FW: Mods (open discussion)

[Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>]

Oops, forgot to include the list on this.

Lyle

-----Original Message-----
From:	Lyle H Janney [SMTP:lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu]
Sent:	Thursday, October 08, 1998 2:47 PM
To:	'Daniel Lawrence'
Subject:	RE: Mods (open discussion)

No, Dan, I don't believe so.  Or maybe I am wrong.  My (albeit
somewhat limited) perspective is that John H. proposed a little
thought experiment regarding the viability of basing combat on
skills (perhaps defined more specifically by weapon or weapon
type).  This as opposed to the AQ method of applying a general
modifier for _all_ instances of a type of combat (melee, missile,
etc.) that can then be further modified by application of a weapon
specific skill.  I don't really believe that John was proposing to
actually consider such a fundamental change that, as you pointed
out, would result in the club using something far different than
AQ.  But then again, I have been wrong before.  The general
direction of the conversation since then has moved more towards
how the various mods should be limited, if at all.  The camps so
far are: 1) don't limit mods (current rules if I understand correctly),
2) limit mods by CSE (suddenly, more so than ever, warriors will
rely more on CSE than priests do), and 3) limit mods by the stat
used to modify the associated DV (seems to have the majority
right now, if not the actual 2/3 required for a general proposal to
you).  This type of discussion is, if I understood it originally, well
within the bounds of the charter set forth by the GM's as regards
local rules, etc.

Lyle

-----Original Message-----
From:	Daniel Lawrence [SMTP:dan@aquest.com]
Sent:	Thursday, October 08, 1998 2:21 PM
To:	'Lyle H Janney'; gmlist@cioe.com
Subject:	RE: Mods (open discussion)

I am confused. It does not seem to me that changing what stat fighting 
abilities are limited by has anything to do with changing the 
reality/playability balance of the campaign being played by the club. You 
are right, the limiting stat on this skills is a judgment call. I made the 
call. If what you are saying is that any such call in the system is open to 
change.... Then you are not playing Adventure Quest any more, you are 
playing club quest, where the club makes and reviews all the judgment calls 
in the system. This seems to me to be pretty far outside of the charter 
that we agreed on when we set up this procedure for local modifications. Am 
I somehow confused on this issue?
					dan

-----Original Message-----
From:	Lyle H Janney [SMTP:lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu]
Sent:	Thursday, October 08, 1998 12:49 PM
To:	gmlist@cioe.com
Subject:	RE: Mods (open discussion)

Please limit your responses to two words or less.

-----Original Message-----
From:	Rob [SMTP:rob@aclcb.purdue.edu]
Sent:	Thursday, October 08, 1998 1:17 PM
To:	Michael Kilgore; gmlist@cioe.com
Subject:	Re: Mods (open discussion)


>
> True but a lot more factors than just common sense goes into the limiting
of
> one's ability to fight.  The system already applies common sense through
the
> use of weapon, missile, and wrestling skills.  It does not account for
these
> other limiting factors.

explain how

[ Lyle puts forth... ]

Well, Rob, he did point out (and any of us who own a copy
of the manual can confirm) that the _skills_ that modify the
ability to fight are limited by CSE.  Also, he did show how
these 'other limiting factors' (namely, STR, PER, and WIL)
could be argued to have an effect.  Just because you look
at it differently doesn't mean he is wrong.  Nor does it mean
that he needs to explain any further than he has already done
so.  I understood his original explanations; just because they
were insufficient to sway your viewpoint doesn't mean he has
to do any further explanation.  So you would vote otherwise;
big deal.  That's why we have a voting process.

>
> Basically, what we have here is a case of a tree falling in a forest (and
we
> all know it makes noise).

explain how

[ Lyle puts forth... ]

Oh great Zen master, explain how not.