Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
<<After just a few minutes of thought the only huge issue I see, is if they are not working with hunters, where will they make coin and tips for the first 11 circles of their lives? -- Xochi>>
And Maddie said:
We have that dispensary behind the Crossing Guild and herb shops in every major city so why can't they sell foragable herbs? It wouldn't pay a lot of course, perhaps something comparable to selling branches to Mags. To guard against Empaths simply cleaning out the cabinet and selling the herbs you could limit the number sold to say 3-5 silver worth per hour and require herbs to be fresh (sold within x minutes after being foraged). When they learn how to heal then the dispensary/shops no longer buy herbs from them.
Right now in Riverhaven, any novice can sell herbs to Old Maisie. She buys them just as Mags buys branches in Crossing, up to a coin or circle limit. Just so y'all know.
Veritey
>Leeches have already made it infinitely easier for 'younger' empaths to learn transference. I've seen people hop over a dozen circles in a couple months there. Circles that took me about a month each. So please don't say that you don't have it easier already.
So in essence, what you are saying, is "I had it hard, others should also."
I've already explained this to you in IMs, Shaunn, but I will bring it out here on the boards and attempt to go into further detail.
I remember my paladin character only being able to learn ONE armor at a time. Even worse, I remember her having to lay down in crocs and let multiples of them jump on her...either with her avoid !drag on or alternatively, just hoping some 'helpful' person didn't come in and drag her out...simply so she could learn armor. Do I begrudge 'younger' paladins who have it easier now? Younger paladins who not only have surpassed my paladin in circle, but have learned multiple armors while doing so? Heck no. I am GLAD for the changes. I am GLAD the Paladin Guild has advanced and the way of learning their primary skill has improved dramatically.
I remember many other things being so hard to learn, for various guilds, that are much easier to learn now. Why should it be any different for the Empath Guild?
>Transference was always designed as a go out and do it yourself skill, like MO. To be able to have empaths sit and zombify to a highly skilled teacher (especially with the teaching rewrite) defeats the purpose of the skill. I spoke to a few higher circle empaths about it last night, and most were generally of the same mind as myself. I know that I would never teach this skill simply because its a skill I think you have to earn, not something that should be handed to you. This is just -my- opinion.
Exactly, you spoke to a few higher circle empaths that are of the exact same mindset as you are, so you all agreed. As for you teaching it, you would never be required to teach anything you didn't want to (barring circle requirements). Pick your subjects (and students) and teach those subjects to who you want to. Making transferrence teachable would not force you or anyone else to ever teach the skill.
>You are certainly free to lobby to make transference even easier to learn than it is now. I personally don't think we need any more reason to call us useless zombie mules.
You may get called that. I've never been called that. But then, I don't tolerate ^*&%^$ from people and usually don't have to deal with those kinds of people anyway in Therengia.
This is only -my- opinion. However, as you pointed out to me, I shouldn't compare my empath character to yours because I play other guilds also...nevermind that Xoine is played just as much as, if not more than, my other characters.
~player of Xoine~
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
So in essence, what you are saying, is "I had it hard, others should also."
I've already explained this to you in IMs, Shaunn, but I will bring it out here on the boards and attempt to go into further detail.
I remember my paladin character only being able to learn ONE armor at a time. Even worse, I remember her having to lay down in crocs and let multiples of them jump on her...either with her avoid !drag on or alternatively, just hoping some 'helpful' person didn't come in and drag her out...simply so she could learn armor. Do I begrudge 'younger' paladins who have it easier now? Younger paladins who not only have surpassed my paladin in circle, but have learned multiple armors while doing so? Heck no. I am GLAD for the changes. I am GLAD the Paladin Guild has advanced and the way of learning their primary skill has improved dramatically.
I remember many other things being so hard to learn, for various guilds, that are much easier to learn now. Why should it be any different for the Empath Guild?
>Transference was always designed as a go out and do it yourself skill, like MO. To be able to have empaths sit and zombify to a highly skilled teacher (especially with the teaching rewrite) defeats the purpose of the skill. I spoke to a few higher circle empaths about it last night, and most were generally of the same mind as myself. I know that I would never teach this skill simply because its a skill I think you have to earn, not something that should be handed to you. This is just -my- opinion.
Exactly, you spoke to a few higher circle empaths that are of the exact same mindset as you are, so you all agreed. As for you teaching it, you would never be required to teach anything you didn't want to (barring circle requirements). Pick your subjects (and students) and teach those subjects to who you want to. Making transferrence teachable would not force you or anyone else to ever teach the skill.
>You are certainly free to lobby to make transference even easier to learn than it is now. I personally don't think we need any more reason to call us useless zombie mules.
You may get called that. I've never been called that. But then, I don't tolerate ^*&%^$ from people and usually don't have to deal with those kinds of people anyway in Therengia.
This is only -my- opinion. However, as you pointed out to me, I shouldn't compare my empath character to yours because I play other guilds also...nevermind that Xoine is played just as much as, if not more than, my other characters.
~player of Xoine~
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
>Healing by empath (whether player or NPC) can be necessary to game play. Will be less so when Alchemy is rewritten, yes. Which is waiting on substances (ugh). For the most part herbs are sufficient. For the other part they are not. Herbs are a big part of the system, but they're not finished. When they are you'll have a valid point. Especially if there becomes a herb for vitality. There have been times when the bleeding and almost dead diseased folk were sent towards the Martyr to grab vitality healing, because empaths were busy/not on duty. When my non-empath characters are in less populated areas i'll head over to an NPC anytime instead of roaming for a half hour trying to find an on duty empath. Barbs can forge great weapons, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of the weapon shop in town. Empaths are the best healers, but i don't see the need to phase out an NPC. If you truely believe its such a small part of the healing system, i don't see how it can be interupting your game play any. Why not leave the option for those who choose to use it.
NPC Empaths should at least be re-evaluated and re-coded. Seems to me the best choice for everyone, empath or non-empath, is re-code all of them to only take life-threatening wounds/vitality/disease.
~Xoine~
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
NPC Empaths should at least be re-evaluated and re-coded. Seems to me the best choice for everyone, empath or non-empath, is re-code all of them to only take life-threatening wounds/vitality/disease.
~Xoine~
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
<<NPC Empaths should at least be re-evaluated and re-coded. Seems to me the best choice for everyone, empath or non-empath, is re-code all of them to only take life-threatening wounds/vitality/disease.>>
As much as I'd like to see all the NPC Empaths marched down to Shard to be staked out in front of Stormwill Tower for a good ole bar-b-que I'd be happy with a total rework of them -- that being at the very least sliding scale fees based on circle and only healing deadly wounds.
Players may have the option of using one of several means to be healed, but if healing PC's is going to be our best method of learning transference then being healed by an Empath should be their most attractive option.
~Maddie
As much as I'd like to see all the NPC Empaths marched down to Shard to be staked out in front of Stormwill Tower for a good ole bar-b-que I'd be happy with a total rework of them -- that being at the very least sliding scale fees based on circle and only healing deadly wounds.
Players may have the option of using one of several means to be healed, but if healing PC's is going to be our best method of learning transference then being healed by an Empath should be their most attractive option.
~Maddie
<<Every other guild is finding it easier and easier to learn. Why should the Empath Guild be any different?>>
I think this problem can be solved without making transference teachable. There is a reason why transference was made non-teachable to begin with -- a reason why it came to be in the first place even. Healers should heal. Some things can be learned by instruction and other things must be born of experience. I like having healing require first-hand experience. I don't advocate keeping it unteachable out of your paranoid delusion of elitism, thank you.
Having it teachable would make it easier for higher circles too, you know. And considering how much harder it is to move skills at high ranks compared to lower ranks, making transference teachable would likely benefit high circle empaths more than lower ones, yet I still don't want it teachable despite the advantage it would provide me.
We are getting (and have gotten) other methods of learning transference. When we have several other options to learn transference and are not bound by one single method I think that alone will make it "easier".
Personally, I've never had a problem learning transference, just finding a method to train it (i.e., finding patients to heal).
~Maddie
I think this problem can be solved without making transference teachable. There is a reason why transference was made non-teachable to begin with -- a reason why it came to be in the first place even. Healers should heal. Some things can be learned by instruction and other things must be born of experience. I like having healing require first-hand experience. I don't advocate keeping it unteachable out of your paranoid delusion of elitism, thank you.
Having it teachable would make it easier for higher circles too, you know. And considering how much harder it is to move skills at high ranks compared to lower ranks, making transference teachable would likely benefit high circle empaths more than lower ones, yet I still don't want it teachable despite the advantage it would provide me.
We are getting (and have gotten) other methods of learning transference. When we have several other options to learn transference and are not bound by one single method I think that alone will make it "easier".
Personally, I've never had a problem learning transference, just finding a method to train it (i.e., finding patients to heal).
~Maddie
I'm going to wade past the snippy comments and give my views on teaching transference. So you're warned.
I just wrote a big long post, and than erased it because I thought I changed my mind, but now I've changed my mind back again and will try to reconstruct what I said.
I'm honestly a little on the fence about whether transference should be teachable, but leaning toward no. I am against it because I saw the behavior of guildmembers before transference, and I am okay with the reason transference was implemented in the first place. I like the idea of having to practice our skill first-hand in order to be any good at it.
Part of me is afraid that if transference becomes teachable, we will slip back into that same zombified behaviour, which I don't think would be good for anybody, empath or not.
On the other hand, other guilds are able to listen to their skill requirements and don't become zombies. This, however, I think is partly because in most skills, there is a benefit to doing it yourself rather than listening to it. For a weapon or armor, listening to a class excludes you from also learning evasion, parry, shield, MO, and earning money or treasure. In transference (if we exclude bloodsuckers), the only thing an empath would miss out on by listening to transference is lots of wounds, a little magic skill, and a small topaz or two.
I think that if transference were to become teachable, there should be a balanced benefit for practicing transference via other options besides a class, in order to encourage people to Do, rather than Listen.
This is not an issue, for me, of "I had it hard, others should also." This is an issue of, "I don't think this would be a good overall direction for our guild to go in, considering our past and what measures were taken to prevent poor behavior from coming back."
Meghan
I just wrote a big long post, and than erased it because I thought I changed my mind, but now I've changed my mind back again and will try to reconstruct what I said.
I'm honestly a little on the fence about whether transference should be teachable, but leaning toward no. I am against it because I saw the behavior of guildmembers before transference, and I am okay with the reason transference was implemented in the first place. I like the idea of having to practice our skill first-hand in order to be any good at it.
Part of me is afraid that if transference becomes teachable, we will slip back into that same zombified behaviour, which I don't think would be good for anybody, empath or not.
On the other hand, other guilds are able to listen to their skill requirements and don't become zombies. This, however, I think is partly because in most skills, there is a benefit to doing it yourself rather than listening to it. For a weapon or armor, listening to a class excludes you from also learning evasion, parry, shield, MO, and earning money or treasure. In transference (if we exclude bloodsuckers), the only thing an empath would miss out on by listening to transference is lots of wounds, a little magic skill, and a small topaz or two.
I think that if transference were to become teachable, there should be a balanced benefit for practicing transference via other options besides a class, in order to encourage people to Do, rather than Listen.
This is not an issue, for me, of "I had it hard, others should also." This is an issue of, "I don't think this would be a good overall direction for our guild to go in, considering our past and what measures were taken to prevent poor behavior from coming back."
Meghan
>We are getting (and have gotten) other methods of learning transference. When we have several other options to learn transference and are not bound by one single method I think that alone will make it "easier".
And many of those same higher level empaths that are against transferrence being teachable are the very same nae-sayers on the bloodsuckers.
I still have yet for any person to give me a viable reason why transferrence shouldn't be teachable. I've seen the following:
1. Because it would be too easy for empaths to learn transferrence without having to 'work' for it.
2. Because it would turn empaths into even more of mindless zombies.
3. Because healers should heal and if transferrence were teachable they wouldn't.
Frankly, I don't find any of these arguments to be true or to have merit. I see the following:
1. Learning SHOULD become easier for all the guilds, just as it has been becoming. Empath Guild shouldn't be any different. Sitting and listening to a class is not going to earn an empath the ranks that actually 'doing the work' would do. It is far better to heal, to tend bloodsuckers, or most likely, do anything in the future systems than listening to a class would accomplish.
2. Heh...that's just funny. Any empath (or member of any guild) who I've seen called a 'mindless zombie' typically deserves it. There are rare (in my experience) occurences where you run into someone just trying to make waves/get under your skin (although this seems to happen far more frequently in Crossings), but for the most part, I see empaths, myself included, treated with respect.
3. This just boggles the mind. Do you really see empaths everywhere not healing because OMG I CAN LISSEN TO A CLASS NOW!. Please.
Again, this is just -my- opinion.
~Xoine
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
And many of those same higher level empaths that are against transferrence being teachable are the very same nae-sayers on the bloodsuckers.
I still have yet for any person to give me a viable reason why transferrence shouldn't be teachable. I've seen the following:
1. Because it would be too easy for empaths to learn transferrence without having to 'work' for it.
2. Because it would turn empaths into even more of mindless zombies.
3. Because healers should heal and if transferrence were teachable they wouldn't.
Frankly, I don't find any of these arguments to be true or to have merit. I see the following:
1. Learning SHOULD become easier for all the guilds, just as it has been becoming. Empath Guild shouldn't be any different. Sitting and listening to a class is not going to earn an empath the ranks that actually 'doing the work' would do. It is far better to heal, to tend bloodsuckers, or most likely, do anything in the future systems than listening to a class would accomplish.
2. Heh...that's just funny. Any empath (or member of any guild) who I've seen called a 'mindless zombie' typically deserves it. There are rare (in my experience) occurences where you run into someone just trying to make waves/get under your skin (although this seems to happen far more frequently in Crossings), but for the most part, I see empaths, myself included, treated with respect.
3. This just boggles the mind. Do you really see empaths everywhere not healing because OMG I CAN LISSEN TO A CLASS NOW!. Please.
Again, this is just -my- opinion.
~Xoine
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
<<And many of those same higher level empaths that are against transferrence being teachable are the very same nae-sayers on the bloodsuckers.>>
From the people I have talked to and the posts I have read, I have not seen anyone who is a "nae-sayer" on bloodsuckers in general.
I have not seen anyone who thinks that they are a bad idea.
I do see people, like myself, who feel that *the bloodsuckers that are supposed to be the easiest and the least risk are teaching massive amounts of exp to empaths of all levels*
Red leeches are the transference equivalent of buckets. No effort, no risk, tons of exp. Up to 90th+ level. Using one technique, the exact same way as a 20th circle empath.
The nae-sayers are against the balance issue, not the principle.
As such, I know I would appreciate it if you would stop insinuating that I, among others, am A) out to get young empaths, B) am against bloodsuckers in general, or C) am against new ways to learn transference.
None of these are the case, I assure you.
Meghan
From the people I have talked to and the posts I have read, I have not seen anyone who is a "nae-sayer" on bloodsuckers in general.
I have not seen anyone who thinks that they are a bad idea.
I do see people, like myself, who feel that *the bloodsuckers that are supposed to be the easiest and the least risk are teaching massive amounts of exp to empaths of all levels*
Red leeches are the transference equivalent of buckets. No effort, no risk, tons of exp. Up to 90th+ level. Using one technique, the exact same way as a 20th circle empath.
The nae-sayers are against the balance issue, not the principle.
As such, I know I would appreciate it if you would stop insinuating that I, among others, am A) out to get young empaths, B) am against bloodsuckers in general, or C) am against new ways to learn transference.
None of these are the case, I assure you.
Meghan
I'm going to make a request, one more time, before this becomes a conflict, because I really don't want to be in a conflict with anyone.
Please, those who are against transferrence being teachable, provide us with a viable and justifiable reason why you believe it shouldn't even be considered by the GMs.
~Xoine
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
Please, those who are against transferrence being teachable, provide us with a viable and justifiable reason why you believe it shouldn't even be considered by the GMs.
~Xoine
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
>As such, I know I would appreciate it if you would stop insinuating that I, among others, am A) out to get young empaths, B) am against bloodsuckers in general, or C) am against new ways to learn transference.
I am not insinuating anything. I have asked for reasons why, and haven't been given a viable reason as to why. I just requested that again. When I see a viable reason, or when a GM steps in and says, "no way, no how" I will stop debating this. For now, however, I am stating that while there are have been several opinions and feelings posted as to why it should not be teachable, there has not been a single logical reason posted as to why to keep transferrence from being teachable.
Quite honestly, my only irritation so far has been with being told essentially that I 'don't count' because I play other characters in other guilds.
~player of Xoine~
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
I am not insinuating anything. I have asked for reasons why, and haven't been given a viable reason as to why. I just requested that again. When I see a viable reason, or when a GM steps in and says, "no way, no how" I will stop debating this. For now, however, I am stating that while there are have been several opinions and feelings posted as to why it should not be teachable, there has not been a single logical reason posted as to why to keep transferrence from being teachable.
Quite honestly, my only irritation so far has been with being told essentially that I 'don't count' because I play other characters in other guilds.
~player of Xoine~
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
Empaths heal and everyone else hunts. That's the trade-off you take when you join the guild. Now, picture a young barbarian, having to spend 10 circles studying anatomy charts so he could kill critters. He'd learn to hit them with the sharp end of the sword in the head, stuff like that. If I'm a barbarian, I want to join the guild and hunt. If I'm an empath, I want to join the guild and heal. It already takes 5 circles before an empath can heal themselves fully.
For a good 10, 11 circles, empathing is still fun. It's once you get along in the guild that the fun starts to disappear. Granted, shifting is neat, so it's a step in the right direction, but the guild definitely needs something else, and I don't see changing up the advancement process of the lower circles as this something.
But this is just one man's opinion.
Grasi's Player
For a good 10, 11 circles, empathing is still fun. It's once you get along in the guild that the fun starts to disappear. Granted, shifting is neat, so it's a step in the right direction, but the guild definitely needs something else, and I don't see changing up the advancement process of the lower circles as this something.
But this is just one man's opinion.
Grasi's Player
<<I'm going to make a request, one more time, before this becomes a conflict, because I really don't want to be in a conflict with anyone.
Please, those who are against transferrence being teachable, provide us with a viable and justifiable reason why you believe it shouldn't even be considered by the GMs.
~Xoine>>
Because Transference JUST LIKE Multi Op is a skill that you learn by doing, not by teaching.
Can we have a real reason other then your assumption that all elder empaths are all out to get novices, to make it otherwise?
Paschein
http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
Please, those who are against transferrence being teachable, provide us with a viable and justifiable reason why you believe it shouldn't even be considered by the GMs.
~Xoine>>
Because Transference JUST LIKE Multi Op is a skill that you learn by doing, not by teaching.
Can we have a real reason other then your assumption that all elder empaths are all out to get novices, to make it otherwise?
Paschein
http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
<<I have asked for reasons why, and haven't been given a viable reason as to why. -- Xoine>>
It seems to me that you aren't looking for a viable reason why transference shouldn't be teachable but rather a reason for it that will change your mind. Yet, you seem firm in your opinion just as others are in theirs and content to toss around accusations of elitism to those that disagree with you all while claiming you don't wish to conflict. If you truly wish to keep this a discussion of ideas rather than a conflict you'll stop the accusations and consider the "opinions" put forth as a possible rational basis for why transference is and should remain unteachable.
That said...
Transference was created to force Empaths to heal because it made no sense to have an Empath that could attain high circle without so much as ever healing a single person. It was the intent to make Empaths heal -- to practice the skill.
True, transference the skill encompasses more than simply PC-PC healing now. However, that we have other methods of learning the skill (broken as they are) and are getting more methods still doesn't change the fact that transference was intended to be a skill practiced, not simply a skill learned, else it would have been teachable from the beginning.
I don't see how this intent has changed. Nor do I see any reason for it to change.
~Maddie
For information on the shift ability and to find Empaths capable of shift go here: http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
It seems to me that you aren't looking for a viable reason why transference shouldn't be teachable but rather a reason for it that will change your mind. Yet, you seem firm in your opinion just as others are in theirs and content to toss around accusations of elitism to those that disagree with you all while claiming you don't wish to conflict. If you truly wish to keep this a discussion of ideas rather than a conflict you'll stop the accusations and consider the "opinions" put forth as a possible rational basis for why transference is and should remain unteachable.
That said...
Transference was created to force Empaths to heal because it made no sense to have an Empath that could attain high circle without so much as ever healing a single person. It was the intent to make Empaths heal -- to practice the skill.
True, transference the skill encompasses more than simply PC-PC healing now. However, that we have other methods of learning the skill (broken as they are) and are getting more methods still doesn't change the fact that transference was intended to be a skill practiced, not simply a skill learned, else it would have been teachable from the beginning.
I don't see how this intent has changed. Nor do I see any reason for it to change.
~Maddie
For information on the shift ability and to find Empaths capable of shift go here: http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
Speaking as an older Empath who isn't one anymore, I do remember the times before Transference, and while not everyone was a sitting room empath, listening to teaching and doing what'e'er else they needed ta circle, there were plenty who didn't spare the time it would take to go see who was dying outside of the sitting room, and would just "zombie" teaching all day and night. Transference was created to stop that, and personally, I think it did a great job. I would prefer it not to be teachable, because I'd hate to see the sitting room populated again by empaths who just want to shift so zombie to 30th to be able to. The sitting room, in my opinion, is for a quick touch up, so that the realms, as a whole, can't interupt you and bother you when yer close to dyin'. Let it remain unteachable, is my thoughts.
The ex-Glee
The ex-Glee
Couple of observations ... ok, a few. And maybe a mild rant.
(1) It's unfortunate that empaths my age had to work harder to get here than empaths five months from now will ... however, I can just imagine the shock Sophie and Amethystle had when teaching/FA req's dropped and suddenly THEY were overskilled while I had an easier time climbing the ladder they already climbed. It's the way things are in a good system (i.e., eventually broken things are fixed). Anything that makes things easier will always benefit the more active, harder working (read: compulsive) members more than the casual player.
(2) Herbs do not fix everything, period. I am not saying there's not an herb FOR everything (though of course that's true currently), I am saying they do not fix the more severe injuries. It's easy to sit back and accuse people of over-hunting if they manage to get a leg broken so severely that yelith won't fix the internal bleeder. However, since I've only seen one empath who actually dances with +50 critters, us telling hunters something like this is rather like Galain taking TM advice from a true newbie hunting rats.
(3) The need to have nerve damage healed is less because of the inability to juggle than the inability to effectively cast spells. Many players use juggling balls as a diagnostic tool to monitor their health.
(4) Mules are our own fault. I've sat in healing rooms and had little brothers or sisters magically appearing whenever the hunter got hurt ... I cannot recall a single instance where smiling and offering to help out since it's so much easier for me didn't result in a new patient for me. Healing down takes time and interfers with the training of the primary character, if it's more convenient for them to use a "real" empath and not an unpleasant experience they'll turn to us.
(5) Mules can be converted. Make the guild fun to play and they'll play it. I know two shifting empaths today who started out as mules, there's got to be more.
I know this is disintegrating into a rant but come on people ... complaining when the system's broken then complaining that it's fixed too? Insisting that we be less reliant on other players for our advancement but still insisting they be reliant upon us?
I know things in the guild were ugly for a while but it's gotten so much better in the last year ... sounds like it's just going to keep getting better, maybe it's time to relax a bit and maybe lose that chip on our collective shoulder. Someone being able to get healed at 4 a.m. in Hara probably isn't going to do any of us a whole lot of harm. Neither will the new empaths who're able to make the climb to circle 30 more easily than we did.
Passionata, frantically searching for her asbestos undies
(1) It's unfortunate that empaths my age had to work harder to get here than empaths five months from now will ... however, I can just imagine the shock Sophie and Amethystle had when teaching/FA req's dropped and suddenly THEY were overskilled while I had an easier time climbing the ladder they already climbed. It's the way things are in a good system (i.e., eventually broken things are fixed). Anything that makes things easier will always benefit the more active, harder working (read: compulsive) members more than the casual player.
(2) Herbs do not fix everything, period. I am not saying there's not an herb FOR everything (though of course that's true currently), I am saying they do not fix the more severe injuries. It's easy to sit back and accuse people of over-hunting if they manage to get a leg broken so severely that yelith won't fix the internal bleeder. However, since I've only seen one empath who actually dances with +50 critters, us telling hunters something like this is rather like Galain taking TM advice from a true newbie hunting rats.
(3) The need to have nerve damage healed is less because of the inability to juggle than the inability to effectively cast spells. Many players use juggling balls as a diagnostic tool to monitor their health.
(4) Mules are our own fault. I've sat in healing rooms and had little brothers or sisters magically appearing whenever the hunter got hurt ... I cannot recall a single instance where smiling and offering to help out since it's so much easier for me didn't result in a new patient for me. Healing down takes time and interfers with the training of the primary character, if it's more convenient for them to use a "real" empath and not an unpleasant experience they'll turn to us.
(5) Mules can be converted. Make the guild fun to play and they'll play it. I know two shifting empaths today who started out as mules, there's got to be more.
I know this is disintegrating into a rant but come on people ... complaining when the system's broken then complaining that it's fixed too? Insisting that we be less reliant on other players for our advancement but still insisting they be reliant upon us?
I know things in the guild were ugly for a while but it's gotten so much better in the last year ... sounds like it's just going to keep getting better, maybe it's time to relax a bit and maybe lose that chip on our collective shoulder. Someone being able to get healed at 4 a.m. in Hara probably isn't going to do any of us a whole lot of harm. Neither will the new empaths who're able to make the climb to circle 30 more easily than we did.
Passionata, frantically searching for her asbestos undies
>Because Transference JUST LIKE Multi Op is a skill that you learn by doing, not by teaching.
Why? I personally don't see the comparison. Multi Op is not a primary skill needed by a specific guild in order to circle, Trans is. On top of that, WHY is Transference as skill that you learn by doing, not teaching?
>Can we have a real reason other then your assumption that all elder empaths are all out to get novices, to make it otherwise?
That is not my reasoning. Please, everyone, stop getting so defensive. If I thought older empaths were 'out to get younger empaths', then by all means I would say so. Those who know me know I am not one to withhold my thoughts or opinions.
The reason I believe it should be teachable is because:
1. I see no reason for it to not be so.
2. I believe it should be easier for all guilds to learn their primary skill, especially the 'young'. It is for the other guilds, and it should be so for the Empath Guild also.
To expound: I personally would probably never listen to a transferrence class, but I recently trained up a 'baby' empath, just to see what it was like to learn now, got her to 5th before I deleted her, and guess what was the hardest for her to learn every circle? Transference.
Guess what is the number one skill needed by the 40 or so empaths I've asked to circle? Transference. I see transference being teachable as something that would greatly benefit the very young, and by the time someone reached the circle I am (40th) they wouldn't even bother with it...and I am very much for making it easier for the young.
I don't see making that hard on the young would in any way eliminate the 'slave labor' aka 'mule' empaths. Those who are going to use mules, are still going to use them. I hate mules as much as everyone else. Xoine rarely heals any of my other characters. I find it irritating when a 'hunter' walks in, sheathes his/her weapon, few seconds later an empath pops out of hiding or logs in, heals the hunter, eats some herbs, casts a few spells, and then hides or logs out again Keeping transference non-teachable or maintaining that trans should be harder to learn, that empaths should have to 'work' for it (meaning, to me, work as hard as the 'older empaths' did), is NOT going to get rid of these mules.
~Xoine
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
Why? I personally don't see the comparison. Multi Op is not a primary skill needed by a specific guild in order to circle, Trans is. On top of that, WHY is Transference as skill that you learn by doing, not teaching?
>Can we have a real reason other then your assumption that all elder empaths are all out to get novices, to make it otherwise?
That is not my reasoning. Please, everyone, stop getting so defensive. If I thought older empaths were 'out to get younger empaths', then by all means I would say so. Those who know me know I am not one to withhold my thoughts or opinions.
The reason I believe it should be teachable is because:
1. I see no reason for it to not be so.
2. I believe it should be easier for all guilds to learn their primary skill, especially the 'young'. It is for the other guilds, and it should be so for the Empath Guild also.
To expound: I personally would probably never listen to a transferrence class, but I recently trained up a 'baby' empath, just to see what it was like to learn now, got her to 5th before I deleted her, and guess what was the hardest for her to learn every circle? Transference.
Guess what is the number one skill needed by the 40 or so empaths I've asked to circle? Transference. I see transference being teachable as something that would greatly benefit the very young, and by the time someone reached the circle I am (40th) they wouldn't even bother with it...and I am very much for making it easier for the young.
I don't see making that hard on the young would in any way eliminate the 'slave labor' aka 'mule' empaths. Those who are going to use mules, are still going to use them. I hate mules as much as everyone else. Xoine rarely heals any of my other characters. I find it irritating when a 'hunter' walks in, sheathes his/her weapon, few seconds later an empath pops out of hiding or logs in, heals the hunter, eats some herbs, casts a few spells, and then hides or logs out again Keeping transference non-teachable or maintaining that trans should be harder to learn, that empaths should have to 'work' for it (meaning, to me, work as hard as the 'older empaths' did), is NOT going to get rid of these mules.
~Xoine
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
I think Maddie and Nynnia have explained the anti-teaching position rather well, so I won't bother to repeat their points.
I do want to add this...
Many of us have tried on numerous occasions to explain our position against trans being teachable. One thing has become very clear to me... Someone who was not here in 96/97 can not begin to understand what was happening to the guild. No one thought it would...after all, why would someone want to join the empath guild if they didn't want to heal and interact with people. But it happened nonetheless. It was awful. There was a reason some of us made a push for a healing skill. We even circulated a petition at one point. My two best friends and I started that push, and we were damn proud when we got the skill. (for those of you left that were members of the shed crowd, you know who I mean). Yes, it has problems, I'm not saying that it doesn't. I'm speaking in general terms here. We need the skill. We need to have to do SOMETHING to learn it besides sit on our bums all day. Please, just trust us on this.
And in no way, shape, or form am I trying to keep other empaths down. If you'll notice, most of the ones you are accusing of trying to make life hard for young empaths, including myself, are the ones who have posted ideas again and again on ways to improve learning for ALL empaths, including ideas for young ones. I personally circle about every 3-6 months, that's MONTHS. I am not focused on circles all the time. I like to try and live a "real" life. And life is not all work. If I cared merely for levels and experience, I'd go finish beating Diablo II or something. This is a roleplaying game, contrary to what some power circlers seem to believe. But I digress. My point is this...there are empaths today who are among the tops in our guild that I sat and walked through healing their very first patient. Most of them have surpassed me now. And I'm proud of them for what they have acheived. I'm not going to stop being friends with them because they outcircle me. But according to you, I (and the others against teaching transference) are trying to keep all other empaths below us in circles. Well, too late for that, I guess. ;-) I could care less what circle another empath is. What counts to me is roleplay, not whether or not you are above or below me in circles. That's just an insane accusation.
~Cetacea and her player
I do want to add this...
Many of us have tried on numerous occasions to explain our position against trans being teachable. One thing has become very clear to me... Someone who was not here in 96/97 can not begin to understand what was happening to the guild. No one thought it would...after all, why would someone want to join the empath guild if they didn't want to heal and interact with people. But it happened nonetheless. It was awful. There was a reason some of us made a push for a healing skill. We even circulated a petition at one point. My two best friends and I started that push, and we were damn proud when we got the skill. (for those of you left that were members of the shed crowd, you know who I mean). Yes, it has problems, I'm not saying that it doesn't. I'm speaking in general terms here. We need the skill. We need to have to do SOMETHING to learn it besides sit on our bums all day. Please, just trust us on this.
And in no way, shape, or form am I trying to keep other empaths down. If you'll notice, most of the ones you are accusing of trying to make life hard for young empaths, including myself, are the ones who have posted ideas again and again on ways to improve learning for ALL empaths, including ideas for young ones. I personally circle about every 3-6 months, that's MONTHS. I am not focused on circles all the time. I like to try and live a "real" life. And life is not all work. If I cared merely for levels and experience, I'd go finish beating Diablo II or something. This is a roleplaying game, contrary to what some power circlers seem to believe. But I digress. My point is this...there are empaths today who are among the tops in our guild that I sat and walked through healing their very first patient. Most of them have surpassed me now. And I'm proud of them for what they have acheived. I'm not going to stop being friends with them because they outcircle me. But according to you, I (and the others against teaching transference) are trying to keep all other empaths below us in circles. Well, too late for that, I guess. ;-) I could care less what circle another empath is. What counts to me is roleplay, not whether or not you are above or below me in circles. That's just an insane accusation.
~Cetacea and her player
>It seems to me that you aren't looking for a viable reason why transference shouldn't be teachable but rather a reason for it that will change your mind. Yet, you seem firm in your opinion just as others are in theirs and content to toss around accusations of elitism to those that disagree with you all while claiming you don't wish to conflict. If you truly wish to keep this a discussion of ideas rather than a conflict you'll stop the accusations and consider the "opinions" put forth as a possible rational basis for why transference is and should remain unteachable.
Pardon? When have I tossed around accusations of elitism? Please see my response to Paschein where I stated, "Those who know me know I am not one to withhold my thoughts or opinions." If I wanted to say anything, accuse anyone of anything, I would do so.
>Transference was created to force Empaths to heal because it made no sense to have an Empath that could attain high circle without so much as ever healing a single person. It was the intent to make Empaths heal -- to practice the skill.
And what was 'high circle' back then? 20th? 30th maybe? Does this line of logic even apply now when there are other ways to learn transference and more coming? Does this line of logic even apply when there are typically more empaths in a given area than people needing healed? Does this line of logic even apply when even if transference were teachable, the dent in the population of healing empaths would be minimal, if anything?
~Xoine
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
Pardon? When have I tossed around accusations of elitism? Please see my response to Paschein where I stated, "Those who know me know I am not one to withhold my thoughts or opinions." If I wanted to say anything, accuse anyone of anything, I would do so.
>Transference was created to force Empaths to heal because it made no sense to have an Empath that could attain high circle without so much as ever healing a single person. It was the intent to make Empaths heal -- to practice the skill.
And what was 'high circle' back then? 20th? 30th maybe? Does this line of logic even apply now when there are other ways to learn transference and more coming? Does this line of logic even apply when there are typically more empaths in a given area than people needing healed? Does this line of logic even apply when even if transference were teachable, the dent in the population of healing empaths would be minimal, if anything?
~Xoine
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
<<If I thought older empaths were 'out to get younger empaths', then by all means I would say so.>>
I believe you have said so, more or less. You continue to bring up that fact that 'we' are resentful that someone has made a suggestion that will make it easier for younger empaths to gain skill, and that 'we' think that since we had it hard, they should too. You also used your Paladin example to show that you are happy about young Paladins being able to train better, but 'we' are not happy about the thought of empaths doing the same.
I also have a comment in response to Maddie's reason (which Glee -- Hi Glee! -- and Cetacea also commented on), because I have a feeling it'll come up at some point.
<<Transference was created to force Empaths to heal because it made no sense to have an Empath that could attain high circle without so much as ever healing a single person. It was the intent to make Empaths heal -- to practice the skill.>>
One could counter this with the fact that Smitty is no longer in any way, shape, or form associated with the Empath guild, and as such, his views of what the guild should be should be completely thrown out the window.
The problem with that is the following:
We have had two gurus since Smitty's time (and will soon have a 3rd) who had the opportunity to make transference teachable. If they felt that Smitty was out of line in making it a non-teachable skill, both of these GMs had 2-3 years a piece to change that. Because transference remains non-teachable almost 5 and a half years after its inception, and two gurus later, it must be the general opinion of Empath-related staff that Smitty's idea in creating transference still holds water.
That is my addition to the logical reason why transference has not been teachable in the past, why it is not teachable now, and why it should not be teachable in the future.
Meghan
I believe you have said so, more or less. You continue to bring up that fact that 'we' are resentful that someone has made a suggestion that will make it easier for younger empaths to gain skill, and that 'we' think that since we had it hard, they should too. You also used your Paladin example to show that you are happy about young Paladins being able to train better, but 'we' are not happy about the thought of empaths doing the same.
I also have a comment in response to Maddie's reason (which Glee -- Hi Glee! -- and Cetacea also commented on), because I have a feeling it'll come up at some point.
<<Transference was created to force Empaths to heal because it made no sense to have an Empath that could attain high circle without so much as ever healing a single person. It was the intent to make Empaths heal -- to practice the skill.>>
One could counter this with the fact that Smitty is no longer in any way, shape, or form associated with the Empath guild, and as such, his views of what the guild should be should be completely thrown out the window.
The problem with that is the following:
We have had two gurus since Smitty's time (and will soon have a 3rd) who had the opportunity to make transference teachable. If they felt that Smitty was out of line in making it a non-teachable skill, both of these GMs had 2-3 years a piece to change that. Because transference remains non-teachable almost 5 and a half years after its inception, and two gurus later, it must be the general opinion of Empath-related staff that Smitty's idea in creating transference still holds water.
That is my addition to the logical reason why transference has not been teachable in the past, why it is not teachable now, and why it should not be teachable in the future.
Meghan
>My point is this...there are empaths today who are among the tops in our guild that I sat and walked through healing their very first patient. Most of them have surpassed me now. And I'm proud of them for what they have acheived. I'm not going to stop being friends with them because they outcircle me. But according to you, I (and the others against teaching transference) are trying to keep all other empaths below us in circles. Well, too late for that, I guess. ;-) I could care less what circle another empath is. What counts to me is roleplay, not whether or not you are above or below me in circles. That's just an insane accusation.
I am NOT accusing anyone of anything.
I am asking for a reason, a logical reason. Okay, someone has said 'because we had this problem in the past'...well, apply that logic to today. Does the logic apply?
I am not trying to accuse anyone, insinuate to anyone, jump on anyone, etc. I am asking for each of you to think logically about why you want to keep transference non-teachable, and then tell me why, with a completely logical explanation.
I understand that I am just one voice among many, and although I am not stating that my position of believing trans should be teachable is 100% correct, I have yet any reason to believe that it isn't.
~Xoine
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
I am NOT accusing anyone of anything.
I am asking for a reason, a logical reason. Okay, someone has said 'because we had this problem in the past'...well, apply that logic to today. Does the logic apply?
I am not trying to accuse anyone, insinuate to anyone, jump on anyone, etc. I am asking for each of you to think logically about why you want to keep transference non-teachable, and then tell me why, with a completely logical explanation.
I understand that I am just one voice among many, and although I am not stating that my position of believing trans should be teachable is 100% correct, I have yet any reason to believe that it isn't.
~Xoine
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
I believe it does, to be honest. whether someone wants to be a healer, or a shifter, or a leech-eater, they still need transference. the thing is, that you have to heal to get to the better and neater stuff. Why else be an empath?
<taken directly from Annael's intro>
She goes on to say, "Empaths are healers above all else. We go beyond the skills others can use to deal with wounds, diseases, poisons, and all the other things that cause injury and pain; we actually transfer the anguish and suffering of others to ourselves, and then use our magic to heal ourselves of the damage."
</ENDQUOTE>
notice, she doesn't mention sitting in the sitting room and learning how to invite the pain onto yourself from an older one.
Also, the way I've always viewed transference is the knowledge of your own body, and making pathways to others work from it. to me, that isn't teachable. you have to learn your own way to do things, Amorrise or Ceta, none of them would be able to show Glee how to make transference easier in his own body. ::shrugs:: that might not have made sense, but it's the way I view it.
Ex-Glee
Still Gleeful, though
<taken directly from Annael's intro>
She goes on to say, "Empaths are healers above all else. We go beyond the skills others can use to deal with wounds, diseases, poisons, and all the other things that cause injury and pain; we actually transfer the anguish and suffering of others to ourselves, and then use our magic to heal ourselves of the damage."
</ENDQUOTE>
notice, she doesn't mention sitting in the sitting room and learning how to invite the pain onto yourself from an older one.
Also, the way I've always viewed transference is the knowledge of your own body, and making pathways to others work from it. to me, that isn't teachable. you have to learn your own way to do things, Amorrise or Ceta, none of them would be able to show Glee how to make transference easier in his own body. ::shrugs:: that might not have made sense, but it's the way I view it.
Ex-Glee
Still Gleeful, though
<<Pardon? When have I tossed around accusations of elitism? Please see my response to Paschein where I stated, "Those who know me know I am not one to withhold my thoughts or opinions." If I wanted to say anything, accuse anyone of anything, I would do so. -- Xoine>>
Nynnia summed up the response to this quite nicely so I'll let it stand as a reflection of my own thoughts as well.
<<And what was 'high circle' back then? 20th? 30th maybe? Does this line of logic even apply now when there are other ways to learn transference and more coming? Does this line of logic even apply when there are typically more empaths in a given area than people needing healed? -- Xoine>>
Yes, given the GM's continued focus on making healing PC's our best method of learning transference.
<<Does this line of logic even apply when even if transference were teachable, the dent in the population of healing empaths would be minimal, if anything? -- Xoine>>
What evidence supports such a statement?
<<The reason I believe it should be teachable is because: 1. I see no reason for it to not be so. 2. I believe it should be easier for all guilds to learn their primary skill, especially the 'young'. It is for the other guilds, and it should be so for the Empath Guild also. -- Xoine>>
To respond to the relevant portion of the discussion:
1. There have been many reasons offered for why transference should not be teachable.
2. Transference learning in the past has been hampered by lack of a means to train the skill -- a shortage of wounds. This is changing and only for the better. With a means to effectively train the skill will make it "easier" to learn, enough so that I don't think the additional method of teaching it would be necessary.
~Maddie
For information on the shift ability and to find Empaths capable of shift go here: http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
Nynnia summed up the response to this quite nicely so I'll let it stand as a reflection of my own thoughts as well.
<<And what was 'high circle' back then? 20th? 30th maybe? Does this line of logic even apply now when there are other ways to learn transference and more coming? Does this line of logic even apply when there are typically more empaths in a given area than people needing healed? -- Xoine>>
Yes, given the GM's continued focus on making healing PC's our best method of learning transference.
<<Does this line of logic even apply when even if transference were teachable, the dent in the population of healing empaths would be minimal, if anything? -- Xoine>>
What evidence supports such a statement?
<<The reason I believe it should be teachable is because: 1. I see no reason for it to not be so. 2. I believe it should be easier for all guilds to learn their primary skill, especially the 'young'. It is for the other guilds, and it should be so for the Empath Guild also. -- Xoine>>
To respond to the relevant portion of the discussion:
1. There have been many reasons offered for why transference should not be teachable.
2. Transference learning in the past has been hampered by lack of a means to train the skill -- a shortage of wounds. This is changing and only for the better. With a means to effectively train the skill will make it "easier" to learn, enough so that I don't think the additional method of teaching it would be necessary.
~Maddie
For information on the shift ability and to find Empaths capable of shift go here: http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
>I believe you have said so, more or less. You continue to bring up that fact that 'we' are resentful that someone has made a suggestion that will make it easier for younger empaths to gain skill, and that 'we' think that since we had it hard, they should too. You also used your Paladin example to show that you are happy about young Paladins being able to train better, but 'we' are not happy about the thought of empaths doing the same.
No, I asked for a logical explanation as to why. Granted, I was a little offended and showed that in at least one of my posts, but it was solely based on one comment, not because I believed that higher level empaths are out to get lower level ones. Anyway, I am tired of sitting in the Inn while I post back and forth trying to ask for logic and getting opinion, so I am going back to the healing spot to heal people.
~Xoine
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
No, I asked for a logical explanation as to why. Granted, I was a little offended and showed that in at least one of my posts, but it was solely based on one comment, not because I believed that higher level empaths are out to get lower level ones. Anyway, I am tired of sitting in the Inn while I post back and forth trying to ask for logic and getting opinion, so I am going back to the healing spot to heal people.
~Xoine
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
if. and not that I agree with this, wholeheartedly, but If transference became teachable, I would hope that the only things teachable are the most basic theorys of it. Breathing methods, basic approach to beginning a transfer and so forth. The problem is, that as you move away from those generic methods, everything that follows it is incredably personal, and to be honest, I couldn't see why any empath would want to share their... intimacy that they've learned to have with another Empath at all. I could see a high resistance, slow learning method of "tutoring" transference for perhaps the first 15-20 ranks, and then, as the young empath finally realizes the joy of a successful touch, then have the tutoring slack off, and the empath becomes his own person, learning his own lessons, and learning to deal with the pain and joy of taking wounds in his own way.
Ex-Glee
Ex-Glee
<<I am asking for each of you to think logically about why you want to keep transference non-teachable, and then tell me why, with a completely logical explanation.>>
Why is the burden of proof on us? I think it's fine as is -- not broken. You want the system changed, you compose a completely logical explaination of why transference should be teachable. If it is nothing more than the argument I referred to in my last post then I find your position uncompelling, premature and rather short-sighted.
If you have other reasons you think can convince us then I ask you to share them.
~Maddie
For information on the shift ability and to find Empaths capable of shift go here: http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
Why is the burden of proof on us? I think it's fine as is -- not broken. You want the system changed, you compose a completely logical explaination of why transference should be teachable. If it is nothing more than the argument I referred to in my last post then I find your position uncompelling, premature and rather short-sighted.
If you have other reasons you think can convince us then I ask you to share them.
~Maddie
For information on the shift ability and to find Empaths capable of shift go here: http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
Apparently your definition of logic and the rest of ours is very different.
I would appreciate hearing what you feel makes up a logical reason, so maybe we can tailor our responses to your template.
In the meantime, you sound a lot like one of my professors yesterday, when he was looking for a specific format to the answer to his question.
"What you are saying is not incorrect. I just don't like it."
Meghan
I would appreciate hearing what you feel makes up a logical reason, so maybe we can tailor our responses to your template.
In the meantime, you sound a lot like one of my professors yesterday, when he was looking for a specific format to the answer to his question.
"What you are saying is not incorrect. I just don't like it."
Meghan
<<That is not my reasoning. Please, everyone, stop getting so defensive. If I thought older empaths were 'out to get younger empaths', then by all means I would say so.
Xoine, you did say so. Quite bluntly. I will be happy to go back and get the quote if you like.
I have no wish to conflict over this. I think you and I are passingly friendly, and have no desire to change that (unlike the empath who has used her other character name to flame me personally on another board, but again, I digress).
My point is this...we've given reason after reason after reason. You can't understand our point...we disagree with yours. I think the GM's have made their decision as someone pointed out. Let's go back to brainstorming ideas as opposed to kicking this poor dead horse some more.
~Cetacea
Xoine, you did say so. Quite bluntly. I will be happy to go back and get the quote if you like.
I have no wish to conflict over this. I think you and I are passingly friendly, and have no desire to change that (unlike the empath who has used her other character name to flame me personally on another board, but again, I digress).
My point is this...we've given reason after reason after reason. You can't understand our point...we disagree with yours. I think the GM's have made their decision as someone pointed out. Let's go back to brainstorming ideas as opposed to kicking this poor dead horse some more.
~Cetacea
>Circles that took me about a month each. So please don't say that you don't have it easier already
>I know that I would never teach this skill simply because its a skill I think you have to earn, not something that should be handed to you. This is just -my- opinion.
I think that's exactly the bitter "they should suffer too" attitude she was talking about. Your idea of "earn" is heal for two weeks strait to get past a wall rank. Other people's idea of "earn" is more in line with the level of difficult of most other skills in the game. Do you feel bad when people aren't properly earning targeted magic listening to a class of it? With that point of view we should scrap teaching alltogether, since nobody deserves anything they get from it.
Our problem really isn't with the difficulty of the transference skill. Our problem is that that skill has way too much emphisis in our requirements. If empaths had a broadened scope so that other skills mattered more to us, then it transference being learned easily wouldn't seem like such a problem. Instead we just lump all the work involved in circling into 6 ranks of a single skill.
-Kitrinx
>I know that I would never teach this skill simply because its a skill I think you have to earn, not something that should be handed to you. This is just -my- opinion.
I think that's exactly the bitter "they should suffer too" attitude she was talking about. Your idea of "earn" is heal for two weeks strait to get past a wall rank. Other people's idea of "earn" is more in line with the level of difficult of most other skills in the game. Do you feel bad when people aren't properly earning targeted magic listening to a class of it? With that point of view we should scrap teaching alltogether, since nobody deserves anything they get from it.
Our problem really isn't with the difficulty of the transference skill. Our problem is that that skill has way too much emphisis in our requirements. If empaths had a broadened scope so that other skills mattered more to us, then it transference being learned easily wouldn't seem like such a problem. Instead we just lump all the work involved in circling into 6 ranks of a single skill.
-Kitrinx
>>I've already explained this to you in IMs, Shaunn
I was unaware that I needed the situation 'explained' to me. I obviously have no clue about empathic issues. I only mentioned leeches to point out that if I really wanted to rant about things being easier for younger empaths, I would have done it when bloodsuckers were released. I didn't. That's not a problem for me.
I, and others, have stated our logical reasons as to why we want transference to be teachable, Xoine. Simply because you either reject them, or refuse to believe them, does not make them invalid, and does not mean that we have to invent new reasons to placate you. Speak your mind, give your opinion, but please don't accuse myself and others of elitism when we are giving valid observations and opinions about -why- transference exists and why we believe making it teachable will just defeat the skill's purpose.
Shaunn
I was unaware that I needed the situation 'explained' to me. I obviously have no clue about empathic issues. I only mentioned leeches to point out that if I really wanted to rant about things being easier for younger empaths, I would have done it when bloodsuckers were released. I didn't. That's not a problem for me.
I, and others, have stated our logical reasons as to why we want transference to be teachable, Xoine. Simply because you either reject them, or refuse to believe them, does not make them invalid, and does not mean that we have to invent new reasons to placate you. Speak your mind, give your opinion, but please don't accuse myself and others of elitism when we are giving valid observations and opinions about -why- transference exists and why we believe making it teachable will just defeat the skill's purpose.
Shaunn
>>I think that's exactly the bitter "they should suffer too" attitude she was talking about. Your idea of "earn" is heal for two weeks strait to get past a wall rank.
I love when statements are being taken out of context. Simply because I don't agree with teaching transference does not mean I think earning transference should be more or less difficult. I point out a valid observation. People -are- circling faster than before. Bravo to you guys. To be 'bitter' however, I would have to have negative feelings about that, which I don't.
I will say again, I point that out only to show that if I had a problem with increased circling rates, I would have made it long ago. I -do- have a problem with transference being made teachable, and to this I say, "You should have to get it yourself" whether that process is easier or harder now is not the point.
Shaunn
And please don't put words in my mouth. Saying what 'my idea' of healing is to prove your point is probably going to backfire because I use the leeches as much as anyone else... whether on a wall or not.
I love when statements are being taken out of context. Simply because I don't agree with teaching transference does not mean I think earning transference should be more or less difficult. I point out a valid observation. People -are- circling faster than before. Bravo to you guys. To be 'bitter' however, I would have to have negative feelings about that, which I don't.
I will say again, I point that out only to show that if I had a problem with increased circling rates, I would have made it long ago. I -do- have a problem with transference being made teachable, and to this I say, "You should have to get it yourself" whether that process is easier or harder now is not the point.
Shaunn
And please don't put words in my mouth. Saying what 'my idea' of healing is to prove your point is probably going to backfire because I use the leeches as much as anyone else... whether on a wall or not.
Folks, we have a Transference topic, and I'm going to request that this thread be moved there, where it belongs. This topic is reserved for Healing Systems, which are of interest to everyone, rather than Transference, which is of primary interest to Empaths.
This doesn't mean that the skill shouldn't be mentioned here, but we certainly don't need long debates on it in the Healing System topic.
As an aside, I will say that plans are in place - no, you won't see any changes of a really significant nature for some time, and if you want to know why, please review my last post in the Healing Systems topic - at least in part, so that Empaths will be the primary source of healing in the Realms, healing player wounds will be the best (NOT primary) source of empathic experience, and players will be able to play a lot longer before they need to see an Empath or require healing of any type. So, yes, this will benefit Empaths and non-Empaths alike, and no, I won't say any more on this... at least, not until SimuCon. [And early registration is over in two days... just a reminder.]
GameMaster Towint B'niyvyl
This doesn't mean that the skill shouldn't be mentioned here, but we certainly don't need long debates on it in the Healing System topic.
As an aside, I will say that plans are in place - no, you won't see any changes of a really significant nature for some time, and if you want to know why, please review my last post in the Healing Systems topic - at least in part, so that Empaths will be the primary source of healing in the Realms, healing player wounds will be the best (NOT primary) source of empathic experience, and players will be able to play a lot longer before they need to see an Empath or require healing of any type. So, yes, this will benefit Empaths and non-Empaths alike, and no, I won't say any more on this... at least, not until SimuCon. [And early registration is over in two days... just a reminder.]
GameMaster Towint B'niyvyl
>I love when statements are being taken out of context. Simply because I don't agree with teaching transference does not mean I think earning transference should be more or less difficult.
You used the word earn, which implied that you felt transference learned via teaching is not difficult enough to learn. You have also posted in the past that you felt leeches needed to be changed to be harder and less effective as teachers (post 1917 and others in the general folder). Average skills are both teachable and most can be easily mindlocked in one way or another with fairly minimal risk.
What else can be inferred other than that you feel transference should be harder than an average skill to learn? I can't think of many good reasons that a person would argue that transference should be harder to learn than an average skill. So the conclusion I come to after considering those observations is that you feel that to properly earn transference, the learning process must be more akin to what you went through.
My own point however was that the difficulty or proper means of learning transference isn't the real problem, but rather it is the fact that to be an effective empath all you need is under 100 ranks of magic, minimal first aid, and transference. Every other skill is learned for the sake of meeting requirements or novelty. Shift now uses more skills, but I wouldn't call that ability critical or even important to empaths. To make circling more meaningful we should need a rainbow of skills to do what we do, just as a hunter does in the form of weapons, armor, shield, evasion, multi, parry, etc.
If that problem is addressed I don't believe that ability to teach transference would hurt much of anything. As things stand, I dont see teaching transference much different than leeches, and in addition if you were to listen to trans, then you couldn't learn teaching which is another nasty req.
-Kitrinx
You used the word earn, which implied that you felt transference learned via teaching is not difficult enough to learn. You have also posted in the past that you felt leeches needed to be changed to be harder and less effective as teachers (post 1917 and others in the general folder). Average skills are both teachable and most can be easily mindlocked in one way or another with fairly minimal risk.
What else can be inferred other than that you feel transference should be harder than an average skill to learn? I can't think of many good reasons that a person would argue that transference should be harder to learn than an average skill. So the conclusion I come to after considering those observations is that you feel that to properly earn transference, the learning process must be more akin to what you went through.
My own point however was that the difficulty or proper means of learning transference isn't the real problem, but rather it is the fact that to be an effective empath all you need is under 100 ranks of magic, minimal first aid, and transference. Every other skill is learned for the sake of meeting requirements or novelty. Shift now uses more skills, but I wouldn't call that ability critical or even important to empaths. To make circling more meaningful we should need a rainbow of skills to do what we do, just as a hunter does in the form of weapons, armor, shield, evasion, multi, parry, etc.
If that problem is addressed I don't believe that ability to teach transference would hurt much of anything. As things stand, I dont see teaching transference much different than leeches, and in addition if you were to listen to trans, then you couldn't learn teaching which is another nasty req.
-Kitrinx
I guess you can read all you want into the word 'earn'. I guess that carries the subtext that I think it should be immensely difficult. Who knows, maybe next I'll suggest that only useless wounds should teach transference. *takes tongue out of cheek*
The truth of the matter is that it is convenient for you to twist what I say to suit your purposes and create this massive polarity between I (and others who think transference should remain teachable) and those who would like it teachable. I will therefore retract my statement about transference difficult (since people are taking it so out of context). However, I will continue to assert that transference is a skill that needs to be gained through first hand experience because one of the primary reasons for its instution was to ensure that empaths took an -active- role in their healing. It is not the sole reason, but it is a large one, and I think it makes sense, and have no reason continuing to support GM decisions to keep it thus.
Shaunn
The truth of the matter is that it is convenient for you to twist what I say to suit your purposes and create this massive polarity between I (and others who think transference should remain teachable) and those who would like it teachable. I will therefore retract my statement about transference difficult (since people are taking it so out of context). However, I will continue to assert that transference is a skill that needs to be gained through first hand experience because one of the primary reasons for its instution was to ensure that empaths took an -active- role in their healing. It is not the sole reason, but it is a large one, and I think it makes sense, and have no reason continuing to support GM decisions to keep it thus.
Shaunn
Just for the record, I have no opinion on this matter.
I would, however, like for Xoine to bring me that whiskey I saw last night.
Illcram the Evil Empath
Make me rich!
http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
I would, however, like for Xoine to bring me that whiskey I saw last night.
Illcram the Evil Empath
Make me rich!
http://www.coalition.fairmount.nu
Would a request for trans to remain unteachable sound less bitter coming from me, since I'm a much lower circle Empath? :)
<<Someone who was not here in 96/97 can not begin to understand what was happening to the guild. No one thought it would...after all, why would someone want to join the empath guild if they didn't want to heal and interact with people. But it happened nonetheless. It was awful. There was a reason some of us made a push for a healing skill. We even circulated a petition at one point.>>
While I wasn't Laril yet, I started playing an Empath in DR right at this time -- as a newbie coming into that environment, I can say it was pretty terrible. One could walk into the Sitting Room and beg to be taught teaching, the most difficult skill for a newbie to learn (I timed one rank at multiple hours of listening, I think)... and get no response. Everyone was asleep. No one would move, or talk, or do anything other than play instruments and appraise their items occasionally. Sometimes crush things, for variety.
I can definitely say it took me quite a long time to learn the ropes as an Empath when all of the elders who could have been great teachers fled that environment, and the ones left behind weren't exactly great role models... or responsive in any way.
Empaths already have a large number of "duff skills" to learn. Most of the lores are done optimally in an indoor place where one can listen to a class, study a spellbook, play an instrument, et cetera et cetera. Magics are best learned (outside of healing) sitting in a good mana spot and powercasting. First Aid requires, uh, bleeding. None of these put the Empath at risk. None of these require the Empath to even stand up and move one room.
(Our survival req remains absurdly easy. Hide occasionally, forage occasionally, watch a few stalkers, don't forget to tend tend tend, and you can even stay in that nice room.)
Transference was the only skill that required us to go out and do anything, even if it was healing everyone in sight on a post-wall rank.
I have said over and over how much I loathe the transference skill. If it were removed, I'd probably circle about fifteen times. I would enjoy that. However, I agree that it's a necessary evil, and making it teachable might get rid of the evil, but would also get rid of the necessary, too.
~Laril
<<Someone who was not here in 96/97 can not begin to understand what was happening to the guild. No one thought it would...after all, why would someone want to join the empath guild if they didn't want to heal and interact with people. But it happened nonetheless. It was awful. There was a reason some of us made a push for a healing skill. We even circulated a petition at one point.>>
While I wasn't Laril yet, I started playing an Empath in DR right at this time -- as a newbie coming into that environment, I can say it was pretty terrible. One could walk into the Sitting Room and beg to be taught teaching, the most difficult skill for a newbie to learn (I timed one rank at multiple hours of listening, I think)... and get no response. Everyone was asleep. No one would move, or talk, or do anything other than play instruments and appraise their items occasionally. Sometimes crush things, for variety.
I can definitely say it took me quite a long time to learn the ropes as an Empath when all of the elders who could have been great teachers fled that environment, and the ones left behind weren't exactly great role models... or responsive in any way.
Empaths already have a large number of "duff skills" to learn. Most of the lores are done optimally in an indoor place where one can listen to a class, study a spellbook, play an instrument, et cetera et cetera. Magics are best learned (outside of healing) sitting in a good mana spot and powercasting. First Aid requires, uh, bleeding. None of these put the Empath at risk. None of these require the Empath to even stand up and move one room.
(Our survival req remains absurdly easy. Hide occasionally, forage occasionally, watch a few stalkers, don't forget to tend tend tend, and you can even stay in that nice room.)
Transference was the only skill that required us to go out and do anything, even if it was healing everyone in sight on a post-wall rank.
I have said over and over how much I loathe the transference skill. If it were removed, I'd probably circle about fifteen times. I would enjoy that. However, I agree that it's a necessary evil, and making it teachable might get rid of the evil, but would also get rid of the necessary, too.
~Laril
>Is it the train of thought, "I had it hard, so it's not fair that others should have it easier"? If so, then perhaps thinking patterns should be re-evaluated and re-adjusted. If not, then please explain to me why you feel this way.
This was my first post, and I believe my subsequent posts mirrored this. I was not 'accusing' anyone of anything. I was stating, "This is what it seems like to me and I hope it isn't true, please give me an explanation that makes sense in a logical manner as opposed to an emotional manner (which no one has yet to give)." I've asked repeatedly for logical explanations, and have been told that I am attacking, insulting and accusing people, that my views are unimportant/uncompelling/short-sighted, and then given non-logical statements like, 'it's always been like this, therefore it shouldn't change'.
I'm going to get to the matter we've been debating, learning trans from teaching vs. not being able to learn trans from teaching in a moment, but I want to take a moment and use Shaunn's own words to perhaps show you all the other side of the coin.
>The truth of the matter is that it is convenient for you to twist what I say to suit your purposes and create this massive polarity between I (and others who think transference should remain teachable) and those who would like it teachable.
The truth of the matter is that it is convenient for you to twist what I say to suit your purposes and create this massive polarity between I (and others who think transference should become teachable) and those who would like it stay nonteachable.
See how it works both ways?
I'm not saying that any of you are 'bitter' or are showing 'elitism'. I'm asking for non-faulty logic. As someone pointed out, my idea of logic is different from each of yours. I am sincerely trying to understand WHY each of you don't want this skill teachable.
>Why is the burden of proof on us? I think it's fine as is -- not broken. You want the system changed, you compose a completely logical explaination of why transference should be teachable. If it is nothing more than the argument I referred to in my last post then I find your position uncompelling, premature and rather short-sighted.
::shakes head:: Okay, I'm going to ignore the last part of that and just answer the question: Why is the burden of proof on you? Why wouldn't it be? Existing systems have lately been looked at by both players and staff with the questions of, "Does it currently and in the future make sense to have this working this way?". And the GMs still aren't done modifying existing systems. Going by your logic, none of these updates would have ever happened and no future ones will because no one would have ever questioned the existing systems.
>Apparently your definition of logic and the rest of ours is very different.
I agree with that opinion.
>In the meantime, you sound a lot like one of my professors yesterday, when he was looking for a specific format to the answer to his question.
I am not saying that any of you are incorrect, in fact, I stated in one of my posts, "I understand that I am just one voice among many, and although I am not stating that my position of believing trans should be teachable is 100% correct, I have yet any reason to believe that it isn't."
>I would appreciate hearing what you feel makes up a logical reason, so maybe we can tailor our responses to your template.
I am not asking you to formulate any responses to any 'template'. I am asking, when each of you gives me a response of, 'because the GMs had to do it way back when because of X problem', or 'because it would turn a bunch of empaths into zombie mules', or anything else, actually think about and formulate your response as to WHY you believe this opinion applies to the way things are today and in the future.
>Xoine, you did say so. Quite bluntly. I will be happy to go back and get the quote if you like.
Please do, because perhaps I wasn't clear in the message I was trying to convey.
>I have no wish to conflict over this. I think you and I are passingly friendly, and have no desire to change that (unlike the empath who has used her other character name to flame me personally on another board, but again, I digress).
I also wish to have no conflict with any of you, speaking my opinions and asking for discussion of a subject and information regarding that same subject is not, in any way, trying to insult any of you.
>I was unaware that I needed the situation 'explained' to me. I obviously have no clue about empathic issues.
Why did you twist my words of 'explanation' totally out of context and turn it into some sort of insult which you then responded to with a sarcastic remark? For your information, I simply meant that I 'explained' the way things have progressed in the Paladin Guild.
I have no wish to turn this into some sort of conflict, but neither do I have a wish to be chased from posting my opinion on the boards because I happen to not agree with the majority here who come and post here frequently.
Just because we do not agree does not mean that I hate any of you. It also does not mean that insults should be hurled at each other. It would help if there is a perceived insult, clarification should be asked for before resentment and conflict arise.
To summarize why I feel trans should be teachable:
- I believe there is not a single logical justifiable reason that trans, given the current situation and based on announcements made by GMs of future developments for our guild, should continue to be non-teachable.
- I believe that the problems that caused it to be put into the guild as a requirement would not be that bad of a problem today, given other, more viable ways of learning trans for older generations.
- I believe it will have negligible impact on higher and mid level empaths, while providing an easier training and induction into the guild for the very low level empaths.
- I do not believe it will cut down on the amount of 'mules'.
- I believe that the old systems DO need to be questioned as to whether they make sense or not.
- I do not believe that trans is in any fashion or form comparable to Multi, as Trans is a primary skill required by one guild to learn, and Multi is not.
- I do not believe making it teachable will significantly cut down the number of empaths vs. number of wounded non-empaths seeking empathic assistance.
~Xoine
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
This was my first post, and I believe my subsequent posts mirrored this. I was not 'accusing' anyone of anything. I was stating, "This is what it seems like to me and I hope it isn't true, please give me an explanation that makes sense in a logical manner as opposed to an emotional manner (which no one has yet to give)." I've asked repeatedly for logical explanations, and have been told that I am attacking, insulting and accusing people, that my views are unimportant/uncompelling/short-sighted, and then given non-logical statements like, 'it's always been like this, therefore it shouldn't change'.
I'm going to get to the matter we've been debating, learning trans from teaching vs. not being able to learn trans from teaching in a moment, but I want to take a moment and use Shaunn's own words to perhaps show you all the other side of the coin.
>The truth of the matter is that it is convenient for you to twist what I say to suit your purposes and create this massive polarity between I (and others who think transference should remain teachable) and those who would like it teachable.
The truth of the matter is that it is convenient for you to twist what I say to suit your purposes and create this massive polarity between I (and others who think transference should become teachable) and those who would like it stay nonteachable.
See how it works both ways?
I'm not saying that any of you are 'bitter' or are showing 'elitism'. I'm asking for non-faulty logic. As someone pointed out, my idea of logic is different from each of yours. I am sincerely trying to understand WHY each of you don't want this skill teachable.
>Why is the burden of proof on us? I think it's fine as is -- not broken. You want the system changed, you compose a completely logical explaination of why transference should be teachable. If it is nothing more than the argument I referred to in my last post then I find your position uncompelling, premature and rather short-sighted.
::shakes head:: Okay, I'm going to ignore the last part of that and just answer the question: Why is the burden of proof on you? Why wouldn't it be? Existing systems have lately been looked at by both players and staff with the questions of, "Does it currently and in the future make sense to have this working this way?". And the GMs still aren't done modifying existing systems. Going by your logic, none of these updates would have ever happened and no future ones will because no one would have ever questioned the existing systems.
>Apparently your definition of logic and the rest of ours is very different.
I agree with that opinion.
>In the meantime, you sound a lot like one of my professors yesterday, when he was looking for a specific format to the answer to his question.
I am not saying that any of you are incorrect, in fact, I stated in one of my posts, "I understand that I am just one voice among many, and although I am not stating that my position of believing trans should be teachable is 100% correct, I have yet any reason to believe that it isn't."
>I would appreciate hearing what you feel makes up a logical reason, so maybe we can tailor our responses to your template.
I am not asking you to formulate any responses to any 'template'. I am asking, when each of you gives me a response of, 'because the GMs had to do it way back when because of X problem', or 'because it would turn a bunch of empaths into zombie mules', or anything else, actually think about and formulate your response as to WHY you believe this opinion applies to the way things are today and in the future.
>Xoine, you did say so. Quite bluntly. I will be happy to go back and get the quote if you like.
Please do, because perhaps I wasn't clear in the message I was trying to convey.
>I have no wish to conflict over this. I think you and I are passingly friendly, and have no desire to change that (unlike the empath who has used her other character name to flame me personally on another board, but again, I digress).
I also wish to have no conflict with any of you, speaking my opinions and asking for discussion of a subject and information regarding that same subject is not, in any way, trying to insult any of you.
>I was unaware that I needed the situation 'explained' to me. I obviously have no clue about empathic issues.
Why did you twist my words of 'explanation' totally out of context and turn it into some sort of insult which you then responded to with a sarcastic remark? For your information, I simply meant that I 'explained' the way things have progressed in the Paladin Guild.
I have no wish to turn this into some sort of conflict, but neither do I have a wish to be chased from posting my opinion on the boards because I happen to not agree with the majority here who come and post here frequently.
Just because we do not agree does not mean that I hate any of you. It also does not mean that insults should be hurled at each other. It would help if there is a perceived insult, clarification should be asked for before resentment and conflict arise.
To summarize why I feel trans should be teachable:
- I believe there is not a single logical justifiable reason that trans, given the current situation and based on announcements made by GMs of future developments for our guild, should continue to be non-teachable.
- I believe that the problems that caused it to be put into the guild as a requirement would not be that bad of a problem today, given other, more viable ways of learning trans for older generations.
- I believe it will have negligible impact on higher and mid level empaths, while providing an easier training and induction into the guild for the very low level empaths.
- I do not believe it will cut down on the amount of 'mules'.
- I believe that the old systems DO need to be questioned as to whether they make sense or not.
- I do not believe that trans is in any fashion or form comparable to Multi, as Trans is a primary skill required by one guild to learn, and Multi is not.
- I do not believe making it teachable will significantly cut down the number of empaths vs. number of wounded non-empaths seeking empathic assistance.
~Xoine
"Too often we...enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
-- John F. Kennedy
> This is what it seems like to me and I hope it isn't true, please give me an explanation that makes sense in a logical manner as opposed to an emotional manner (which no one has yet to give
This is not, however what you said. You're statement accused people of thinking that, whether you meant for it to or not.
> I've asked repeatedly for logical explanations
And you've been given any number of them. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they aren't logical, or correct.
> it's always been like this, therefore it shouldn't change
No one's said that. They have said 'A long time ago, this was the reason Transference got implemented; this reason still seems to hold true to us.'
>See how it works both ways?
No. I don't.
> I'm not saying that any of you are 'bitter' or are showing 'elitism
Quotes from you:
" I truly do not understand the seeming desire from the majority of the 'elder' empaths to continue keeping skills, namely transferrence, difficult to learn."
"So in essence, what you are saying, is "I had it hard, others should also.""
"And many of those same higher level empaths that are against transferrence being teachable are the very same nae-sayers on the bloodsuckers."
You do a really good job of implying that people are bitter and elitist without really saying it, yes.
> Why is the burden of proof on you? Why wouldn't it be?
Because people give logical reasons. The burden of proof really rests on whoever wants to be heard. This post is the first time I've heard you come close to giving a solid reason why transference should be teachable.
> I am not saying that any of you are incorrect, in fact, I stated in one of my posts
The professor didn't say everyone was incorrect either. I believe the quote was 'I'm not saying you're incorrect, I just don't like it.'
> formulate your response as to WHY you believe this
You're starting to sound a lot like those little kids who keep asking why every time you give them an answer. (Why can't I have a cookie? Because it's bedtime. Why? Because it's too late for you to be up. Why? Because you have school in the morning. Why? Because that's what you have to do. ad infinitum.)
> - I believe there is not a single logical justifiable reason that trans, given the current situation and based on announcements made by GMs of future developments for our guild, should continue to be non-teachable.
This goes without saying. It's not a real reason.
>- I believe that the problems that caused it to be put into the guild as a requirement would not be that bad of a problem today, given other, more viable ways of learning trans for older generations.
I believe in this, you disagree with nearly everyone else posting, and more importantly with the GMs making the decisions.
> - I believe it will have negligible impact on higher and mid level empaths, while providing an easier training and induction into the guild for the very low level empaths.
I don't think it particularly needs to become that much easier to learn transference while you're young. From what I can tell the first few circles are really difficult (find a specific way to deal with those) and after that it becomes really quite easy.
> - I do not believe it will cut down on the amount of 'mules'.
I don't see how this is a good thing.
> - I believe that the old systems DO need to be questioned as to whether they make sense or not.
See your first 'reason.'
> - I do not believe that trans is in any fashion or form comparable to Multi, as Trans is a primary skill required by one guild to learn, and Multi is not.
This is a side issue.
>- I do not believe making it teachable will significantly cut down the number of empaths vs. number of wounded non-empaths seeking empathic assistance.
Just because something will not make matters worse is no reason to do it. By the same token, leaving it unteachable will not cut down the numbers either.
~Y
*Your witty comment here.* http://www.coalition.fairmont.nu
This is not, however what you said. You're statement accused people of thinking that, whether you meant for it to or not.
> I've asked repeatedly for logical explanations
And you've been given any number of them. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they aren't logical, or correct.
> it's always been like this, therefore it shouldn't change
No one's said that. They have said 'A long time ago, this was the reason Transference got implemented; this reason still seems to hold true to us.'
>See how it works both ways?
No. I don't.
> I'm not saying that any of you are 'bitter' or are showing 'elitism
Quotes from you:
" I truly do not understand the seeming desire from the majority of the 'elder' empaths to continue keeping skills, namely transferrence, difficult to learn."
"So in essence, what you are saying, is "I had it hard, others should also.""
"And many of those same higher level empaths that are against transferrence being teachable are the very same nae-sayers on the bloodsuckers."
You do a really good job of implying that people are bitter and elitist without really saying it, yes.
> Why is the burden of proof on you? Why wouldn't it be?
Because people give logical reasons. The burden of proof really rests on whoever wants to be heard. This post is the first time I've heard you come close to giving a solid reason why transference should be teachable.
> I am not saying that any of you are incorrect, in fact, I stated in one of my posts
The professor didn't say everyone was incorrect either. I believe the quote was 'I'm not saying you're incorrect, I just don't like it.'
> formulate your response as to WHY you believe this
You're starting to sound a lot like those little kids who keep asking why every time you give them an answer. (Why can't I have a cookie? Because it's bedtime. Why? Because it's too late for you to be up. Why? Because you have school in the morning. Why? Because that's what you have to do. ad infinitum.)
> - I believe there is not a single logical justifiable reason that trans, given the current situation and based on announcements made by GMs of future developments for our guild, should continue to be non-teachable.
This goes without saying. It's not a real reason.
>- I believe that the problems that caused it to be put into the guild as a requirement would not be that bad of a problem today, given other, more viable ways of learning trans for older generations.
I believe in this, you disagree with nearly everyone else posting, and more importantly with the GMs making the decisions.
> - I believe it will have negligible impact on higher and mid level empaths, while providing an easier training and induction into the guild for the very low level empaths.
I don't think it particularly needs to become that much easier to learn transference while you're young. From what I can tell the first few circles are really difficult (find a specific way to deal with those) and after that it becomes really quite easy.
> - I do not believe it will cut down on the amount of 'mules'.
I don't see how this is a good thing.
> - I believe that the old systems DO need to be questioned as to whether they make sense or not.
See your first 'reason.'
> - I do not believe that trans is in any fashion or form comparable to Multi, as Trans is a primary skill required by one guild to learn, and Multi is not.
This is a side issue.
>- I do not believe making it teachable will significantly cut down the number of empaths vs. number of wounded non-empaths seeking empathic assistance.
Just because something will not make matters worse is no reason to do it. By the same token, leaving it unteachable will not cut down the numbers either.
~Y
*Your witty comment here.* http://www.coalition.fairmont.nu
Just for the hell of it, I figure I'll add another voice to this long dicussion.
I, for one, have no problem learning trans, it's always teaching that's holding me back. I usually get the ranks at the same time, but that's just cause I train that way (2 ranks of trans, 1.5 teach, stir, add a little unbrella and an attractive bartender... ehm...)
Anyway, I got bored from the massive amount of long posts with quotes going back further than the sand in my arse from walking around in the sandbox, and just wanted to voice that I, and I bet there are others, don't have problems with learning trans. I never did, and I most certainly don't do now.
Vikr, leech count: 43,537 and counting
I, for one, have no problem learning trans, it's always teaching that's holding me back. I usually get the ranks at the same time, but that's just cause I train that way (2 ranks of trans, 1.5 teach, stir, add a little unbrella and an attractive bartender... ehm...)
Anyway, I got bored from the massive amount of long posts with quotes going back further than the sand in my arse from walking around in the sandbox, and just wanted to voice that I, and I bet there are others, don't have problems with learning trans. I never did, and I most certainly don't do now.
Vikr, leech count: 43,537 and counting
I think that Dellica made a few good points I would like to expand on.
<<I think that is the key. A Paladin can be taught Armor, but if he doesn't go fight he isn't going to get weapons, shield, and evasion, and he will only learn one armor. He will not become an effective fighter. He could listen to classes on all those subjects but it would take forever to get enough in each skill to move up the critter ladder. Note, I am not talking about circling, but about becoming able. An empath could sit and listen to transference, powercast, and become very effective as a basic healer.>>
I think I briefly mentioned this concept in one of my earlier posts. Dellica is implying here that while a Paladin could get their entire armor requirement through listening to classes, he is missing out on other skills he could be learning at the same time. There is a benefit, in other words, to going out and Doing the skill rather than Listening about it. In the case of transference, there is very little about the skill that brings benefits at this point. As such, I believe that learning transference through a class would be more beneficial than learning it through healing, because healing can only be performed for a limited amount of time, while listening to a class could go on indefinitely.
<<If the "problem" being addressed is that you think it is too hard to learn transference, there are other ways to solve that issue. If the issue is simply, other guilds can so why shouldn't we, then I don't consider that a good reason to change it. Other guilds can do a lot of things we can't and vice versa.>>
This is also a good point. Obviously there needs to be more avenues to learning transference, but as we have seen with bloodsuckers (and shift to a smaller extent), there are systems in the works to help us learn the skill successfully. It is not necessary to make the skill teachable in order to make it 'learnable.'
Additionally, if transference were meant to be teachable, it would probably not be that complex to code. I'm pretty sure it would have been an easier task to implement than developing and releasing bloodsucker areas. But yet, they chose not to go down that avenue, and I think the issue of past circumstances probably has something to do with that. I also don't think those past circumstances should be regarded lightly, because they indicated the direction of the guild at the time, which is clearly somewhere the GMs don't want to go again.
Meghan
<<I think that is the key. A Paladin can be taught Armor, but if he doesn't go fight he isn't going to get weapons, shield, and evasion, and he will only learn one armor. He will not become an effective fighter. He could listen to classes on all those subjects but it would take forever to get enough in each skill to move up the critter ladder. Note, I am not talking about circling, but about becoming able. An empath could sit and listen to transference, powercast, and become very effective as a basic healer.>>
I think I briefly mentioned this concept in one of my earlier posts. Dellica is implying here that while a Paladin could get their entire armor requirement through listening to classes, he is missing out on other skills he could be learning at the same time. There is a benefit, in other words, to going out and Doing the skill rather than Listening about it. In the case of transference, there is very little about the skill that brings benefits at this point. As such, I believe that learning transference through a class would be more beneficial than learning it through healing, because healing can only be performed for a limited amount of time, while listening to a class could go on indefinitely.
<<If the "problem" being addressed is that you think it is too hard to learn transference, there are other ways to solve that issue. If the issue is simply, other guilds can so why shouldn't we, then I don't consider that a good reason to change it. Other guilds can do a lot of things we can't and vice versa.>>
This is also a good point. Obviously there needs to be more avenues to learning transference, but as we have seen with bloodsuckers (and shift to a smaller extent), there are systems in the works to help us learn the skill successfully. It is not necessary to make the skill teachable in order to make it 'learnable.'
Additionally, if transference were meant to be teachable, it would probably not be that complex to code. I'm pretty sure it would have been an easier task to implement than developing and releasing bloodsucker areas. But yet, they chose not to go down that avenue, and I think the issue of past circumstances probably has something to do with that. I also don't think those past circumstances should be regarded lightly, because they indicated the direction of the guild at the time, which is clearly somewhere the GMs don't want to go again.
Meghan
