True, they still hold the copyright. But copyright in
game systems is very much a moot point. Copyright
means you can't use "the words" (which techically
means much of the open source production is a no-no),
trademarks means you can't use the identifying
symbolism and as for game systems... well they would
have to be *patented*. Now if only Mr. Gygax and
Arneson had thought of that in 1974.

As I said before however, it will be a new game;
something that would be quite compatiable, of the same
spirit even, but more than sufficiently different "in
the words" to the existing publication(s).

After all, it has been some twenty-four years since
the last edition of DQ. Last time I checked there had
been some new and useful innovations in game design
since then.

All the best,


Lev


--- "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Check again. The last time I asked someone at
> Hasbro about it, they
> said they had no plans to re-release or sell the
> rights to anyone.
> That's not the same as dropping it. Besides, the
> issue is *copyright*
> not trademark. They still own the copyright on the
> game as printed.
> It's unclear how and where the laws apply to actual
> rules. Personally,
> I'm not quite willing to go up against Hasbro
> intellectual property
> lawyers, but, then, I like having things like money
> and a house.
>
> Good luck! When it comes out, I'll be sure to buy a
> couple of copies,
> just to see how well it holds up over the years.
>
> Jim
>
>
> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>
> > --- Viktor Haag <viktor.haag@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On 16/11/06, Lev Lafayette
> >><lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>>OK, now is a good as time as any to come out.
> >>>
> >>>I am writing a new edition of DQ which will
> >>
> >>include
> >>
> >>>the Barbarian Kings world. I've been given the
> >>
> >>thumbs
> >>
> >>>up from Jolly Roger Games to go ahead.
> >>
> >>Hmm! This is Jolly Roger Games of "Swashbuckler",
> >>"Victory and
> >>Honour", "Dynasties", and "Four Dragons"?
> >>
> >>They've secured the rights from Hasbro?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Hasbro, or rather WoTC, abandoned the TM for
> > DragonQuest several years ago. However this game
> will
> > be tied into the Barbarian Kings world as
> indicated by
> > the thread (heck, it's even got the same font,
> > verdade?). As mentioned it will "sufficiently" the
> > same to be considered a new edition but
> "sufficiently"
> > different not to get us into any legal trouble.
> >
>
> ----------
> Quote of the day:
> "Grief is the price of victory."
> -Frank Herbert
> -----
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link

$420k for $1,399/mo.
Think You Pay Too Much For Your Mortgage?
Find Out! www.LowerMyBills.com/lre

Lev,

Hey, don't take this the wrong way! I really wish you the best of luck.
I sincerely doubt that Hasbro will bother to come after you, but, I
know I stayed away from doing anything like this just in case their
lawyers were bored and looking for someone to chew on.

The issues surrounding copyright and game systems are actually fairly
murky. Yes, you cannot copyright a game system, like, say the rules to
poker, but in RPGs the words describing that game system might, possibly
be copyrightable. As far as I know, no one has actually tested this in
a court of law. Certainly, the IP lawyers I corresponded with didn't
want to touch it, unless I had a great, big retainer and a fairly open
line of credit. Maybe that's changed in the past five years, or there's
case law I'm not aware of, since, after all, I'm not a lawyer. Again,
that was why *I* never tried what you're trying to do. I really hope it
works for you, but, as the legal ramifications aren't at all clear, it
is a risk.

As for game design having useful innovations in the last 24 years, well,
that's certainly a matter of opinion! ;) Personally, I don't think
anyone's topped the Bantam edition of DQ. But, then again, that's why I
hope your game goes unchallenged. No matter what happens, I'll buy at
least one copy when it comes out. Even if it just sits on my shelf
because I have no time to game anyway, it'd be worth supporting the cause.

Good luck and keep us updated on progress!
Jim

Lev Lafayette wrote:

> True, they still hold the copyright. But copyright in
> game systems is very much a moot point. Copyright
> means you can't use "the words" (which techically
> means much of the open source production is a no-no),
> trademarks means you can't use the identifying
> symbolism and as for game systems... well they would
> have to be *patented*. Now if only Mr. Gygax and
> Arneson had thought of that in 1974.
>
> As I said before however, it will be a new game;
> something that would be quite compatiable, of the same
> spirit even, but more than sufficiently different "in
> the words" to the existing publication(s).
>
> After all, it has been some twenty-four years since
> the last edition of DQ. Last time I checked there had
> been some new and useful innovations in game design
> since then.
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Lev

----------
Quote of the day:
"The most merciful thing in the world is the inability of the human mind
to correlate all its contents."
-H.P. Lovecraft
-----

Hello everyone

Lev: could you tell us what are the main innovations of this new edition?

Thanks!

Mornak





--
"The life of a software architect is a long (and sometimes painful) succession of suboptimal decisions made partly in the dark."

-------------------------------------
<EPI/> - Deploying ideas
-------------------------------------
Ing. Diego H. Mornacco
Arquitecto
Epidata Consulting
Maipú 521 1er piso Of. A
Ofi: 5031 0060 / 61
Cel: 15-5884-0040
www.epidataconsulting.com

Sure, will do in the very near future.

I intend to use the DQ rules list to bounce ideas
because, well, they're good at that. Any "news" items
will be posted on this list.

All the best,


Lev

--- Mornak <dmornacco@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello everyone
>
> Lev: could you tell us what are the main innovations
> of this new edition?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mornak
>
>
> On 11/16/06, Lev Lafayette
> <lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> > True, they still hold the copyright. But copyright
> in
> > game systems is very much a moot point. Copyright
> > means you can't use "the words" (which techically
> > means much of the open source production is a
> no-no),
> > trademarks means you can't use the identifying
> > symbolism and as for game systems... well they
> would
> > have to be *patented*. Now if only Mr. Gygax and
> > Arneson had thought of that in 1974.
> >
> > As I said before however, it will be a new game;
> > something that would be quite compatiable, of the
> same
> > spirit even, but more than sufficiently different
> "in
> > the words" to the existing publication(s).
> >
> > After all, it has been some twenty-four years
> since
> > the last edition of DQ. Last time I checked there
> had
> > been some new and useful innovations in game
> design
> > since then.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Lev
> >
> >
> > --- "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net
> <ryumaou%40sbcglobal.net>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Check again. The last time I asked someone at
> > > Hasbro about it, they
> > > said they had no plans to re-release or sell the
> > > rights to anyone.
> > > That's not the same as dropping it. Besides, the
> > > issue is *copyright*
> > > not trademark. They still own the copyright on
> the
> > > game as printed.
> > > It's unclear how and where the laws apply to
> actual
> > > rules. Personally,
> > > I'm not quite willing to go up against Hasbro
> > > intellectual property
> > > lawyers, but, then, I like having things like
> money
> > > and a house.
> > >
> > > Good luck! When it comes out, I'll be sure to
> buy a
> > > couple of copies,
> > > just to see how well it holds up over the years.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > >
> > > Lev Lafayette wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- Viktor Haag <viktor.haag@gmail.com
> <viktor.haag%40gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>On 16/11/06, Lev Lafayette
> > > >><lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au
> <lev_lafayette%40yahoo.com.au>> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>OK, now is a good as time as any to come out.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>I am writing a new edition of DQ which will
> > > >>
> > > >>include
> > > >>
> > > >>>the Barbarian Kings world. I've been given
> the
> > > >>
> > > >>thumbs
> > > >>
> > > >>>up from Jolly Roger Games to go ahead.
> > > >>
> > > >>Hmm! This is Jolly Roger Games of
> "Swashbuckler",
> > > >>"Victory and
> > > >>Honour", "Dynasties", and "Four Dragons"?
> > > >>
> > > >>They've secured the rights from Hasbro?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hasbro, or rather WoTC, abandoned the TM for
> > > > DragonQuest several years ago. However this
> game
> > > will
> > > > be tied into the Barbarian Kings world as
> > > indicated by
> > > > the thread (heck, it's even got the same font,
> > > > verdade?). As mentioned it will "sufficiently"
> the
> > > > same to be considered a new edition but
> > > "sufficiently"
> > > > different not to get us into any legal
> trouble.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > Quote of the day:
> > > "Grief is the price of victory."
> > > -Frank Herbert
> > > -----
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

__________________________________________________________

> > Sponsored Link
> >
> > $420k for $1,399/mo.
> > Think You Pay Too Much For Your Mortgage?
> > Find Out! www.LowerMyBills.com/lre
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> "The life of a software architect is a long (and
> sometimes painful)
> succession of suboptimal decisions made partly in
> the dark."
>
> -------------------------------------
> <EPI/> - Deploying ideas
> -------------------------------------
> Ing. Diego H. Mornacco
> Arquitecto
> Epidata Consulting
> Maipú 521 1er piso Of. A
> Ofi: 5031 0060 / 61
> Cel: 15-5884-0040
> www.epidataconsulting.com
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link

$420k for $1,399/mo.
Think You Pay Too Much For Your Mortgage?
Find Out! www.LowerMyBills.com/lre

Other than the in-game cost of materials, what would keep a shaper from
having, say, a hundred golems? Most of my stuff is in storage at this
time, so I thought I'd post this to ya'll.


thx,

Greg W.

There is nothing in the rules, so I adopted my own. R&S Golems are the
problem, so I limited the number to the WP of the Shaper.

~Jeffery~

> Other than the in-game cost of materials, what would keep a shaper from
> having, say, a hundred golems? Most of my stuff is in storage at this
> time, so I thought I'd post this to ya'll.
>
>
> thx,
>
> Greg W.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

One other thing... would this discussion be best on
the rules list rather than the news list? I think I'll
repost it there..

All the best,

Lev


--- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net> wrote:

> There is nothing in the rules, so I adopted my own.
> R&S Golems are the
> problem, so I limited the number to the WP of the
> Shaper.
>
> ~Jeffery~
>
>
> > Other than the in-game cost of materials, what
> would keep a shaper from
> > having, say, a hundred golems? Most of my stuff
> is in storage at this
> > time, so I thought I'd post this to ya'll.
> >
> >
> > thx,
> >
> > Greg W.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com

Agreed; R&S golems are *the* problem, given their high
PER and MA and ability to follow "intent" rather than
the "letter" of commands. Coordinating large numbers
of clay golems means there is a practical limit.

Another *huge* rules hole is the von Neumann problem.
A R&S golem can also have the Ritual of Shaping R&S
Golems imbued into them. The results is a war factory
of golems producing golems producing golems, with
inevitable results.

An alternative or addition to simply limiting the
number of R&S golems to WP is also to give them some
sense of rebellion. After all, if they have free will
it is probable that eventually they'll want freedom.
Thus...


# of R&S Golems Chance of Rebellion
up to 1/4 WP 0%
up to 1/2 WP 25%
up to WP 50%
up to 1.5 WP 75%
up to 2 WP 100%
etc

Modify scale by one to two levels depending on how
onerous and cruel or generous and kind the Shaper is.
Rebellion will be a coordinated among the golems but
usually with ringleaders. A harsh Shaper may prevent
rebellion by instilling fear into their creations.

This does address the quantity of golems that can be
controlled by the caster, but not the von Neumann
problem which remains an open issue I'll have to
ponder on...

All the best,


Lev


--- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net> wrote:

> There is nothing in the rules, so I adopted my own.
> R&S Golems are the
> problem, so I limited the number to the WP of the
> Shaper.
>
> ~Jeffery~
>
>
> > Other than the in-game cost of materials, what
> would keep a shaper from
> > having, say, a hundred golems? Most of my stuff
> is in storage at this
> > time, so I thought I'd post this to ya'll.
> >
> >
> > thx,
> >
> > Greg W.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com

There is no von Neumann problem as the R&S Golems cannot use rituals. They
may be imbued with "Ranks of any spells, talents, skills, weapon ability, or
liguistical knowledge".

> Agreed; R&S golems are *the* problem, given their high
> PER and MA and ability to follow "intent" rather than
> the "letter" of commands. Coordinating large numbers
> of clay golems means there is a practical limit.
>
> Another *huge* rules hole is the von Neumann problem.
> A R&S golem can also have the Ritual of Shaping R&S
> Golems imbued into them. The results is a war factory
> of golems producing golems producing golems, with
> inevitable results.
>
> An alternative or addition to simply limiting the
> number of R&S golems to WP is also to give them some
> sense of rebellion. After all, if they have free will
> it is probable that eventually they'll want freedom.
> Thus...
>
>
> # of R&S Golems Chance of Rebellion
> up to 1/4 WP 0%
> up to 1/2 WP 25%
> up to WP 50%
> up to 1.5 WP 75%
> up to 2 WP 100%
> etc
>
> Modify scale by one to two levels depending on how
> onerous and cruel or generous and kind the Shaper is.
> Rebellion will be a coordinated among the golems but
> usually with ringleaders. A harsh Shaper may prevent
> rebellion by instilling fear into their creations.
>
> This does address the quantity of golems that can be
> controlled by the caster, but not the von Neumann
> problem which remains an open issue I'll have to
> ponder on...
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Lev
>
>
> --- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> There is nothing in the rules, so I adopted my own.
>> R&S Golems are the
>> problem, so I limited the number to the WP of the
>> Shaper.
>>
>> ~Jeffery~
>>
>>
>> > Other than the in-game cost of materials, what
>> would keep a shaper from
>> > having, say, a hundred golems? Most of my stuff
>> is in storage at this
>> > time, so I thought I'd post this to ya'll.
>> >
>> >
>> > thx,
>> >
>> > Greg W.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
> http://new.mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

My Group has effectively neutered R&S golems by taking
away their MA and thus their magic wielding capacity.
They felt like they were no longer a problem after
that.

Just chiming in.

Mark

>
> 1d. Re: what limits the # of golems for a shaper?
> Posted by: "Lev Lafayette"
> lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au lev_lafayette
> Date: Fri Dec 1, 2006 12:39 pm ((PST))
>
>
> Agreed; R&S golems are *the* problem, given their
> high
> PER and MA and ability to follow "intent" rather
> than
> the "letter" of commands. Coordinating large numbers
> of clay golems means there is a practical limit.
>
> Another *huge* rules hole is the von Neumann
> problem.
> A R&S golem can also have the Ritual of Shaping R&S
> Golems imbued into them. The results is a war
> factory
> of golems producing golems producing golems, with
> inevitable results.
>
> An alternative or addition to simply limiting the
> number of R&S golems to WP is also to give them some
> sense of rebellion. After all, if they have free
> will
> it is probable that eventually they'll want freedom.
> Thus...
>
>
> # of R&S Golems Chance of Rebellion
> up to 1/4 WP 0%
> up to 1/2 WP 25%
> up to WP 50%
> up to 1.5 WP 75%
> up to 2 WP 100%
> etc
>
> Modify scale by one to two levels depending on how
> onerous and cruel or generous and kind the Shaper
> is.
> Rebellion will be a coordinated among the golems but
> usually with ringleaders. A harsh Shaper may prevent
> rebellion by instilling fear into their creations.
>
> This does address the quantity of golems that can be
> controlled by the caster, but not the von Neumann
> problem which remains an open issue I'll have to
> ponder on...
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Lev
>
>
> --- "Jeffery K. McGonagill"
> wrote:
>
> > There is nothing in the rules, so I adopted my
> own.
> > R&S Golems are the
> > problem, so I limited the number to the WP of the
> > Shaper.
> >
> > ~Jeffery~
> >
> >
> > > Other than the in-game cost of materials, what
> > would keep a shaper from
> > > having, say, a hundred golems? Most of my stuff
> > is in storage at this
> > > time, so I thought I'd post this to ya'll.
> > >
> > >
> > > thx,
> > >
> > > Greg W.

____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com

That would certainly do it. The von Neumann problem
would be solved and they wouldn't be able to
"self-heal" through the spell of mending, thus
practically limiting how many the shaper could have at
any one time. Of course, with no MA that would imply
no skills as well.

Perhaps a heavily reduced MA?

--- Mark D <shadow_weaver13@yahoo.com> wrote:

> My Group has effectively neutered R&S golems by
> taking
> away their MA and thus their magic wielding
> capacity.
> They felt like they were no longer a problem after
> that.
>
> Just chiming in.
>
> Mark
> >
> > 1d. Re: what limits the # of golems for a shaper?
> > Posted by: "Lev Lafayette"
> > lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au lev_lafayette
> > Date: Fri Dec 1, 2006 12:39 pm ((PST))
> >
> >
> > Agreed; R&S golems are *the* problem, given their
> > high
> > PER and MA and ability to follow "intent" rather
> > than
> > the "letter" of commands. Coordinating large
> numbers
> > of clay golems means there is a practical limit.
> >
> > Another *huge* rules hole is the von Neumann
> > problem.
> > A R&S golem can also have the Ritual of Shaping
> R&S
> > Golems imbued into them. The results is a war
> > factory
> > of golems producing golems producing golems, with
> > inevitable results.
> >
> > An alternative or addition to simply limiting the
> > number of R&S golems to WP is also to give them
> some
> > sense of rebellion. After all, if they have free
> > will
> > it is probable that eventually they'll want
> freedom.
> > Thus...
> >
> >
> > # of R&S Golems Chance of Rebellion
> > up to 1/4 WP 0%
> > up to 1/2 WP 25%
> > up to WP 50%
> > up to 1.5 WP 75%
> > up to 2 WP 100%
> > etc
> >
> > Modify scale by one to two levels depending on how
> > onerous and cruel or generous and kind the Shaper
> > is.
> > Rebellion will be a coordinated among the golems
> but
> > usually with ringleaders. A harsh Shaper may
> prevent
> > rebellion by instilling fear into their creations.
> >
> > This does address the quantity of golems that can
> be
> > controlled by the caster, but not the von Neumann
> > problem which remains an open issue I'll have to
> > ponder on...
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> >
> > Lev
> >
> >
> > --- "Jeffery K. McGonagill"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > There is nothing in the rules, so I adopted my
> > own.
> > > R&S Golems are the
> > > problem, so I limited the number to the WP of
> the
> > > Shaper.
> > >
> > > ~Jeffery~
> > >
> > >
> > > > Other than the in-game cost of materials, what
> > > would keep a shaper from
> > > > having, say, a hundred golems? Most of my
> stuff
> > > is in storage at this
> > > > time, so I thought I'd post this to ya'll.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > thx,
> > > >
> > > > Greg W.
>
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________

> Cheap talk?
> Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call
> rates.
> http://voice.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com

hmm. I think I'll just impose that the "nature" of the magic is such
that a r&s golem may not have a golem of his own, and that a shaper
may have only one of each type of golem. Say, for exemple, that
the "entities" branch of colleges require a "real" entity, such as a
player character, to do certain types of majic.

How about that?

- Grg


--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@...>
wrote:

>
>
> That would certainly do it. The von Neumann problem
> would be solved and they wouldn't be able to
> "self-heal" through the spell of mending, thus
> practically limiting how many the shaper could have at
> any one time. Of course, with no MA that would imply
> no skills as well.
>
> Perhaps a heavily reduced MA?
>
> --- Mark D <shadow_weaver13@...> wrote:
>
> > My Group has effectively neutered R&S golems by
> > taking
> > away their MA and thus their magic wielding
> > capacity.
> > They felt like they were no longer a problem after
> > that.
> >
> > Just chiming in.
> >
> > Mark
> > >
> > > 1d. Re: what limits the # of golems for a shaper?
> > > Posted by: "Lev Lafayette"
> > > lev_lafayette@... lev_lafayette
> > > Date: Fri Dec 1, 2006 12:39 pm ((PST))
> > >
> > >
> > > Agreed; R&S golems are *the* problem, given their
> > > high
> > > PER and MA and ability to follow "intent" rather
> > > than
> > > the "letter" of commands. Coordinating large
> > numbers
> > > of clay golems means there is a practical limit.
> > >
> > > Another *huge* rules hole is the von Neumann
> > > problem.
> > > A R&S golem can also have the Ritual of Shaping
> > R&S
> > > Golems imbued into them. The results is a war
> > > factory
> > > of golems producing golems producing golems, with
> > > inevitable results.
> > >
> > > An alternative or addition to simply limiting the
> > > number of R&S golems to WP is also to give them
> > some
> > > sense of rebellion. After all, if they have free
> > > will
> > > it is probable that eventually they'll want
> > freedom.
> > > Thus...
> > >
> > >
> > > # of R&S Golems Chance of Rebellion
> > > up to 1/4 WP 0%
> > > up to 1/2 WP 25%
> > > up to WP 50%
> > > up to 1.5 WP 75%
> > > up to 2 WP 100%
> > > etc
> > >
> > > Modify scale by one to two levels depending on how
> > > onerous and cruel or generous and kind the Shaper
> > > is.
> > > Rebellion will be a coordinated among the golems
> > but
> > > usually with ringleaders. A harsh Shaper may
> > prevent
> > > rebellion by instilling fear into their creations.
> > >
> > > This does address the quantity of golems that can
> > be
> > > controlled by the caster, but not the von Neumann
> > > problem which remains an open issue I'll have to
> > > ponder on...
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > >
> > > Lev
> > >
> > >
> > > --- "Jeffery K. McGonagill"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > There is nothing in the rules, so I adopted my
> > > own.
> > > > R&S Golems are the
> > > > problem, so I limited the number to the WP of
> > the
> > > > Shaper.
> > > >
> > > > ~Jeffery~
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Other than the in-game cost of materials, what
> > > > would keep a shaper from
> > > > > having, say, a hundred golems? Most of my
> > stuff
> > > > is in storage at this
> > > > > time, so I thought I'd post this to ya'll.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > thx,
> > > > >
> > > > > Greg W.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

______________________________________________________________________
______________

> > Cheap talk?
> > Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call
> > rates.
> > http://voice.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

______________________________________________________________________
______________

> Cheap talk?
> Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
> http://voice.yahoo.com
>

My group doesn't define MA as Intelligence, merely
Magical Aptitude. Skills should still be able to be
learned, but no magical talents, spells, rituals, or
even magical skills. Sorry, but we didn't want R&S
golem Healers.

Mark

> 2b. Re: R&S Golems
> Posted by: "Lev Lafayette"
> lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au lev_lafayette
> Date: Sat Dec 2, 2006 3:44 pm ((PST))
>
>
> That would certainly do it. The von Neumann problem
> would be solved and they wouldn't be able to
> "self-heal" through the spell of mending, thus
> practically limiting how many the shaper could have
> at
> any one time. Of course, with no MA that would imply
> no skills as well.
>
> Perhaps a heavily reduced MA?
>
> --- Mark D <shadow_weaver13@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > My Group has effectively neutered R&S golems by
> > taking
> > away their MA and thus their magic wielding
> > capacity.
> > They felt like they were no longer a problem after
> > that.
> >
> > Just chiming in.
> >
> > Mark

____________________________________________________________________________________
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.

Hi Mark,

Are there any other examples of creatures with 0 MA
learning skills? I can't think of one off the top of
my head.

The relationship between MA/PER can intelligence has
been a long and vexed discussion, I agree. DQ always
struck people as being a little strange by not having
an Int characteristic, and this is but one of many
strange effects of that design decision.

All the best,


Lev

--- Mark D <shadow_weaver13@yahoo.com> wrote:

> My group doesn't define MA as Intelligence, merely
> Magical Aptitude. Skills should still be able to be
> learned, but no magical talents, spells, rituals, or
> even magical skills. Sorry, but we didn't want R&S
> golem Healers.
>
> Mark
>
> > 2b. Re: R&S Golems
> > Posted by: "Lev Lafayette"
> > lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au lev_lafayette
> > Date: Sat Dec 2, 2006 3:44 pm ((PST))
> >
> >
> > That would certainly do it. The von Neumann
> problem
> > would be solved and they wouldn't be able to
> > "self-heal" through the spell of mending, thus
> > practically limiting how many the shaper could
> have
> > at
> > any one time. Of course, with no MA that would
> imply
> > no skills as well.
> >
> > Perhaps a heavily reduced MA?
> >
> > --- Mark D <shadow_weaver13@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > My Group has effectively neutered R&S golems by
> > > taking
> > > away their MA and thus their magic wielding
> > > capacity.
> > > They felt like they were no longer a problem
> after
> > > that.
> > >
> > > Just chiming in.
> > >
> > > Mark
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________

> Have a burning question?
> Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from
> real people who know.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.

R&S Golems have 3 Ft, which means that at most they can do Healer level 3
abilities, once. This does not make them useful Healers.

~Jeffery~

> My group doesn't define MA as Intelligence, merely
> Magical Aptitude. Skills should still be able to be
> learned, but no magical talents, spells, rituals, or
> even magical skills. Sorry, but we didn't want R&S
> golem Healers.
>
> Mark
>
>> 2b. Re: R&S Golems
>> Posted by: "Lev Lafayette"
>> lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au lev_lafayette
>> Date: Sat Dec 2, 2006 3:44 pm ((PST))
>>
>>
>> That would certainly do it. The von Neumann problem
>> would be solved and they wouldn't be able to
>> "self-heal" through the spell of mending, thus
>> practically limiting how many the shaper could have
>> at
>> any one time. Of course, with no MA that would imply
>> no skills as well.
>>
>> Perhaps a heavily reduced MA?
>>
>> --- Mark D <shadow_weaver13@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > My Group has effectively neutered R&S golems by
>> > taking
>> > away their MA and thus their magic wielding
>> > capacity.
>> > They felt like they were no longer a problem after
>> > that.
>> >
>> > Just chiming in.
>> >
>> > Mark
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Have a burning question?
> Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

I've known Doug Thorpe for many years; he ran two
great game stores in Perth (Military Simulations and
then Valhalla).

But sometimes he pushes the envelope.

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/DragonQuest-bx-SPI-Original-Boxed-Edition_W0QQitemZ150067566304QQihZ005QQcategoryZ1183QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem




____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com

Hello all,

I am sorry, but I have to ask: ;-)

Any news on that Red Age ropleplaying game that's in the making?

Salivating for some details...

Yours,

Rafael

Hi Everybody,
That question came up early in DQ's release as well. Eric Goldberg and Greg Costikyan
were of the opinion that players provided their own intellegence. In a seminar Eric stated
that it's not hard to play a character less intelligent than you are but all but impossible to
play one smarter than you are, at least with out GM intervention. For NPCs a combination
of MA, WP, and PC should be a guide. As GM I would often "pencil in" an Int score for
NPCs.
--Dean Martelle

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Are there any other examples of creatures with 0 MA
> learning skills? I can't think of one off the top of
> my head.
>
> The relationship between MA/PER can intelligence has
> been a long and vexed discussion, I agree. DQ always
> struck people as being a little strange by not having
> an Int characteristic, and this is but one of many
> strange effects of that design decision.
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Lev
>
> --- Mark D <shadow_weaver13@...> wrote:
>
> > My group doesn't define MA as Intelligence, merely
> > Magical Aptitude. Skills should still be able to be
> > learned, but no magical talents, spells, rituals, or
> > even magical skills. Sorry, but we didn't want R&S
> > golem Healers.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > > 2b. Re: R&S Golems
> > > Posted by: "Lev Lafayette"
> > > lev_lafayette@... lev_lafayette
> > > Date: Sat Dec 2, 2006 3:44 pm ((PST))
> > >
> > >
> > > That would certainly do it. The von Neumann
> > problem
> > > would be solved and they wouldn't be able to
> > > "self-heal" through the spell of mending, thus
> > > practically limiting how many the shaper could
> > have
> > > at
> > > any one time. Of course, with no MA that would
> > imply
> > > no skills as well.
> > >
> > > Perhaps a heavily reduced MA?
> > >
> > > --- Mark D <shadow_weaver13@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > My Group has effectively neutered R&S golems by
> > > > taking
> > > > away their MA and thus their magic wielding
> > > > capacity.
> > > > They felt like they were no longer a problem
> > after
> > > > that.
> > > >
> > > > Just chiming in.
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Have a burning question?
> > Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from
> > real people who know.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Have a burning question?
> Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
>

Still working my way through the game world (yes,
setting first, rules second). Have written about 10K
words so far, including all the things that makes a
GMs life a *lot* easier (like cosmology, weather,
flora and fauna and regional politics).

Would you like to join a mailing list discussing the
project?

All the best,


Lev

--- Rafael <rafael.ganryu@web.de> wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I am sorry, but I have to ask: ;-)
>
> Any news on that Red Age ropleplaying game that's in
> the making?
>
> Salivating for some details...
>
> Yours,
>
> Rafael
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited

Hi Lev,

Of course I would like to join! :-)

I have no idea if I can be of any help, however, though I wouldd
absolutely enjoy to see this project growing from near.

Thank you!

Yours,

Rafael

Heck with only 3 Ft they aren't even particularly useful as mages.
They throw one useful Special Knowledge or 2 General Knowledge and
they are done for a couple hours. Mostly handy as interpreters, watch
dogs, scouts, and backup.


--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@...>
wrote:

>
> R&S Golems have 3 Ft, which means that at most they can do Healer

level 3

> abilities, once. This does not make them useful Healers.
>
> ~Jeffery~
>
>
>
> > My group doesn't define MA as Intelligence, merely
> > Magical Aptitude. Skills should still be able to be
> > learned, but no magical talents, spells, rituals, or
> > even magical skills. Sorry, but we didn't want R&S
> > golem Healers.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >> 2b. Re: R&S Golems
> >> Posted by: "Lev Lafayette"
> >> lev_lafayette@... lev_lafayette
> >> Date: Sat Dec 2, 2006 3:44 pm ((PST))
> >>
> >>
> >> That would certainly do it. The von Neumann problem
> >> would be solved and they wouldn't be able to
> >> "self-heal" through the spell of mending, thus
> >> practically limiting how many the shaper could have
> >> at
> >> any one time. Of course, with no MA that would imply
> >> no skills as well.
> >>
> >> Perhaps a heavily reduced MA?
> >>
> >> --- Mark D <shadow_weaver13@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> > My Group has effectively neutered R&S golems by
> >> > taking
> >> > away their MA and thus their magic wielding
> >> > capacity.
> >> > They felt like they were no longer a problem after
> >> > that.
> >> >
> >> > Just chiming in.
> >> >
> >> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

____________________________________________________________________________________

> > Have a burning question?
> > Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Here is one of the combos that killed the R&S golems
in our campaign setting:

In our campaign setting, Mages do not get MR from
their own Backfires. A shaper made several R&S golems
with a very high rank in Whirlwind Vortex (from a
companion Player) and used them to cast the death
spell so as not to risk themselves with the backfire.
They also had 2 R&S Golems with Enhancing Enchantments
at high rank to help the rest get the Whirlwind Vortex
spells off. It was brutal. They took out so many
people in ambushes with their R&S Golem Death Squads.

That ended R&S Golems with Magical abilities in our
campaign setting. Shaping Magic itself was taken off
the table for PC's...pending a DM's re-write of the
college...which hasn't ever happened. But that is our
problem. That R&S Golems being allowed to use magic
is everyone elses problem.

Mark

>
> 1. Re: R&S Golems
> Posted by: "darkislephil" phergus@gmail.com
> darkislephil
> Date: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:55 pm ((PST))
>
> Heck with only 3 Ft they aren't even particularly
> useful as mages.
> They throw one useful Special Knowledge or 2 General
> Knowledge and
> they are done for a couple hours. Mostly handy as
> interpreters, watch
> dogs, scouts, and backup.
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

> Here is one of the combos that killed the R&S golems
> in our campaign setting:
>
> In our campaign setting, Mages do not get MR from
> their own Backfires. A shaper made several R&S golems
> with a very high rank in Whirlwind Vortex (from a
> companion Player) and used them to cast the death
> spell so as not to risk themselves with the backfire.
> They also had 2 R&S Golems with Enhancing Enchantments
> at high rank to help the rest get the Whirlwind Vortex
> spells off. It was brutal. They took out so many
> people in ambushes with their R&S Golem Death Squads.
>
> That ended R&S Golems with Magical abilities in our
> campaign setting. Shaping Magic itself was taken off
> the table for PC's...pending a DM's re-write of the
> college...which hasn't ever happe ned. But that is our
> problem. That R&S Golems being allowed to use magic
> is everyone elses problem.
>
> Mark
>
>
> >
> > 1. Re: R&S Golems
> > Posted by: "darkislephil" phergus@gmail.com
> > darkislephil
> > Date: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:55 pm ((PST))
> >
> > Heck with only 3 Ft they aren't even particularly
> > useful as mages.
> > They throw one useful Special Knowledge or 2 General
> > Knowledge and
> > they are done for a couple hours. Mostly handy as
> > interpreters, watch
> > dogs, scouts, and backup.
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
& gt; <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/join
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
> mailto:dqn-list-digest@yahoogroups.com
> mailto:dqn-list-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> dqn-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

Each DM has a different feel to their game, but there
usually comes a point when the safeties should be
released. In the DQ campaign setting I mentioned,
both the Players and the DM decided to release the
safeties after the Players were of a certain
cumulative exp level.

BTW, as a funny aside, one of our other DM's (during
his Shadowrun campaign) used a tool to let the players
know that the safeties were officially off: our
opposition for that adventure sequence was a group
called 'Captain Optimal and the Safetys Off'. They
were PC class characters with PC attitudes and they
used the same types of PC sleaze that we did. It was
the wake-up call that our characters' 'childhoods'
were over.

Mark

--- dqn-list@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>
> 1b. Re: R&S Golems
> Posted by: "igmod@comcast.net" igmod@comcast.net
> arielifan
> Date: Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:08 am ((PST))
>
> I don't encourage Shaping as a PC college, but I
> don't prevent them if they wish to do so. As for
> R&S Death Squads, there is a simple "rule" in my
> campaign, if the PCs don't use death spells, then
> the NPCs don't use death spells.
>
> ~Jeffery~

____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com

some thoughts on 'golem squad' type ideas..

(might not be well developed, since i didn't even proofread, but
may be of use as 'food for thought')

~~edit - i did edit the message, but only once! lol

The basic position that comes into play, I think, is that "anything
goes" but there are consequenses. At the most extreme, for instance,
is that 'local' dragon may have to personally 'take care of' humans
that come to be such a power that the said dragon either feels
upstaged, or even threatened (at least, sme interest of his/hers may
be threatened). That is not to say that I would arbitrarily throw in
that specific event. But, word gets around.. and the 'best gun in
the west' has to contend with challengers

I think to the old movie "The Battle of the Bulge" where Charles
Bronson plays a US Army major who confronted the German commander
about a massacre of POWs (based on a actual even where SS troops did
just that.. the commander was mad about that b/c he knew that 'wars
arefought in the will' as in 13th warrior). Anyway, a previous post
implied about that shadow run campaign where the 'gloves were off'
the PCs are simply vaulted to the 'next level' of role-play. So, in
a big enough world, I suppose that eventually 'something' catches up
with such power-plays as golem armies or unlimited investing of
items, o w/e.

I can envision the PCs saying, in character, something like
this "remember when things were more simple." I mean, if if a group
in my campaign comes up with a 'droid army' .. ok, no prob - whatever
makes for fun for them ^^ Let 'em rule a kingdom, or w/e. It can
open up a whole real of challenges & role-playing possibilities..
r&s golems might not solve food shortages, or underlying
cultural/religious conflicts (Iraq's situation comes to mind - not to
get into that, but to point out a example of a number of individuals
who seem to just blowup people to where it seems to have no point,
say, to a outsider like me.. or, in a series of recent Battlestar
Galactica episodes where Colonel Tigh {sp?} conducts terrorist
attacks on fellow humans while te Cylons were in control of the
planet where the bulk of humanity had settled at).

I think to question if a player is honestly role-playing with such a
heavy 'war gamer' approach to their DQ characters' abilities. There
should be a response by the DQ character to the destuctive thing tat
they came up with from either "oh no, what have I done!" to a evil
minded "mwah ha ha" from knowing that they caused so much
destruction. s time goes on, more kingdoms would acquire their
own 'nukes.' Perhaps, battling one another with golem armies and
then having those golems out of control when the main shapers of each
of them get killed..

As a GM, I ask a player to picture what thy would like to play as and
what sort of person that they have in mind to ROLE-PLAY (caps for
emphasis rather than shouting, if you please ^^ ..idk where the
italics are in this posting software, ^^) before ever looking at
the 'mechanics' of chracter generation or what college they might
choose. I might have said soemthing like this before, but if someone
desires to role-play a giant (and actually does so) I just let 'em.
In fact, I simply bypass the roll for race in the interest of role-
playing.

So, no prob with w/e players want to have fun with. But, it may be
inevitable that someone/something comes along to challenge their kind
of fun ;)

So, with some imagination, a GM may come up with more challenges
(which is the main thing we do, anyway ^^)

Ugh, terribly log post, here..

Game on everyone!

- Greg W.
Banning, CA

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Mark D <shadow_weaver13@...> wrote:
>
> Each DM has a different feel to their game, but there
> usually comes a point when the safeties should be
> released. In the DQ campaign setting I mentioned,
> both the Players and the DM decided to release the
> safeties after the Players were of a certain
> cumulative exp level.
>
> BTW, as a funny aside, one of our other DM's (during
> his Shadowrun campaign) used a tool to let the players
> know that the safeties were officially off: our
> opposition for that adventure sequence was a group
> called 'Captain Optimal and the Safetys Off'. They
> were PC class characters with PC attitudes and they
> used the same types of PC sleaze that we did. It was
> the wake-up call that our characters' 'childhoods'
> were over.
>
> Mark
>
> --- dqn-list@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> >
> > 1b. Re: R&S Golems
> > Posted by: "igmod@..." igmod@...
> > arielifan
> > Date: Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:08 am ((PST))
> >
> > I don't encourage Shaping as a PC college, but I
> > don't prevent them if they wish to do so. As for
> > R&S Death Squads, there is a simple "rule" in my
> > campaign, if the PCs don't use death spells, then
> > the NPCs don't use death spells.
> >
> > ~Jeffery~
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
______________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
> http://new.mail.yahoo.com
>

Personally I think an 'arms race' leading to 'mutually
assured destruction' is a poor solution to a spell
which has a power-gamer problem. I think reworking the
spell would be a better option.

All the best,


Lev

--- Greg Walters <Greg_G_Walters@email.com> wrote:

> some thoughts on 'golem squad' type ideas..
>
> (might not be well developed, since i didn't even
> proofread, but
> may be of use as 'food for thought')
>
> ~~edit - i did edit the message, but only once! lol
>
> The basic position that comes into play, I think, is
> that "anything
> goes" but there are consequenses. At the most
> extreme, for instance,
> is that 'local' dragon may have to personally 'take
> care of' humans
> that come to be such a power that the said dragon
> either feels
> upstaged, or even threatened (at least, sme interest
> of his/hers may
> be threatened). That is not to say that I would
> arbitrarily throw in
> that specific event. But, word gets around.. and
> the 'best gun in
> the west' has to contend with challengers
>
> I think to the old movie "The Battle of the Bulge"
> where Charles
> Bronson plays a US Army major who confronted the
> German commander
> about a massacre of POWs (based on a actual even
> where SS troops did
> just that.. the commander was mad about that b/c he
> knew that 'wars
> arefought in the will' as in 13th warrior). Anyway,
> a previous post
> implied about that shadow run campaign where the
> 'gloves were off'
> the PCs are simply vaulted to the 'next level' of
> role-play. So, in
> a big enough world, I suppose that eventually
> 'something' catches up
> with such power-plays as golem armies or unlimited
> investing of
> items, o w/e.
>
> I can envision the PCs saying, in character,
> something like
> this "remember when things were more simple." I
> mean, if if a group
> in my campaign comes up with a 'droid army' .. ok,
> no prob - whatever
> makes for fun for them ^^ Let 'em rule a kingdom,
> or w/e. It can
> open up a whole real of challenges & role-playing
> possibilities..
> r&s golems might not solve food shortages, or
> underlying
> cultural/religious conflicts (Iraq's situation comes
> to mind - not to
> get into that, but to point out a example of a
> number of individuals
> who seem to just blowup people to where it seems to
> have no point,
> say, to a outsider like me.. or, in a series of
> recent Battlestar
> Galactica episodes where Colonel Tigh {sp?} conducts
> terrorist
> attacks on fellow humans while te Cylons were in
> control of the
> planet where the bulk of humanity had settled at).
>
> I think to question if a player is honestly
> role-playing with such a
> heavy 'war gamer' approach to their DQ characters'
> abilities. There
> should be a response by the DQ character to the
> destuctive thing tat
> they came up with from either "oh no, what have I
> done!" to a evil
> minded "mwah ha ha" from knowing that they caused so
> much
> destruction. s time goes on, more kingdoms would
> acquire their
> own 'nukes.' Perhaps, battling one another with
> golem armies and
> then having those golems out of control when the
> main shapers of each
> of them get killed..
>
> As a GM, I ask a player to picture what thy would
> like to play as and
> what sort of person that they have in mind to
> ROLE-PLAY (caps for
> emphasis rather than shouting, if you please ^^
> ..idk where the
> italics are in this posting software, ^^) before
> ever looking at
> the 'mechanics' of chracter generation or what
> college they might
> choose. I might have said soemthing like this
> before, but if someone
> desires to role-play a giant (and actually does so)
> I just let 'em.
> In fact, I simply bypass the roll for race in the
> interest of role-
> playing.
>
> So, no prob with w/e players want to have fun with.
> But, it may be
> inevitable that someone/something comes along to
> challenge their kind
> of fun ;)
>
> So, with some imagination, a GM may come up with
> more challenges
> (which is the main thing we do, anyway ^^)
>
> Ugh, terribly log post, here..
>
> Game on everyone!
>
> - Greg W.
> Banning, CA
>
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Mark D
> <shadow_weaver13@...> wrote:
> >
> > Each DM has a different feel to their game, but
> there
> > usually comes a point when the safeties should be
> > released. In the DQ campaign setting I mentioned,
> > both the Players and the DM decided to release the
> > safeties after the Players were of a certain
> > cumulative exp level.
> >
> > BTW, as a funny aside, one of our other DM's
> (during
> > his Shadowrun campaign) used a tool to let the
> players
> > know that the safeties were officially off: our
> > opposition for that adventure sequence was a group
> > called 'Captain Optimal and the Safetys Off'.
> They
> > were PC class characters with PC attitudes and
> they
> > used the same types of PC sleaze that we did. It
> was
> > the wake-up call that our characters' 'childhoods'
> > were over.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > --- dqn-list@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> > >
> > > 1b. Re: R&S Golems
> > > Posted by: "igmod@..." igmod@...
> > > arielifan
> > > Date: Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:08 am ((PST))
> > >
> > > I don't encourage Shaping as a PC college, but I
> > > don't prevent them if they wish to do so. As
> for
> > > R&S Death Squads, there is a simple "rule" in my
> > > campaign, if the PCs don't use death spells,
> then
> > > the NPCs don't use death spells.
> > >
> > > ~Jeffery~
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

______________________________________________________________________

> ______________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail
> beta.
> > http://new.mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I agree on needing to rework the spell / ritual.
especially whedn the exp mult and overall component
costs to the PC / NPC do not reflect something that
has such large world/societal impact. If the spell /
ritual is having that impact it should reflect so in
the exp mult and component costs or it should be
reduced in power / scope. Sending a dragon or the
best gun into to deal with it is just a bandaid.
Bandaids accumulate and make for a worsening ruleset
and a proliferation of needs for bandaids. Just deal
with the problem.

Mark

> 1b. Re: Digest Number 541
> Posted by: "Lev Lafayette"
> lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au lev_lafayette
> Date: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:40 pm ((PST))
>
>
> Personally I think an 'arms race' leading to
> 'mutually
> assured destruction' is a poor solution to a spell
> which has a power-gamer problem. I think reworking
> the
> spell would be a better option.
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Lev
>
> --- Greg Walters <Greg_G_Walters@email.com> wrote:
>
> > some thoughts on 'golem squad' type ideas..
> >
> > (might not be well developed, since i didn't
> even
> > proofread, but
> > may be of use as 'food for thought')
> >
> > ~~edit - i did edit the message, but only once!
> lol
> >
> > The basic position that comes into play, I think,
> is
> > that "anything
> > goes" but there are consequenses. At the most
> > extreme, for instance,
> > is that 'local' dragon may have to personally
> 'take
> > care of' humans
> > that come to be such a power that the said dragon
> > either feels
> > upstaged, or even threatened (at least, sme
> interest
> > of his/hers may
> > be threatened). That is not to say that I would
> > arbitrarily throw in
> > that specific event. But, word gets around.. and
> > the 'best gun in
> > the west' has to contend with challengers
> >
> > I think to the old movie "The Battle of the Bulge"
> > where Charles
> > Bronson plays a US Army major who confronted the
> > German commander
> > about a massacre of POWs (based on a actual even
> > where SS troops did
> > just that.. the commander was mad about that b/c
> he
> > knew that 'wars
> > arefought in the will' as in 13th warrior).
> Anyway,
> > a previous post
> > implied about that shadow run campaign where the
> > 'gloves were off'
> > the PCs are simply vaulted to the 'next level' of
> > role-play. So, in
> > a big enough world, I suppose that eventually
> > 'something' catches up
> > with such power-plays as golem armies or unlimited
> > investing of
> > items, o w/e.
> >
> > I can envision the PCs saying, in character,
> > something like
> > this "remember when things were more simple." I
> > mean, if if a group
> > in my campaign comes up with a 'droid army' .. ok,
> > no prob - whatever
> > makes for fun for them ^^ Let 'em rule a kingdom,
> > or w/e. It can
> > open up a whole real of challenges & role-playing
> > possibilities..
> > r&s golems might not solve food shortages, or
> > underlying
> > cultural/religious conflicts (Iraq's situation
> comes
> > to mind - not to
> > get into that, but to point out a example of a
> > number of individuals
> > who seem to just blowup people to where it seems
> to
> > have no point,
> > say, to a outsider like me.. or, in a series of
> > recent Battlestar
> > Galactica episodes where Colonel Tigh {sp?}
> conducts
> > terrorist
> > attacks on fellow humans while te Cylons were in
> > control of the
> > planet where the bulk of humanity had settled at).
> >
> > I think to question if a player is honestly
> > role-playing with such a
> > heavy 'war gamer' approach to their DQ characters'
> > abilities. There
> > should be a response by the DQ character to the
> > destuctive thing tat
> > they came up with from either "oh no, what have I
> > done!" to a evil
> > minded "mwah ha ha" from knowing that they caused
> so
> > much
> > destruction. s time goes on, more kingdoms would
> > acquire their
> > own 'nukes.' Perhaps, battling one another with
> > golem armies and
> > then having those golems out of control when the
> > main shapers of each
> > of them get killed..
> >
> > As a GM, I ask a player to picture what thy would
> > like to play as and
> > what sort of person that they have in mind to
> > ROLE-PLAY (caps for
> > emphasis rather than shouting, if you please ^^
> > ..idk where the
> > italics are in this posting software, ^^) before
> > ever looking at
> > the 'mechanics' of chracter generation or what
> > college they might
> > choose. I might have said soemthing like this
> > before, but if someone
> > desires to role-play a giant (and actually does
> so)
> > I just let 'em.
> > In fact, I simply bypass the roll for race in the
> > interest of role-
> > playing.
> >
> > So, no prob with w/e players want to have fun
> with.
> > But, it may be
> > inevitable that someone/something comes along to
> > challenge their kind
> > of fun ;)
> >
> > So, with some imagination, a GM may come up with
> > more challenges
> > (which is the main thing we do, anyway ^^)
> >
> > Ugh, terribly log post, here..
> >
> > Game on everyone!
> >
> > - Greg W.
> > Banning, CA
> >
> >

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Well, doesn't that depend on how you define the problem? What if the
problem is munchkinism and not the ruleset at all?

I don't see a problem with a game world that has an arms race, magical
or otherwise. It happens. It's happened ever since mankind organized
into tribes. What's the sword? Why was plate armor developed? Why
were firearms developed? The arms race! It's a normal, historical
progression.

I think the rules are fine, it's just how one chooses to play them that
causes problems. Make that many golems and you'll make a mana-poor or
mana-dead section of your world. Do that enough and, well, the problem
takes care of itself, doesn't it? It's all in how you use, or abuse,
the rules, not the rules themselves.

But, then, everyone plays differently and has different ideas about what
"good game play" means, so your mileage may vary.

Thanks,
Jim

Mark D wrote:

> I agree on needing to rework the spell / ritual.
> especially whedn the exp mult and overall component
> costs to the PC / NPC do not reflect something that
> has such large world/societal impact. If the spell /
> ritual is having that impact it should reflect so in
> the exp mult and component costs or it should be
> reduced in power / scope. Sending a dragon or the
> best gun into to deal with it is just a bandaid.
> Bandaids accumulate and make for a worsening ruleset
> and a proliferation of needs for bandaids. Just deal
> with the problem.
>
> Mark

----------
Quote of the day:
Shaw's Principle:
Build a system that even a fool can use,
and only a fool will want to use it.
-----

Whilst it is true that arms races are a normal
historical progression, if one was to apply the DQ
rules as they are writ, then every DQ world would have
to include the requisite exploitation of the R&S Golem
problem because that would be the "normal historical
progression" of the DQ universe.

As much as I appreciate the relatively uncommon
elements of DQ (e.g., aspects, 14th-15th century
weapons etc), common hit squads of 3ft golems would
not entice me to play.


--- "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Well, doesn't that depend on how you define the
> problem? What if the
> problem is munchkinism and not the ruleset at all?
>
> I don't see a problem with a game world that has an
> arms race, magical
> or otherwise. It happens. It's happened ever since
> mankind organized
> into tribes. What's the sword? Why was plate armor
> developed? Why
> were firearms developed? The arms race! It's a
> normal, historical
> progression.
>
> I think the rules are fine, it's just how one
> chooses to play them that
> causes problems. Make that many golems and you'll
> make a mana-poor or
> mana-dead section of your world. Do that enough
> and, well, the problem
> takes care of itself, doesn't it? It's all in how
> you use, or abuse,
> the rules, not the rules themselves.
>
> But, then, everyone plays differently and has
> different ideas about what
> "good game play" means, so your mileage may vary.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
> Mark D wrote:
>
> > I agree on needing to rework the spell / ritual.
> > especially whedn the exp mult and overall
> component
> > costs to the PC / NPC do not reflect something
> that
> > has such large world/societal impact. If the
> spell /
> > ritual is having that impact it should reflect so
> in
> > the exp mult and component costs or it should be
> > reduced in power / scope. Sending a dragon or the
> > best gun into to deal with it is just a bandaid.
> > Bandaids accumulate and make for a worsening
> ruleset
> > and a proliferation of needs for bandaids. Just
> deal
> > with the problem.
> >
> > Mark
>
> ----------
> Quote of the day:
> Shaw's Principle:
> Build a system that even a fool can use,
> and only a fool will want to use it.
> -----
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Right, so you wouldn't play with a group of people who would do this.
Problem solved. I notice that DQ doesn't include rules for firearms,
though they would be a normal, historical progression. Does that mean
we should all include rules that correct that oversight?

I think you're missing the point. When problems like these arise, it's
almost always the gaming group that both has the problem and works it
out. I can abuse any set of rules you can invent. At least, any that
are worth playing. Any set of rules that doesn't have the potential for
abuse isn't a "game" so much as it is a "script". If there's any room
for interpretation at all, I can find a way to abuse that flexibility.

Besides, to manufacture an army of 3ft golem hit squads, I would kill
magic in large sections of the game world. That would have other
consequences, like, say, driving the people capable of making such an
army farther and farther away from civilized lands and forcing a low
magic campaign for a generation or two or three. Naturally, the locals
might then have taboos against the creation of golems in large numbers
or the creation of golems at all. Problem solved with *role playing*,
and not a single rule change needed.

It's about playing the game, not fixing a ruleset. At least, when I
play. But, then, everyone has different goals when they sit down at the
gaming table. And, frankly, I can't think of anything else to add.

Have a great holiday season!
Jim

Lev Lafayette wrote:

> Whilst it is true that arms races are a normal
> historical progression, if one was to apply the DQ
> rules as they are writ, then every DQ world would have
> to include the requisite exploitation of the R&S Golem
> problem because that would be the "normal historical
> progression" of the DQ universe.
>
> As much as I appreciate the relatively uncommon
> elements of DQ (e.g., aspects, 14th-15th century
> weapons etc), common hit squads of 3ft golems would
> not entice me to play.

----------
Quote of the day:
"Give a man a horse he can ride,
Give a man a boat he can sail."
-James Thompson
-----

--- "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Right, so you wouldn't play with a group of people
> who would do this.
> Problem solved. I notice that DQ doesn't include
> rules for firearms,
> though they would be a normal, historical
> progression. Does that mean
> we should all include rules that correct that
> oversight?

As has been discussed on this list previously, yes, of
course. And there is the Grenado.

> I think you're missing the point. When problems
> like these arise, it's
> almost always the gaming group that both has the
> problem and works it
> out. I can abuse any set of rules you can invent.

Well, GURPS is hard to abuse as a simulationist game
because they did extensive playtesting and 'reality
checking'. This is an example of a rule that wasn't
considered properly.

> At least, any that
> are worth playing. Any set of rules that doesn't
> have the potential for
> abuse isn't a "game" so much as it is a "script".

A 'game' is where there are opportunities for the
character to improve within the system's objectives. A
'script' is where a character develops according to
the narrative.

So no, not really. In fact, not at all. "Gaming"
objectives are totally different to "narrative"
objectives. A character could go up in ranks, but
become less influential in a story.

> If there's any room
> for interpretation at all, I can find a way to abuse
> that flexibility.
>
> Besides, to manufacture an army of 3ft golem hit
> squads, I would kill
> magic in large sections of the game world.

So rather than change *one* ill-considered spell,
you'd go for a fundamental change to the *entire* game
system?

OK, whatever.

> That
> would have other
> consequences, like, say, driving the people capable
> of making such an
> army farther and farther away from civilized lands
> and forcing a low
> magic campaign for a generation or two or three.
> Naturally, the locals
> might then have taboos against the creation of
> golems in large numbers
> or the creation of golems at all. Problem solved
> with *role playing*,
> and not a single rule change needed.

Those cultures that don't have the taboo will
overwhelm those that do within a generation.

> It's about playing the game, not fixing a ruleset.
> At least, when I
> play. But, then, everyone has different goals when
> they sit down at the
> gaming table. And, frankly, I can't think of
> anything else to add.

Let me help you ;-)

> Have a great holiday season!
> Jim

You too,



Lev

>
> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>
> > Whilst it is true that arms races are a normal
> > historical progression, if one was to apply the DQ
> > rules as they are writ, then every DQ world would
> have
> > to include the requisite exploitation of the R&S
> Golem
> > problem because that would be the "normal
> historical
> > progression" of the DQ universe.
> >
> > As much as I appreciate the relatively uncommon
> > elements of DQ (e.g., aspects, 14th-15th century
> > weapons etc), common hit squads of 3ft golems
> would
> > not entice me to play.
>
> ----------
> Quote of the day:
> "Give a man a horse he can ride,
> Give a man a boat he can sail."
> -James Thompson
> -----
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Sorry, I don't have my rules handy, but I seem to recall a
connection between population and mana available for spells.
There was a discussion some time back about the mass manufacture
of magic items that was ruled out due to mana considerations.
The implication is that enough magic use and enough people to
mass-produce anything magical would use up all the mana in an
area and make it, ultimately, useless for the intended purpose.
The same would apply for the golems. Golems intelligent enough,
or magic enough, to cast a ritual that would allow them to
self-replicate would use up mana the same way. Again, I don't
have my 2nd edition rules handy to check on that, but I'm sure it
was "fixed" in the third edition.

As for the golem-soldier adopting society wiping out the others,
ask the Vietnamese how well "superior firepower" did against
them. Better tools don't guarantee success. It's all how you
play the game.

Which, in the end, is and has always been my point. I can abuse
the heck out of GURPS rules. It's done all the time. If there's
enough room to actually role-play there's enough room to abuse
the rules. And people will do it. And, some people enjoying
doing it. And, frankly, that's fine with me.

How do you plan on "fixing" the Mechanician skill to prevent
similar abuses? Can't he, in theory, create self-replicating
soldiers? Or, at least a series of machines that make
non-magical mechanical men? Or do you interpret those rules
differently?

What you see as "problems" to be "fixed", I see as
"opportunities" for "role-playing". I'm sure many people agree
with your point of view and that's why game systems like d20 are
so popular. But, they're abused, too. No system is perfect and
beyond abuse. It's just a matter of having a Game Master that
knows how to deal with it and is willing.

So, rather than bore everyone else, who have all stopped posting,
I'll agree to disagree with you on these points and just move on.

Again, have a great holiday season!
Jim
--- Original Message ---
From: Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au>
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Digest Number 541

>
>--- "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Right, so you wouldn't play with a group of people
>> who would do this.
>> Problem solved. I notice that DQ doesn't include
>> rules for firearms,
>> though they would be a normal, historical
>> progression. Does that mean
>> we should all include rules that correct that
>> oversight?
>
>As has been discussed on this list previously, yes, of
>course. And there is the Grenado.
>
>> I think you're missing the point. When problems
>> like these arise, it's
>> almost always the gaming group that both has the
>> problem and works it
>> out. I can abuse any set of rules you can invent.
>
>Well, GURPS is hard to abuse as a simulationist game
>because they did extensive playtesting and 'reality
>checking'. This is an example of a rule that wasn't
>considered properly.
>
>> At least, any that
>> are worth playing. Any set of rules that doesn't
>> have the potential for
>> abuse isn't a "game" so much as it is a "script".
>
>A 'game' is where there are opportunities for the
>character to improve within the system's objectives. A
>'script' is where a character develops according to
>the narrative.
>
>So no, not really. In fact, not at all. "Gaming"
>objectives are totally different to "narrative"
>objectives. A character could go up in ranks, but
>become less influential in a story.
>
>> If there's any room
>> for interpretation at all, I can find a way to abuse
>> that flexibility.
>>
>> Besides, to manufacture an army of 3ft golem hit
>> squads, I would kill
>> magic in large sections of the game world.
>
>So rather than change *one* ill-considered spell,
>you'd go for a fundamental change to the *entire* game
>system?
>
>OK, whatever.
>
>> That
>> would have other
>> consequences, like, say, driving the people capable
>> of making such an
>> army farther and farther away from civilized lands
>> and forcing a low
>> magic campaign for a generation or two or three.
>> Naturally, the locals
>> might then have taboos against the creation of
>> golems in large numbers
>> or the creation of golems at all. Problem solved
>> with *role playing*,
>> and not a single rule change needed.
>
>Those cultures that don't have the taboo will
>overwhelm those that do within a generation.
>
>> It's about playing the game, not fixing a ruleset.
>> At least, when I
>> play. But, then, everyone has different goals when
>> they sit down at the
>> gaming table. And, frankly, I can't think of
>> anything else to add.
>
>Let me help you ;-)
>
>> Have a great holiday season!
>> Jim
>
>You too,
>
>
>
>Lev
>
>>
>> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>
>> > Whilst it is true that arms races are a normal
>> > historical progression, if one was to apply the DQ
>> > rules as they are writ, then every DQ world would
>> have
>> > to include the requisite exploitation of the R&S
>> Golem
>> > problem because that would be the "normal
>> historical
>> > progression" of the DQ universe.
>> >
>> > As much as I appreciate the relatively uncommon
>> > elements of DQ (e.g., aspects, 14th-15th century
>> > weapons etc), common hit squads of 3ft golems
>> would
>> > not entice me to play.
>>
>> ----------
>> Quote of the day:
>> "Give a man a horse he can ride,
>> Give a man a boat he can sail."
>> -James Thompson
>> -----
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

---------
"A bone to the dog is not charity.
Charity is a bone to the dog, when you are just as hungry as the dog."

--Jack London

At the end of the day it is the GMs that let the players do these things.

My shapers have always voluntarily limited themselves in the number of
R&S Golems they have at any one time (2 being the most) and they also
realize the if the PCs can do it so can the NPCs. And there are a lot
more NPCs than PCs.

DQ magic is full of instant death spells and for a mage to get to a
rank that they can cast it without a healthy chance of backfiring they
must have attempted to cast it, during an adventure session, once for
each of those ranks. In our campaigns that cast attempt must have been
made for an actual purpose and not just tossed at a bird sitting in a
true. That's 10+ chances to kill themselves or one of their campanions
and some (Sinking Doom for example) are permanent death. (Then there
is the 15-20 sessions at Hero Rank XP rewards to even get the spell up
to a semi-reliable cast chance.)

Yet if a magic is lucky enough and persistent enough (or a GM decides
to just ignore the checks and balances) to reach a high rank with one
of those spells they can be walking machines of death. The GM will
have to deal with it because they are the one that let the players
learn the spell in the first place. If the players manage to get
characters to the point where they are that deadly then the GM owes it
to them to enjoy the fruits of their efforts and to confront them with
foes just as deadly.

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Mark D <shadow_weaver13@...> wrote:
>
> Here is one of the combos that killed the R&S golems
> in our campaign setting:
>
> In our campaign setting, Mages do not get MR from
> their own Backfires. A shaper made several R&S golems
> with a very high rank in Whirlwind Vortex (from a
> companion Player) and used them to cast the death
> spell so as not to risk themselves with the backfire.
> They also had 2 R&S Golems with Enhancing Enchantments
> at high rank to help the rest get the Whirlwind Vortex
> spells off. It was brutal. They took out so many
> people in ambushes with their R&S Golem Death Squads.
>
> That ended R&S Golems with Magical abilities in our
> campaign setting. Shaping Magic itself was taken off
> the table for PC's...pending a DM's re-write of the
> college...which hasn't ever happened. But that is our
> problem. That R&S Golems being allowed to use magic
> is everyone elses problem.
>
> Mark
>
>
> >
> > 1. Re: R&S Golems
> > Posted by: "darkislephil" phergus@...
> > darkislephil
> > Date: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:55 pm ((PST))
> >
> > Heck with only 3 Ft they aren't even particularly
> > useful as mages.
> > They throw one useful Special Knowledge or 2 General
> > Knowledge and
> > they are done for a couple hours. Mostly handy as
> > interpreters, watch
> > dogs, scouts, and backup.
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

Hi Jim,

"I'll agree to disagree with you on these points and
just move on."

Oh, I'm not going to let you go that easily! ;-)

1. Connection between population and mana

There is no causal connection between population and
mana, although there is a correlation. Mana rich areas
tend to isolated from humans because they are usually
inhabited by magical creatures and because they are
located in areas where the environment is not
conducive to human settlement. Mana poor (3 * FAT cost
to cast spells) areas often have a high human
population because it is *safe* to live there.

2. Mechanician and automatons

Mechanicians have no ability to produce automatons.
The limits of their ability is stated quite clearly:

"The GM may, at his discretion, allow a Mechanician
character to construct devices of use on adventures
Under no circumstances may a Mechanician build
post‑Renaissance weaponry."


3. The Vietnam Example

I was going to suggest that "obviously" I mean
"ceteris paribus" (all other things being the same). A
high population area with a taboo against R&S golem
may defeat a smaller population without such a
cultural restriction.

Then I realised that in a very real sense, the Vietnam
example *enhances* rather than *detracts* from my
argument. The success of the Vietnamese against the
"superior firepower" of the U.S. was often due to
their ability to make use of the resources at hand; in
other words, their victory was due to the fact that
they *didn't* have taboos.

Now imagine what would have happened if the Vietnamese
*did* have a taboo against, say, using gunpowder in
any form (which is the sort scale we're talking
about). What then?

Ceteris paribus, a culture with a taboo against
developing R&S golems will be defeated, and quite
quickly, by a neighbour that has no such restriction.

4. Systems and Abuse

Yes, all systems are open to abuse (although an
example for GURPS 4th ed is still wanting). But that
doesn't mean we should shy away from seeking to
*improve* game systems when a problem (such as
described) arises and *lessen* the possibility,
creating a more plausible setting and enjoyable
experience for participants.

If system was not important, rather than the d20
example you gave, we'd all be playing 1st edition D&D
1974. We *certainly* wouldn't be playing DQ (let alone
later editions) which, despite its limitations, did
have some very serious and interesting advantages in
comparison to other RPG systems in 198-82.

A very good essay on this matter was written by Ron
Edwards. It is available here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html

5. Fixing R&S Golems

I think the simplest way to fix the R&S Golem problem
is simply to remove the ability to imbue 5*Shapers
Rank in the spell in spells, talents and skills,
rather providing them with the Shapers Rank in a
language. They're smart, which a benefit in itself,
and they can learn, which is even more so, but I see
no justification for suggesting that they have skills
and knowledges after being constructed.

All the best,


Lev








--- J K Hoffman <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Sorry, I don't have my rules handy, but I seem to
> recall a
> connection between population and mana available for
> spells.
> There was a discussion some time back about the mass
> manufacture
> of magic items that was ruled out due to mana
> considerations.
> The implication is that enough magic use and enough
> people to
> mass-produce anything magical would use up all the
> mana in an
> area and make it, ultimately, useless for the
> intended purpose.
> The same would apply for the golems. Golems
> intelligent enough,
> or magic enough, to cast a ritual that would allow
> them to
> self-replicate would use up mana the same way.
> Again, I don't
> have my 2nd edition rules handy to check on that,
> but I'm sure it
> was "fixed" in the third edition.
>
> As for the golem-soldier adopting society wiping out
> the others,
> ask the Vietnamese how well "superior firepower" did
> against
> them. Better tools don't guarantee success. It's
> all how you
> play the game.
>
> Which, in the end, is and has always been my point.
> I can abuse
> the heck out of GURPS rules. It's done all the
> time. If there's
> enough room to actually role-play there's enough
> room to abuse
> the rules. And people will do it. And, some people
> enjoying
> doing it. And, frankly, that's fine with me.
>
> How do you plan on "fixing" the Mechanician skill to
> prevent
> similar abuses? Can't he, in theory, create
> self-replicating
> soldiers? Or, at least a series of machines that
> make
> non-magical mechanical men? Or do you interpret
> those rules
> differently?
>
> What you see as "problems" to be "fixed", I see as
> "opportunities" for "role-playing". I'm sure many
> people agree
> with your point of view and that's why game systems
> like d20 are
> so popular. But, they're abused, too. No system is
> perfect and
> beyond abuse. It's just a matter of having a Game
> Master that
> knows how to deal with it and is willing.
>
> So, rather than bore everyone else, who have all
> stopped posting,
> I'll agree to disagree with you on these points and
> just move on.
>
> Again, have a great holiday season!
> Jim
> --- Original Message ---
> From: Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au>
> To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Digest Number 541
>
> >
> >--- "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Right, so you wouldn't play with a group of
> people
> >> who would do this.
> >> Problem solved. I notice that DQ doesn't include
> >> rules for firearms,
> >> though they would be a normal, historical
> >> progression. Does that mean
> >> we should all include rules that correct that
> >> oversight?
> >
> >As has been discussed on this list previously, yes,
> of
> >course. And there is the Grenado.
> >
> >> I think you're missing the point. When problems
> >> like these arise, it's
> >> almost always the gaming group that both has the
> >> problem and works it
> >> out. I can abuse any set of rules you can
> invent.
> >
> >Well, GURPS is hard to abuse as a simulationist
> game
> >because they did extensive playtesting and 'reality
> >checking'. This is an example of a rule that wasn't
> >considered properly.
> >
> >> At least, any that
> >> are worth playing. Any set of rules that doesn't
> >> have the potential for
> >> abuse isn't a "game" so much as it is a "script".
>
> >
> >A 'game' is where there are opportunities for the
> >character to improve within the system's
> objectives. A
> >'script' is where a character develops according to
> >the narrative.
> >
> >So no, not really. In fact, not at all. "Gaming"
> >objectives are totally different to "narrative"
> >objectives. A character could go up in ranks, but
> >become less influential in a story.
> >
> >> If there's any room
> >> for interpretation at all, I can find a way to
> abuse
> >> that flexibility.
> >>
> >> Besides, to manufacture an army of 3ft golem hit
> >> squads, I would kill
> >> magic in large sections of the game world.
> >
> >So rather than change *one* ill-considered spell,
> >you'd go for a fundamental change to the *entire*
> game
> >system?
> >
> >OK, whatever.
> >
> >> That
> >> would have other
> >> consequences, like, say, driving the people
> capable
> >> of making such an
> >> army farther and farther away from civilized
> lands
> >> and forcing a low
> >> magic campaign for a generation or two or three.
> >> Naturally, the locals
> >> might then have taboos against the creation of
> >> golems in large numbers
> >> or the creation of golems at all. Problem solved
> >> with *role playing*,
> >> and not a single rule change needed.
> >
> >Those cultures that don't have the taboo will
> >overwhelm those that do within a generation.
> >
> >> It's about playing the game, not fixing a
> ruleset.
> >> At least, when I
> >> play. But, then, everyone has different goals
> when
> >> they sit down at the
> >> gaming table. And, frankly, I can't think of
> >> anything else to add.
> >
> >Let me help you ;-)
> >
> >> Have a great holiday season!
> >> Jim
> >
> >You too,
> >
> >
> >
> >Lev
> >
> >>
> >> Lev Lafayette wrote:
> >>
> >> > Whilst it is true that arms races are a normal
> >> > historical progression, if one was to apply the
> DQ
> >> > rules as they are writ, then every DQ world
> would
> >> have
> >> > to include the requisite exploitation of the
> R&S
> >> Golem
> >> > problem because that would be the "normal
> >> historical
> >> > progression" of the DQ universe.
> >> >
> >> > As much as I appreciate the relatively uncommon
> >> > elements of DQ (e.g., aspects, 14th-15th
> century
> >> > weapons etc), common hit squads of 3ft golems
> >> would
> >> > not entice me to play.
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> Quote of the day:
> >> "Give a man a horse he can ride,
> >> Give a man a boat he can sail."
> >> -James Thompson
> >> -----
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> >http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------
> "A bone to the dog is not charity.
> Charity is a bone to the dog, when you are just as
> hungry as the dog."
>
> --Jack London
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Actually, it's very easy.
I don't agree with your entire way of looking at role-playing games,
what needs to be "fixed" in the DQ rules, or your interpretation of
history. Ron Edwards is a great place to start reading about designing
games, but I think you stopped reading his articles before you got to
the best stuff. Also, look for the old article that Steve Jackson wrote
on game theory. Last I knew, they'd still send you a photocopy if you
tried to buy it from his company.

And, frankly, this entire line of reasoning and argument is why I don't
play RPGs anymore. Sooner or later, someone who wants to legislate
reasonableness and good game play comes along to "make it better". I
think Ron Edwards calls it one of his "heart breakers".

So, good luck with your revisions, but count me out. I think I'd rather
save my money for a PS3.

Ciao,
Jim

Lev Lafayette wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>
> "I'll agree to disagree with you on these points and
> just move on."
>
> Oh, I'm not going to let you go that easily! ;-)

----------
Quote of the day:
"Clarke's Laws:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is
possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something
is impossible, he is probably wrong.
2. The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to look beyond
into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
- Arthur C. Clarke
-----

I read Steve Jackson's booklet on game theory almost
two decades ago. I have read probably *all* of Ron
Edwards' essays on game design.

I will note with dry irony that you're buying a PS3
(why, what was wrong with the PS1?) yet consider
further development in RPGs so antithetical to their
core spirit that you don't play anymore.

I think we're done here.

--- "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Actually, it's very easy.
> I don't agree with your entire way of looking at
> role-playing games,
> what needs to be "fixed" in the DQ rules, or your
> interpretation of
> history. Ron Edwards is a great place to start
> reading about designing
> games, but I think you stopped reading his articles
> before you got to
> the best stuff. Also, look for the old article that
> Steve Jackson wrote
> on game theory. Last I knew, they'd still send you
> a photocopy if you
> tried to buy it from his company.
>
> And, frankly, this entire line of reasoning and
> argument is why I don't
> play RPGs anymore. Sooner or later, someone who
> wants to legislate
> reasonableness and good game play comes along to
> "make it better". I
> think Ron Edwards calls it one of his "heart
> breakers".
>
> So, good luck with your revisions, but count me out.
> I think I'd rather
> save my money for a PS3.
>
> Ciao,
> Jim
>
> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > "I'll agree to disagree with you on these points
> and
> > just move on."
> >
> > Oh, I'm not going to let you go that easily! ;-)
>
> ----------
> Quote of the day:
> "Clarke's Laws:
> 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states
> that something is
> possible, he is almost certainly right. When he
> states that something
> is impossible, he is probably wrong.
> 2. The only way to discover the limits of the
> possible is to look beyond
> into the impossible.
> 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is
> indistinguishable from magic."
> - Arthur C. Clarke
> -----
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

We were done a long time ago. We've both made up our minds about
this and neither are going to change the other's.

I actually still own a PS1 and enjoy it just fine. My ex-wife
took the PS2, or I'd still be playing that. The only reason I'm
saving for the PS3 is because that's where all the new, vital
development will be going on, and, in theory, I should be able to
play my PS2 games on it, too. No irony, wet or dry, just logic
you weren't seeing.

I don't oppose development of games. Ron Edwards created a new
system that is great, for its stated goals. Reread what he says
about heartbreakers and reference all the ways DQ needs "fixing".
Or, just play the 2nd edition rules, not the third. At least,
if you're going to start improving something, start with the best
product, not the worst.

Now, I'm just waiting to see if you have to get the last last
word in. LOL


--- Original Message ---
From: Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au>
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Digest Number 541

>
>I read Steve Jackson's booklet on game theory almost
>two decades ago. I have read probably *all* of Ron
>Edwards' essays on game design.
>
>I will note with dry irony that you're buying a PS3
>(why, what was wrong with the PS1?) yet consider
>further development in RPGs so antithetical to their
>core spirit that you don't play anymore.
>
>I think we're done here.
>
>--- "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Actually, it's very easy.
>> I don't agree with your entire way of looking at
>> role-playing games,
>> what needs to be "fixed" in the DQ rules, or your
>> interpretation of
>> history. Ron Edwards is a great place to start
>> reading about designing
>> games, but I think you stopped reading his articles
>> before you got to
>> the best stuff. Also, look for the old article that
>> Steve Jackson wrote
>> on game theory. Last I knew, they'd still send you
>> a photocopy if you
>> tried to buy it from his company.
>>
>> And, frankly, this entire line of reasoning and
>> argument is why I don't
>> play RPGs anymore. Sooner or later, someone who
>> wants to legislate
>> reasonableness and good game play comes along to
>> "make it better". I
>> think Ron Edwards calls it one of his "heart
>> breakers".
>>
>> So, good luck with your revisions, but count me out.
>> I think I'd rather
>> save my money for a PS3.
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Jim
>>
>> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Jim,
>> >
>> > "I'll agree to disagree with you on these points
>> and
>> > just move on."
>> >
>> > Oh, I'm not going to let you go that easily! ;-)
>>
>> ----------
>> Quote of the day:
>> "Clarke's Laws:
>> 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states
>> that something is
>> possible, he is almost certainly right. When he
>> states that something
>> is impossible, he is probably wrong.
>> 2. The only way to discover the limits of the
>> possible is to look beyond
>> into the impossible.
>> 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is
>> indistinguishable from magic."
>> - Arthur C. Clarke
>> -----
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

---------
"A bone to the dog is not charity.
Charity is a bone to the dog, when you are just as hungry as the dog."

--Jack London

Last word or continuing discussion?

I *do* play DQ 2nd edition (I'm in two games at the
moment). I have read Ron Edward's essay on "Fantasy
Heartbreakers", which really has nothing to do with
the topic at hand.

The topic at hand is whether the R&S Golem issue is
erroneous and needs repair, or whether the situation
can be roleplayed through and retain a sense of
game-world plausibility.

I claimed the former, you've claimed the latter. I
think I have shown why your position, as enticing as
it may be in many other circumstances (clever and
interesting use of existing game rules), is simply not
sustainable or plausible in this particular instance.

For goodness sakes man, maybe you just made a mistake.
Let it go. It's not as if you do any gaming anyway.
Enjoy your 'ploits on the PS3 and let system tinkerers
have their fun.


--- J K Hoffman <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> We were done a long time ago. We've both made up
> our minds about
> this and neither are going to change the other's.
>
> I actually still own a PS1 and enjoy it just fine.
> My ex-wife
> took the PS2, or I'd still be playing that. The
> only reason I'm
> saving for the PS3 is because that's where all the
> new, vital
> development will be going on, and, in theory, I
> should be able to
> play my PS2 games on it, too. No irony, wet or dry,
> just logic
> you weren't seeing.
>
> I don't oppose development of games. Ron Edwards
> created a new
> system that is great, for its stated goals. Reread
> what he says
> about heartbreakers and reference all the ways DQ
> needs "fixing".
> Or, just play the 2nd edition rules, not the third.
> At least,
> if you're going to start improving something, start
> with the best
> product, not the worst.
>
> Now, I'm just waiting to see if you have to get the
> last last
> word in. LOL
>
>
> --- Original Message ---
> From: Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au>
> To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Digest Number 541
>
> >
> >I read Steve Jackson's booklet on game theory
> almost
> >two decades ago. I have read probably *all* of Ron
> >Edwards' essays on game design.
> >
> >I will note with dry irony that you're buying a PS3
> >(why, what was wrong with the PS1?) yet consider
> >further development in RPGs so antithetical to
> their
> >core spirit that you don't play anymore.
> >
> >I think we're done here.
> >
> >--- "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, it's very easy.
> >> I don't agree with your entire way of looking at
> >> role-playing games,
> >> what needs to be "fixed" in the DQ rules, or your
> >> interpretation of
> >> history. Ron Edwards is a great place to start
> >> reading about designing
> >> games, but I think you stopped reading his
> articles
> >> before you got to
> >> the best stuff. Also, look for the old article
> that
> >> Steve Jackson wrote
> >> on game theory. Last I knew, they'd still send
> you
> >> a photocopy if you
> >> tried to buy it from his company.
> >>
> >> And, frankly, this entire line of reasoning and
> >> argument is why I don't
> >> play RPGs anymore. Sooner or later, someone who
> >> wants to legislate
> >> reasonableness and good game play comes along to
> >> "make it better". I
> >> think Ron Edwards calls it one of his "heart
> >> breakers".
> >>
> >> So, good luck with your revisions, but count me
> out.
> >> I think I'd rather
> >> save my money for a PS3.
> >>
> >> Ciao,
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> Lev Lafayette wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Jim,
> >> >
> >> > "I'll agree to disagree with you on these
> points
> >> and
> >> > just move on."
> >> >
> >> > Oh, I'm not going to let you go that easily!
> ;-)
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> Quote of the day:
> >> "Clarke's Laws:
> >> 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist
> states
> >> that something is
> >> possible, he is almost certainly right. When he
> >> states that something
> >> is impossible, he is probably wrong.
> >> 2. The only way to discover the limits of the
> >> possible is to look beyond
> >> into the impossible.
> >> 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is
> >> indistinguishable from magic."
> >> - Arthur C. Clarke
> >> -----
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> >http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------
> "A bone to the dog is not charity.
> Charity is a bone to the dog, when you are just as
> hungry as the dog."
>
> --Jack London
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Last word.

Actually, I think I'm just going to turn off this group. Sadly,
this has been the most traffic it's seen in, well, a while.

As you say, I don't really play any more, so there's not much
point. Which is actually, more or less, what I said several
messages ago.

Good luck,
Jim

--- Original Message ---
From: Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au>
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Digest Number 541

>
>Last word or continuing discussion?
>
>I *do* play DQ 2nd edition (I'm in two games at the
>moment). I have read Ron Edward's essay on "Fantasy
>Heartbreakers", which really has nothing to do with
>the topic at hand.
>
>The topic at hand is whether the R&S Golem issue is
>erroneous and needs repair, or whether the situation
>can be roleplayed through and retain a sense of
>game-world plausibility.
>
>I claimed the former, you've claimed the latter. I
>think I have shown why your position, as enticing as
>it may be in many other circumstances (clever and
>interesting use of existing game rules), is simply not
>sustainable or plausible in this particular instance.
>
>For goodness sakes man, maybe you just made a mistake.
>Let it go. It's not as if you do any gaming anyway.
>Enjoy your 'ploits on the PS3 and let system tinkerers
>have their fun.
>
>
>--- J K Hoffman <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> We were done a long time ago. We've both made up
>> our minds about
>> this and neither are going to change the other's.
>>
>> I actually still own a PS1 and enjoy it just fine.
>> My ex-wife
>> took the PS2, or I'd still be playing that. The
>> only reason I'm
>> saving for the PS3 is because that's where all the
>> new, vital
>> development will be going on, and, in theory, I
>> should be able to
>> play my PS2 games on it, too. No irony, wet or dry,
>> just logic
>> you weren't seeing.
>>
>> I don't oppose development of games. Ron Edwards
>> created a new
>> system that is great, for its stated goals. Reread
>> what he says
>> about heartbreakers and reference all the ways DQ
>> needs "fixing".
>> Or, just play the 2nd edition rules, not the third.
>> At least,
>> if you're going to start improving something, start
>> with the best
>> product, not the worst.
>>
>> Now, I'm just waiting to see if you have to get the
>> last last
>> word in. LOL
>>
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>> From: Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au>
>> To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Digest Number 541
>>
>> >
>> >I read Steve Jackson's booklet on game theory
>> almost
>> >two decades ago. I have read probably *all* of Ron
>> >Edwards' essays on game design.
>> >
>> >I will note with dry irony that you're buying a PS3
>> >(why, what was wrong with the PS1?) yet consider
>> >further development in RPGs so antithetical to
>> their
>> >core spirit that you don't play anymore.
>> >
>> >I think we're done here.
>> >
>> >--- "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Actually, it's very easy.
>> >> I don't agree with your entire way of looking at
>> >> role-playing games,
>> >> what needs to be "fixed" in the DQ rules, or your
>> >> interpretation of
>> >> history. Ron Edwards is a great place to start
>> >> reading about designing
>> >> games, but I think you stopped reading his
>> articles
>> >> before you got to
>> >> the best stuff. Also, look for the old article
>> that
>> >> Steve Jackson wrote
>> >> on game theory. Last I knew, they'd still send
>> you
>> >> a photocopy if you
>> >> tried to buy it from his company.
>> >>
>> >> And, frankly, this entire line of reasoning and
>> >> argument is why I don't
>> >> play RPGs anymore. Sooner or later, someone who
>> >> wants to legislate
>> >> reasonableness and good game play comes along to
>> >> "make it better". I
>> >> think Ron Edwards calls it one of his "heart
>> >> breakers".
>> >>
>> >> So, good luck with your revisions, but count me
>> out.
>> >> I think I'd rather
>> >> save my money for a PS3.
>> >>
>> >> Ciao,
>> >> Jim
>> >>
>> >> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Jim,
>> >> >
>> >> > "I'll agree to disagree with you on these
>> points
>> >> and
>> >> > just move on."
>> >> >
>> >> > Oh, I'm not going to let you go that easily!
>> ;-)
>> >>
>> >> ----------
>> >> Quote of the day:
>> >> "Clarke's Laws:
>> >> 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist
>> states
>> >> that something is
>> >> possible, he is almost certainly right. When he
>> >> states that something
>> >> is impossible, he is probably wrong.
>> >> 2. The only way to discover the limits of the
>> >> possible is to look beyond
>> >> into the impossible.
>> >> 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is
>> >> indistinguishable from magic."
>> >> - Arthur C. Clarke
>> >> -----
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >__________________________________________________
>> >Do You Yahoo!?
>> >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
>> protection around
>> >http://mail.yahoo.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------
>> "A bone to the dog is not charity.
>> Charity is a bone to the dog, when you are just as
>> hungry as the dog."
>>
>> --Jack London
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

---------
"A bone to the dog is not charity.
Charity is a bone to the dog, when you are just as hungry as the dog."

--Jack London

>1. Connection between population and mana
>
>There is no causal connection between population and
>mana, although there is a correlation.

The rules don't explain WHY there is a correlation; your conclusion that
humans live in mana-poor areas because they are "safe" is just as
speculative as Jim's theory that it is due to those humans depleting a
natural resource (which, for what it's worth, is the explanation I have
always favored).

-Cameron

_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701

--- "D. Cameron King" <monarchy2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> >1. Connection between population and mana
> >
> >There is no causal connection between population
> and
> >mana, although there is a correlation.
>
> The rules don't explain WHY there is a correlation;
> your conclusion that
> humans live in mana-poor areas because they are
> "safe" is just as
> speculative as Jim's theory that it is due to those
> humans depleting a
> natural resource (which, for what it's worth, is the
> explanation I have
> always favored).

I quite like that explanation as well, to be perfectly
honest (although it is difficult to explain the
relationship with what "mana" actually means in the
real world). However the main point I was making is
that the rules *do not* support the explanation; they
not a correlation not a casuality.

As you correctly say, my speculation was as good as
any other but it does have interpretative strength.
The rules seem to imply that high and low mana areas
existed *prior* to human populations being established
- and town planners raise objections when kings
suggest building a city next to a portal when
pan-dimensional beings regularly cross.

(This said, both could be true i.e., people settle in
a low mana area and deplete the resource even more..
possibly making a zero mana area?)

In either case it doesn't really matter for the
discussion at hand. A R&S string golem that costs
twice as much fatigue to cast is hardly going to
significantly reduce the overall effectiveness of the
glitch.


From DQ Open Source:

[43.1] It costs 1 Fatigue Point to cast a General
Knowledge Spell, and 2 Fatigue Points to cast a
Special Knowledge Spell.

The distinction between General and Special Knowledge
is discussed in rule 50. If a character is in area
designated as “mana rich” by the GM, the cost to cast
a Special Knowledge spell is 1 Fatigue Point, and
there is no cost to cast a General Knowledge Spell.
Such areas are, however, rare and include primarily
locations where human sacrifice is practiced regularly
or where the boundary between dimensions is weak so
that large amounts of mana leak through. Often
mountaintops or clearings in deep jungle will contain
such “portals.” These areas are likely to be well
guarded by beasts and individuals attracted by their
magic, including a larger than usual proportion of
Fantastical Beasts. Even in mana rich areas, a
character must pay the Fatigue Cost to cast a spell
upon loosing it or it has no effect.

If the character is in area designated “mana poor” by
the GM, the Fatigue Cost to cast a spell is doubled
[tripled in 3rd edition]. Such areas will be much more
common and will often include the more civilized and
densely‑inhabited parts of the world.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

> >1. Connection between population and mana
> >
> >There is no causal connection between population and
> >mana, although there is a correlation.
>
> The rules don't explain WHY there is a correlation; your conclusion that
> humans live in mana-poor areas because they are "safe" is just as
> speculative as Jim's theory that it is due to those humans depleting a
> natural resource (which, for what it's worth, is the explanation I have
> always favored).
>
> -Cameron
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
> www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your grou p on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/join
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
> mailto:dqn-list-digest@yahoogroups.com
> mailto:dqn-list-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> dqn-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

That's interesting; the idea that an "extradimensional
energy" (mana) has troubles co-existing with an "old
'earthly' metal" (e.g., iron).

Which would also mean that low mana areas include
those without people (e.g., the Pilbra of Western
Australia) as well as places were people brought iron
to the locality.

--- igmod@comcast.net wrote:

> IIRC, from the first edition there was a comment
> about the use of iron in settled areas to explain
> why it was mana-poor.
>
> ~Jeffery~
>
> > >1. Connection between population and mana
> > >
> > >There is no causal connection between population
> and
> > >mana, although there is a correlation.
> >
> > The rules don't explain WHY there is a
> correlation; your conclusion that
> > humans live in mana-poor areas because they are
> "safe" is just as
> > speculative as Jim's theory that it is due to
> those humans depleting a
> > natural resource (which, for what it's worth, is
> the explanation I have
> > always favored).
> >
> > -Cameron
> >
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________

>
> > Get live scores and news about your team: Add the
> Live.com Football Page
> >
>

www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701

>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Annecdotal information -

I've been playing DQ since it first came out. I've been playing with
Shaping College since 1987.

In all that time, the first I've heard of R&S hit squads is in this
conversation.

On the other hand, I had a player who abused the Greater Summoning College a
great deal.

Weasel's Law: "Any legislation (and this includes rules) is written
by a limited number of people in a limited amount of time. They are
attacked for weakness by an essentially unlimited number of people
with an essentially unlimited amount of time. This situation ALWAYS
results in loopholes being found which must be fixed."

~Jeffery~

> At the end of the day it is the GMs that let the players do these things.
>
> My shapers have always voluntarily limited themselves in the number of
> R&S Golems they have at any one time (2 being the most) and they also
> realize the if the PCs can do it so can the NPCs. And there are a lot
> more NPCs than PCs.
>
> DQ magic is full of instant death spells and for a mage to get to a
> rank that they can cast it without a healthy chance of backfiring they
> must have attempted to cast it, during an adventure session, once for
> each of those ranks. In our campaigns that cast attempt must have been
> made for an actual purpose and not just tossed at a bird sitting in a
> true. That's 10+ chances to kill themselves or one of their campanions
> and some (Sinking Doom for example) are permanent death. (Then there
> is the 15-20 sessions at Hero Rank XP rewards to even get the spell up
> to a semi-reliable cast chance.)
>
> Yet if a magic is lucky enough and persistent enough (or a GM decides
> to just ignore the checks and balances) to reach a high rank with one
> of those spells they can be walking machines of death. The GM will
> have to deal with it because they are the one that let the players
> learn the spell in the first place. If the players manage to get
> characters to the point where they are that deadly then the GM owes it
> to them to enjoy the fruits of their efforts and to confront them with
> foes just as deadly.
>
>
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Mark D <shadow_weaver13@...> wrote:
>>
>> Here is one of the combos that killed the R&S golems
>> in our campaign setting:
>>
>> In our campaign setting, Mages do not get MR from
>> their own Backfires. A shaper made several R&S golems
>> with a very high rank in Whirlwind Vortex (from a
>> companion Player) and used them to cast the death
>> spell so as not to risk themselves with the backfire.
>> They also had 2 R&S Golems with Enhancing Enchantments
>> at high rank to help the rest get the Whirlwind Vortex
>> spells off. It was brutal. They took out so many
>> people in ambushes with their R&S Golem Death Squads.
>>
>> That ended R&S Golems with Magical abilities in our
>> campaign setting. Shaping Magic itself was taken off
>> the table for PC's...pending a DM's re-write of the
>> college...which hasn't ever happened. But that is our
>> problem. That R&S Golems being allowed to use magic
>> is everyone elses problem.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 1. Re: R&S Golems
>> > Posted by: "darkislephil" phergus@...
>> > darkislephil
>> > Date: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:55 pm ((PST))
>> >
>> > Heck with only 3 Ft they aren't even particularly
>> > useful as mages.
>> > They throw one useful Special Knowledge or 2 General
>> > Knowledge and
>> > they are done for a couple hours. Mostly handy as
>> > interpreters, watch
>> > dogs, scouts, and backup.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Hi Everybody,
I'll shed some light on this. Per Eric, Greg, and confirmed by Gerry Klug: the reason for low
mana in cities is that the concentration of population also results in a concentration of
spell casters doing business in the area. (ie casting spells for money) That concentration
depletes the mana. There can be other reasons for mana depletion in an area that is not a
city (a great ritual was performed in the area). Simple supply / demand economics with
tragedy of commons thrown in accounts for this. It always made perfect sense to me and
my players.
--Dean Martelle

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, igmod@... wrote:
>
> IIRC, from the first edition there was a comment about the use of iron in settled areas to
explain why it was mana-poor.
>
> ~Jeffery~
>
> > >1. Connection between population and mana
> > >
> > >There is no causal connection between population and
> > >mana, although there is a correlation.
> >
> > The rules don't explain WHY there is a correlation; your conclusion that
> > humans live in mana-poor areas because they are "safe" is just as
> > speculative as Jim's theory that it is due to those humans depleting a
> > natural resource (which, for what it's worth, is the explanation I have
> > always favored).
> >
> > -Cameron
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
> > www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

I normally don't get into these types of discussions, because to enjoy
these groups I don't need conflict.
However, I must agree with Cameron and Jim.
Lev it appears you want to have a rule to regulate everything that a PC
could try to twist to their advantage. This entire discussion of
Golems, mana rich, mana poor, correlations, populations and causal
connections IS covered sufficiently in the rules. And I quote: "...area
designated as “mana rich” by the GM..." There is your connection. The
GM. The GM determines the correlation; the connection. It us unique to
his/her game world. If you rulesmith down to the level that takes away
flexibility, creativity and interpretation from the GM and PCs, then you
are telling us all that we have to play DQ your way. In my opinion fine
tuning the rules to this degree is breaking DQ, not fixing it.
-Deven

Lev Lafayette wrote:

>
> --- "D. Cameron King" <monarchy2000@ hotmail.com
> <mailto:monarchy2000%40hotmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> > >1. Connection between population and mana
> > >
> > >There is no causal connection between population and
> > >mana, although there is a correlation.
> >
> > The rules don't explain WHY there is a correlation;

[SNIP]

> [43.1] It costs 1 Fatigue Point to cast a General
> Knowledge Spell, and 2 Fatigue Points to cast a
> Special Knowledge Spell.
>
> The distinction between General and Special Knowledge
> is discussed in rule 50. If a character is in area
> designated as “mana rich” by the GM, the cost to cast
> a Special Knowledge spell is 1 Fatigue Point, and
> there is no cost to cast a General Knowledge Spell.
> Such areas are, however, rare and include primarily
> locations where human sacrifice is practiced regularly
> or where the boundary between dimensions is weak so
> that large amounts of mana leak through. Often
> mountaintops or clearings in deep jungle will contain
> such “portals.” These areas are likely to be well
> guarded by beasts and individuals attracted by their
> magic, including a larger than usual proportion of
> Fantastical Beasts. Even in mana rich areas, a
> character must pay the Fatigue Cost to cast a spell
> upon loosing it or it has no effect.
>
> If the character is in area designated “mana poor” by
> the GM, the Fatigue Cost to cast a spell is doubled
> [tripled in 3rd edition]. Such areas will be much more
> common and will often include the more civilized and
> densely‑ inhabited parts of the world.
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail. yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>
>
>

You're missing the point. There is no contention that
the GM determines whether an area is manna rich, but
rather what makes an error mana rich. Raising the
question actually gives players the option "Can I make
this area mana rich/poor?" Of course this is up to
each GM to determine what the cause actually is,
especially given the silence of the rules. Nobody is
suggesting otherwise.

However in reference to the particular discussion it
was implied, iirc, that the significant "powergaming"
flaws in the R&S golem rule could be overcome by mana
depletion. This is certainly not the case, as the
production of R&S golems do not particularly require
significant additional FAT.

All the best,


Lev


--- Deven Atkinson <deven@sciotowireless.net> wrote:

> I normally don't get into these types of
> discussions, because to enjoy
> these groups I don't need conflict.
> However, I must agree with Cameron and Jim.
> Lev it appears you want to have a rule to regulate
> everything that a PC
> could try to twist to their advantage. This entire
> discussion of
> Golems, mana rich, mana poor, correlations,
> populations and causal
> connections IS covered sufficiently in the rules.
> And I quote: "...area
> designated as “mana rich” by the GM..." There is
> your connection. The
> GM. The GM determines the correlation; the
> connection. It us unique to
> his/her game world. If you rulesmith down to the
> level that takes away
> flexibility, creativity and interpretation from the
> GM and PCs, then you
> are telling us all that we have to play DQ your way.
> In my opinion fine
> tuning the rules to this degree is breaking DQ, not
> fixing it.
> -Deven
>
> Lev Lafayette wrote:
> >
> > --- "D. Cameron King" <monarchy2000@ hotmail.com
> > <mailto:monarchy2000%40hotmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > >1. Connection between population and mana
> > > >
> > > >There is no causal connection between
> population and
> > > >mana, although there is a correlation.
> > >
> > > The rules don't explain WHY there is a
> correlation;
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > [43.1] It costs 1 Fatigue Point to cast a General
> > Knowledge Spell, and 2 Fatigue Points to cast a
> > Special Knowledge Spell.
> >
> > The distinction between General and Special
> Knowledge
> > is discussed in rule 50. If a character is in area
> > designated as “mana rich” by the GM, the cost to
> cast
> > a Special Knowledge spell is 1 Fatigue Point, and
> > there is no cost to cast a General Knowledge
> Spell.
> > Such areas are, however, rare and include
> primarily
> > locations where human sacrifice is practiced
> regularly
> > or where the boundary between dimensions is weak
> so
> > that large amounts of mana leak through. Often
> > mountaintops or clearings in deep jungle will
> contain
> > such “portals.” These areas are likely to be well
> > guarded by beasts and individuals attracted by
> their
> > magic, including a larger than usual proportion of
> > Fantastical Beasts. Even in mana rich areas, a
> > character must pay the Fatigue Cost to cast a
> spell
> > upon loosing it or it has no effect.
> >
> > If the character is in area designated “mana poor”
> by
> > the GM, the Fatigue Cost to cast a spell is
> doubled
> > [tripled in 3rd edition]. Such areas will be much
> more
> > common and will often include the more civilized
> and
> > densely‑ inhabited parts of the world.
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ _________
> _________ __
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail. yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I don't see powergaming flaws with R&S golems. It is up to the GM to manage
things. If the game world is suffering from munchkin players, it is up to
the GM to balance it out.

~Jeffery~

>
> You're missing the point. There is no contention that
> the GM determines whether an area is manna rich, but
> rather what makes an error mana rich. Raising the
> question actually gives players the option "Can I make
> this area mana rich/poor?" Of course this is up to
> each GM to determine what the cause actually is,
> especially given the silence of the rules. Nobody is
> suggesting otherwise.
>
> However in reference to the particular discussion it
> was implied, iirc, that the significant "powergaming"
> flaws in the R&S golem rule could be overcome by mana
> depletion. This is certainly not the case, as the
> production of R&S golems do not particularly require
> significant additional FAT.
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Lev
>
>
> --- Deven Atkinson <deven@sciotowireless.net> wrote:
>
>> I normally don't get into these types of
>> discussions, because to enjoy
>> these groups I don't need conflict.
>> However, I must agree with Cameron and Jim.
>> Lev it appears you want to have a rule to regulate
>> everything that a PC
>> could try to twist to their advantage. This entire
>> discussion of
>> Golems, mana rich, mana poor, correlations,
>> populations and causal
>> connections IS covered sufficiently in the rules.
>> And I quote: "...area
>> designated as "mana rich" by the GM..." There is
>> your connection. The
>> GM. The GM determines the correlation; the
>> connection. It us unique to
>> his/her game world. If you rulesmith down to the
>> level that takes away
>> flexibility, creativity and interpretation from the
>> GM and PCs, then you
>> are telling us all that we have to play DQ your way.
>> In my opinion fine
>> tuning the rules to this degree is breaking DQ, not
>> fixing it.
>> -Deven
>>
>> Lev Lafayette wrote:
>> >
>> > --- "D. Cameron King" <monarchy2000@ hotmail.com
>> > <mailto:monarchy2000%40hotmail.com>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > >1. Connection between population and mana
>> > > >
>> > > >There is no causal connection between
>> population and
>> > > >mana, although there is a correlation.
>> > >
>> > > The rules don't explain WHY there is a
>> correlation;
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> > [43.1] It costs 1 Fatigue Point to cast a General
>> > Knowledge Spell, and 2 Fatigue Points to cast a
>> > Special Knowledge Spell.
>> >
>> > The distinction between General and Special
>> Knowledge
>> > is discussed in rule 50. If a character is in area
>> > designated as "mana rich" by the GM, the cost to
>> cast
>> > a Special Knowledge spell is 1 Fatigue Point, and
>> > there is no cost to cast a General Knowledge
>> Spell.
>> > Such areas are, however, rare and include
>> primarily
>> > locations where human sacrifice is practiced
>> regularly
>> > or where the boundary between dimensions is weak
>> so
>> > that large amounts of mana leak through. Often
>> > mountaintops or clearings in deep jungle will
>> contain
>> > such "portals." These areas are likely to be well
>> > guarded by beasts and individuals attracted by
>> their
>> > magic, including a larger than usual proportion of
>> > Fantastical Beasts. Even in mana rich areas, a
>> > character must pay the Fatigue Cost to cast a
>> spell
>> > upon loosing it or it has no effect.
>> >
>> > If the character is in area designated "mana poor"
>> by
>> > the GM, the Fatigue Cost to cast a spell is
>> doubled
>> > [tripled in 3rd edition]. Such areas will be much
>> more
>> > common and will often include the more civilized
>> and
>> > densely‑ inhabited parts of the world.
>> >
>> > ____________ _________ _________ _________
>> _________ __
>> > Do You Yahoo!?
>> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
>> protection around
>> > http://mail. yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

I am very suprised to hear that you think that it's up
to the GM to manage things. Who would have thought
about that?

One of the things that a GM can do to *manage*
munchkin players is to tinker the the game rules so
they don't provide munchkin opportunities.

Your previous solution to this issue (message 2732) is
an example of such tinkering.

--- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net> wrote:

> I don't see powergaming flaws with R&S golems. It
> is up to the GM to manage
> things. If the game world is suffering from
> munchkin players, it is up to
> the GM to balance it out.
>
> ~Jeffery~
>
>
> >
> > You're missing the point. There is no contention
> that
> > the GM determines whether an area is manna rich,
> but
> > rather what makes an error mana rich. Raising the
> > question actually gives players the option "Can I
> make
> > this area mana rich/poor?" Of course this is up to
> > each GM to determine what the cause actually is,
> > especially given the silence of the rules. Nobody
> is
> > suggesting otherwise.
> >
> > However in reference to the particular discussion
> it
> > was implied, iirc, that the significant
> "powergaming"
> > flaws in the R&S golem rule could be overcome by
> mana
> > depletion. This is certainly not the case, as the
> > production of R&S golems do not particularly
> require
> > significant additional FAT.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> >
> > Lev
> >
> >
> > --- Deven Atkinson <deven@sciotowireless.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I normally don't get into these types of
> >> discussions, because to enjoy
> >> these groups I don't need conflict.
> >> However, I must agree with Cameron and Jim.
> >> Lev it appears you want to have a rule to
> regulate
> >> everything that a PC
> >> could try to twist to their advantage. This
> entire
> >> discussion of
> >> Golems, mana rich, mana poor, correlations,
> >> populations and causal
> >> connections IS covered sufficiently in the rules.
> >> And I quote: "...area
> >> designated as "mana rich" by the GM..." There is
> >> your connection. The
> >> GM. The GM determines the correlation; the
> >> connection. It us unique to
> >> his/her game world. If you rulesmith down to the
> >> level that takes away
> >> flexibility, creativity and interpretation from
> the
> >> GM and PCs, then you
> >> are telling us all that we have to play DQ your
> way.
> >> In my opinion fine
> >> tuning the rules to this degree is breaking DQ,
> not
> >> fixing it.
> >> -Deven
> >>
> >> Lev Lafayette wrote:
> >> >
> >> > --- "D. Cameron King" <monarchy2000@
> hotmail.com
> >> > <mailto:monarchy2000%40hotmail.com>>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > >1. Connection between population and mana
> >> > > >
> >> > > >There is no causal connection between
> >> population and
> >> > > >mana, although there is a correlation.
> >> > >
> >> > > The rules don't explain WHY there is a
> >> correlation;
> >>
> >> [SNIP]
> >>
> >> > [43.1] It costs 1 Fatigue Point to cast a
> General
> >> > Knowledge Spell, and 2 Fatigue Points to cast a
> >> > Special Knowledge Spell.
> >> >
> >> > The distinction between General and Special
> >> Knowledge
> >> > is discussed in rule 50. If a character is in
> area
> >> > designated as "mana rich" by the GM, the cost
> to
> >> cast
> >> > a Special Knowledge spell is 1 Fatigue Point,
> and
> >> > there is no cost to cast a General Knowledge
> >> Spell.
> >> > Such areas are, however, rare and include
> >> primarily
> >> > locations where human sacrifice is practiced
> >> regularly
> >> > or where the boundary between dimensions is
> weak
> >> so
> >> > that large amounts of mana leak through. Often
> >> > mountaintops or clearings in deep jungle will
> >> contain
> >> > such "portals." These areas are likely to be
> well
> >> > guarded by beasts and individuals attracted by
> >> their
> >> > magic, including a larger than usual proportion
> of
> >> > Fantastical Beasts. Even in mana rich areas, a
> >> > character must pay the Fatigue Cost to cast a
> >> spell
> >> > upon loosing it or it has no effect.
> >> >
> >> > If the character is in area designated "mana
> poor"
> >> by
> >> > the GM, the Fatigue Cost to cast a spell is
> >> doubled
> >> > [tripled in 3rd edition]. Such areas will be
> much
> >> more
> >> > common and will often include the more
> civilized
> >> and
> >> > densely‑ inhabited parts of the world.
> >> >
> >> > ____________ _________ _________ _________
> >> _________ __
> >> > Do You Yahoo!?
> >> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> >> protection around
> >> > http://mail. yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Exactly my point.

Jeffery K. McGonagill wrote:

>
>
> I don't see powergaming flaws with R&S golems. It is up to the GM to manage
> things. If the game world is suffering from munchkin players, it is up to
> the GM to balance it out.
>
> ~Jeffery~
>
> >
> > You're missing the point. There is no contention that
> > the GM determines whether an area is manna rich, but
> > rather what makes an error mana rich. Raising the
> > question actually gives players the option "Can I make
> > this area mana rich/poor?" Of course this is up to
> > each GM to determine what the cause actually is,
> > especially given the silence of the rules. Nobody is
> > suggesting otherwise.
> >
> > However in reference to the particular discussion it
> > was implied, iirc, that the significant "powergaming"
> > flaws in the R&S golem rule could be overcome by mana
> > depletion. This is certainly not the case, as the
> > production of R&S golems do not particularly require
> > significant additional FAT.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> >
> > Lev
> >
> >
> > --- Deven Atkinson <deven@sciotowireless.net
> <mailto:deven%40sciotowireless.net>> wrote:
> >
> >> I normally don't get into these types of
> >> discussions, because to enjoy
> >> these groups I don't need conflict.
> >> However, I must agree with Cameron and Jim.
> >> Lev it appears you want to have a rule to regulate
> >> everything that a PC
> >> could try to twist to their advantage. This entire
> >> discussion of
> >> Golems, mana rich, mana poor, correlations,
> >> populations and causal
> >> connections IS covered sufficiently in the rules.
> >> And I quote: "...area
> >> designated as "mana rich" by the GM..." There is
> >> your connection. The
> >> GM. The GM determines the correlation; the
> >> connection. It us unique to
> >> his/her game world. If you rulesmith down to the
> >> level that takes away
> >> flexibility, creativity and interpretation from the
> >> GM and PCs, then you
> >> are telling us all that we have to play DQ your way.
> >> In my opinion fine
> >> tuning the rules to this degree is breaking DQ, not
> >> fixing it.
> >> -Deven
> >>
> >> Lev Lafayette wrote:
> >> >
> >> > --- "D. Cameron King" <monarchy2000@ hotmail.com
> >> > <mailto:monarchy2000%40hotmail.com>>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > >1. Connection between population and mana
> >> > > >
> >> > > >There is no causal connection between
> >> population and
> >> > > >mana, although there is a correlation.
> >> > >
> >> > > The rules don't explain WHY there is a
> >> correlation;
> >>
> >> [SNIP]
> >>
> >> > [43.1] It costs 1 Fatigue Point to cast a General
> >> > Knowledge Spell, and 2 Fatigue Points to cast a
> >> > Special Knowledge Spell.
> >> >
> >> > The distinction between General and Special
> >> Knowledge
> >> > is discussed in rule 50. If a character is in area
> >> > designated as "mana rich" by the GM, the cost to
> >> cast
> >> > a Special Knowledge spell is 1 Fatigue Point, and
> >> > there is no cost to cast a General Knowledge
> >> Spell.
> >> > Such areas are, however, rare and include
> >> primarily
> >> > locations where human sacrifice is practiced
> >> regularly
> >> > or where the boundary between dimensions is weak
> >> so
> >> > that large amounts of mana leak through. Often
> >> > mountaintops or clearings in deep jungle will
> >> contain
> >> > such "portals." These areas are likely to be well
> >> > guarded by beasts and individuals attracted by
> >> their
> >> > magic, including a larger than usual proportion of
> >> > Fantastical Beasts. Even in mana rich areas, a
> >> > character must pay the Fatigue Cost to cast a
> >> spell
> >> > upon loosing it or it has no effect.
> >> >
> >> > If the character is in area designated "mana poor"
> >> by
> >> > the GM, the Fatigue Cost to cast a spell is
> >> doubled
> >> > [tripled in 3rd edition]. Such areas will be much
> >> more
> >> > common and will often include the more civilized
> >> and
> >> > densely‑ inhabited parts of the world.
> >> >
> >> > ____________ _________ _________ _________
> >> _________ __
> >> > Do You Yahoo!?
> >> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> >> protection around
> >> > http://mail. yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>