OGM BECKONS

[daniel prebble]

Right, the OGM is on its merry way (12th) and Rob wants submissions by
saturday (5th). We've all been told this one so I would recommend that
we get sorted the major proposals.

Things I want to see changed:

1. Procedural change-
Ref team becomes responsible for adventure slots and their distribution.

2. Some form of resolution upon armour, even if it remains the same but
needs both explanation and legislation (I'm not sure if the triangular
was ever set in stone). At the least, the removal of the free armour.

3. I think people should seriously consider Jimbob's proposals
concerning the adjustments to the warrior skill tree- particularly
literacy, and cranking up the points on the essentials.

4. The horrors of fingerscouting. Enough said.

In addition, I'm likely to be in favour of Marios' proposed changes to
incomprehensible, long-forgotten sections of the rules which will surely
revolutionise the game, but no one else can be arsed to sit down and
work out.

So, if everyone can bang these rules changes out, both in argument and
then proposals, then we can perhaps claim to have created some good out
of the pit of evil that these forums have become.

[j d mcgettrick]

Post by daniel prebble
Right, the OGM is on its merry way (12th) and Rob wants submissions by
saturday (5th). We've all been told this one so I would recommend that
we get sorted the major proposals.
3. I think people should seriously consider Jimbob's proposals
concerning the adjustments to the warrior skill tree- particularly
literacy, and cranking up the points on the essentials.

Right, should I propose them? - as much as I like them there is some question over whether or not
they're really a problem. I was under the assumption that we were working with fully re-gen armour
(I was sure this specific point was argued over at an (A)OGM). Given as its triangular, the
situation isn't nearly so bad.

From talking to various people, I think a far more sensible argument is to drop the XP/level to 50.
Every skill class has too many points/level...

Equally, can someone _please_ update the webpage. The berserk rules are still there and they were
dropped nearly a term ago.

[Tag]

Post by j d mcgettrick
Equally, can someone _please_ update the webpage. The berserk rules are still there and they were
dropped nearly a term ago.

I'm trying to; I need to lay my hands on a set of minutes...

Tim
=-=

[j d mcgettrick]

Post by Tag

Post by j d mcgettrick
Equally, can someone _please_ update the webpage. The berserk rules are still there and they were
dropped nearly a term ago.

I'm trying to; I need to lay my hands on a set of minutes...
Tim
=-=

Tim you are both a gentleman and a scholar. *bows*

[Marios Richards]

Dear Tim and Jimbob,

Post by Tag

Post by j d mcgettrick
Equally, can someone _please_ update the webpage. The berserk rules are still there and they were
dropped nearly a term ago.

I'm trying to; I need to lay my hands on a set of minutes...

I'm afraid I dumped the only copy of the minutes onto you, but
I'm willing to help update the webpage, since I said I'd help some
time in Easter.
Marios

[Zoe J. Robinson]

Post by Tag

Post by j d mcgettrick
Equally, can someone _please_ update the webpage. The berserk rules are still there and they were
dropped nearly a term ago.

I'm trying to; I need to lay my hands on a set of minutes...

While you're at it, can you have a look at the miracle list? One of the
third (maybe fourth) miracles is in the list twice. I think it's 'Cure
Disease'.

Zoë

[Marios Richards]

Dear Zoe,

Post by Zoe J. Robinson

Post by Tag

Post by j d mcgettrick
Equally, can someone _please_ update the webpage. The berserk rules are still there and they were
dropped nearly a term ago.

I'm trying to; I need to lay my hands on a set of minutes...

While you're at it, can you have a look at the miracle list? One of the
third (maybe fourth) miracles is in the list twice. I think it's 'Cure
Disease'.

Urk.
Marios

[Marios Richards]

Dear Dan,

Post by daniel prebble
2. Some form of resolution upon armour, even if it remains the same but
needs both explanation and legislation (I'm not sure if the triangular
was ever set in stone). At the least, the removal of the free armour.

(1) Same system (triangular) but armour skills amended:
Armour (12) - Requires equal level of Warrior. +5 Armour
points
Scout Armour (8) - Requires equal level of Wilderfuge, +2
Armour points.

(2) Triangular armour, but 'armour points' ditched, everyone
starts off with armour use of 0. Levels of 'armour' skill allow you to
wear that type of armour - a 6th lvl warrior can wear 6 pt armour.
Armour (16) - Requires equal level of Warrior, Armour level
+1.
Scout Armour (8) - Requires double level of Wilderfuge, Armour
level +1.
Simpler, less flexible, less munchable.

(3) We collapse the armour levels - we don't actually have 6
kinds of physrep - more like 3.
You could collapse the system to 5 different levels of armour,
keep triangular and amend Armour to (10XP) gives +4 AP, Scout Armour
(5XP) gives +2 AP.
You could collapse down to 3 different levels of armour, go
for fully regenerative, Armour (20 XP) gives +3, Scout Armour (8 XP)
gives +1.


Note - I don't see why Scout Armour and Armour don't stack.
It's assumed, in most of those, that's there's no free armour.

Post by daniel prebble
3. I think people should seriously consider Jimbob's proposals
concerning the adjustments to the warrior skill tree- particularly
literacy, and cranking up the points on the essentials.

I don't remember the ones to the warrior skill tree (not in
detail at least).
Is the literacy numeracy one this - Literacy (8XP), Numeracy
(8XP), Elemental Theory and Spiritual Awakening (4XP each).

Post by daniel prebble
4. The horrors of fingerscouting. Enough said.

But where to make the cut?

Post by daniel prebble
In addition, I'm likely to be in favour of Marios' proposed changes to
incomprehensible, long-forgotten sections of the rules which will surely
revolutionise the game, but no one else can be arsed to sit down and
work out.

You better believe it.

Post by daniel prebble
So, if everyone can bang these rules changes out, both in argument and
then proposals, then we can perhaps claim to have created some good out
of the pit of evil that these forums have become.

Reactionary!
Marios

[Marios Richards]

Dear Dan,
Hit Doubling Removal - I haven't heard anyone actually arguing
against this and it's probably more immediately important than a lot
of the other stuff, since changing it at the first term OGM will be
more likely to confuse first-years.
It's easy enough - chest/head hits are no longer doubled. No
this won't meaningfully change the nature of combat, if anything it
will make it more realistic (head/chest become 'vital' locations, not
ablative armour).
Corollaries - have to change 'BT' effects, like direct spell
damage/poison effects need to be updated.
The only tricky bit is having simple spell damage -
Simplest solution is to ditch the through on spells.

Marios

[marios richards]

Dear Marcus,

No progression makes more sense than any other progression without a
context. Effectively, it is of the form 1/2, 2, 4, 24. If you wanted it
to go 1,2,4,8 - all to the Torso, that would be harsher lower level and
kinder higher level. I can't say which is best without a context to
measure it in, so I'm inclined to go for a direct conversion - at least
that has the virtue of improved consistency.

It's far from wussier at lower level, it means 1st level mages can
actually cast a useful spell without killing themselves. It makes things
better at lower levels, and not noticeably better at high (ok so a 7th
level mage would cast a disrupt for 1 hit, but they're 7th level, there's
no reason they shouldn't be able to do massive blasty stuff without
killing themselves :)

Eh? Under 1,2,4,8 they take 1 hit casting at their level, under 1/2,
2,4,24, they take 1/2 casting at their level.
If you ratchet it up so that they no longer take damage casting at
their own level, then you are no longer just adjusting damage to
simplify the hits system. It's probably best to only try to achieve one
thing per change. Particulary since there's no consensus on what the
damage from casting should be.

Better than halves to for battleboards, since halves are generally rounded
down (this is what i understand the refs to have implemented this year) on
battleboards anyway, so a mage would be constantly casting 2 spells rather
than 1 to make their single to the chest at the end of the encounter more
efficient.

I don't really see a problem. It only becomes relevant if you cast
another spell at your level or if you take a half to the chest from
something else - otherwise it would just be rounded down.

It would be nice to have a mixture of spells, some through, some not.
For now, however, I'm inclined to change all the range spells to
non-Through and all the touch range direct damage spells as Through
(Halve BT on those) - means that all through damage, other than arrows
has to be done up close and personal.
Marios

As long as it's a clear distinction (range = non-through, touch = through)
it's ok, it's when we have a mix of spells that are through or not (the
only real example is ice-storm, which is a nice example of why ranged
spells don't need to be through...

Part of the spell grammar - blah blah blah Magic 7 or Through Magic 1.
Marios