got tougher if I didn&#39;t play much and I would like some feed back/ discussion on a small change that I think might make the game a little bit more fun for those in the same boat.<br>

<br>
Basically I think it would be nice if warriors can rank a weapon in both their ranking slots.<br>
<br>
So for a warrior to go from rank 3 to 4 in glaive, they can either spend 8 half day weeks ranking glaive, and rank another weapon or skill alongside this as usual<br>
or 4 full day weeks with no other training taking place.<br>
<br>
The benefit of this is at high ranks you can do 10 full weeks on dagger or unarmed or whatever... and go out on your next adventure with a new shiney ability to play with.<br>
<br>
The reason I have suggested this as a warrior ability is purely that the warrior skill requires so many highly ranked weapons.<br>
<br>
Thanks all<br>
Julia<br>
<br>
<br>
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href="mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz" target="_blank">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br>
</blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_5606_26198416.1209539142053--


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


SubjectRe: [dq] Warrior - weapons training time
FromRPer 4eva
DateWed, 30 Apr 2008 08:05:43 +0100
------=_Part_41_33154501.1209539143370
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Should rank of warrior relative to rank in weapon come in to play? Or should
rank 0 warriors be able to do this with rank 10 in a weapon skill?

Dylan

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Julia McSpadden <mcspadden@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:

> Hi All
>
> I have been thinking about weapons training, having just spent some time
> where my character got tougher if I didn't play much and I would like some
> feed back/ discussion on a small change that I think might make the game a
> little bit more fun for those in the same boat.
>
> Basically I think it would be nice if warriors can rank a weapon in both
> their ranking slots.
>
> So for a warrior to go from rank 3 to 4 in glaive, they can either spend 8
> half day weeks ranking glaive, and rank another weapon or skill alongside
> this as usual
> or 4 full day weeks with no other training taking place.
>
> The benefit of this is at high ranks you can do 10 full weeks on dagger or
> unarmed or whatever... and go out on your next adventure with a new shiney
> ability to play with.
>
> The reason I have suggested this as a warrior ability is purely that the
> warrior skill requires so many highly ranked weapons.
>
> Thanks all
> Julia
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

------=_Part_41_33154501.1209539143370
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Should rank of warrior relative to rank in weapon come in to play? Or should rank 0 warriors be able to do this with rank 10 in a weapon skill?<br><br>Dylan<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Julia McSpadden &lt;<a href="mailto:mcspadden@xtra.co.nz">mcspadden@xtra.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi All<br>
<br>
I have been thinking about weapons training, having just spent some time where my character got tougher if I didn&#39;t play much and I would like some feed back/ discussion on a small change that I think might make the game a little bit more fun for those in the same boat.<br>

<br>
Basically I think it would be nice if warriors can rank a weapon in both their ranking slots.<br>
<br>
So for a warrior to go from rank 3 to 4 in glaive, they can either spend 8 half day weeks ranking glaive, and rank another weapon or skill alongside this as usual<br>
or 4 full day weeks with no other training taking place.<br>
<br>
The benefit of this is at high ranks you can do 10 full weeks on dagger or unarmed or whatever... and go out on your next adventure with a new shiney ability to play with.<br>
<br>
The reason I have suggested this as a warrior ability is purely that the warrior skill requires so many highly ranked weapons.<br>
<br>
Thanks all<br>
Julia<br>
<br>
<br>
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href="mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz" target="_blank">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br>
</blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_41_33154501.1209539143370--


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