> > There isn't enough room for me to put it all so I didn't put
> > the Monsters section there, but if sombody had some extra disk
> > space I could send it there!

> > please download, mirror and distribute!
>
>I must admit to some curiosity as to thinking behind posting
>these files on Yahoo Groups, for two reasons, really.
>
>(1) Scanning in and distributing a book, even one that's out of
> print, is a clear violation of copyright law. It's almost
> certainly also against the Yahoo's usage rules, isn't it?

>(2) Dialog Publishing's work seems to make these files a little
> irrelevant, at this point, no?

>Just curious, really: I'm a newbie to this list, so I don't know
>the protocol around here for this sort of thing.
>
>I, for one, would feel a lot more comfortable if these were taken
>out of the file area. But I'm not a list moderator, or owner, and
>in the end it's there decision.

>(2) Dialog Publishing's work seems to make these files a little
>     irrelevant, at this point, no?

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

>
> From: "davis john" <jrd123@hotmail.com>
> Date: Sat 10/Aug/2002 18:21 GMT
> To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] DQ rulebooks online
>
> Did a web search using 'google' and found their web page. Low and behold 178 page pdf of 2nd edition rules with arcane wisdom slotted nicely into relevant bits plus frontiers of alusia including detailed bits of Thornewood and another area. A very nice job indeed. 2Mb zipped file. Certainly use this file on the lab top for DQ and save the covers of my rulebooks. A number of other full games rule there as well. Dont know how they have got around copyright etc.
>
> John
>
>
>
> >(2) Dialog Publishing's work seems to make these files a little
> > irrelevant, at this point, no?
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> Click here to find your contact lenses!
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
>
>

On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 16:19:34 -0000, archangelkelley wrote:

>This is an interesting thread to me as I have only beem playing DQ for about
>eight years and have only actually played DQ3 as it was the only edition redily
>available at the time.

For the most part, DQ v3 is still the only really readily
available edition of the game, although one can still find copies of
the seccond edition (and even the first edition) at auction sites and
collectible rpg game dealers.

>However I have read through both the second and first edition of DQ,
>both of which can be illegally downloaded from the net, and it seems
>to me as a both a game designer, and long time roleplayer that 3rd Edition
>is more streamlined, internally consistant, less hokey, montyhaul and
>adaptable than either 2nd or 1st edition.

So, let's have some examples of the streamlined, internally
consistent, less hokey, montyhaul, and adaptable aspects of the game,
please? :)

>With all of the readily available free information on the web it seems that
>you could adapt Third or any other edition to any thing you want.

I think that there are certain genres and certain fantasy
concepts that DRAGONQUEST will not work with, although an enterprising
GM could adapt them with a good deal of work. I'd love to see someone
try and use DQ to run Jack Vance's _Dying Earth_, for example.

That said, personally, I think the important thing is that
people are still playing and running DRAGONQUEST, regardless of what
edition it happens to be.

....."Good things come in small packages." - Pandora

JohnK
e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane

> Did a web search using 'google' and found their web page. Low and
> behold 178 page pdf of 2nd edition rules with arcane wisdom slotted
> nicely into relevant bits plus frontiers of alusia including detailed
> bits of Thornewood and another area. A very nice job indeed. 2Mb zipped
> file. Certainly use this file on the lab top for DQ and save the covers
> of my rulebooks. A number of other full games rule there as well. Dont
> know how they have got around copyright etc.
>
>John
>
>
> >(2) Dialog Publishing's work seems to make these files a little
> > irrelevant, at this point, no?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
><http://mobile.msn.com/>http://mobile.msn.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>ADVERTISEMENT
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>----------
>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

> Did a web search using 'google' and found their web page. Low
> and behold 178 page pdf of 2nd edition rules with arcane
> wisdom slotted nicely into relevant bits plus frontiers of
> alusia including detailed bits of Thornewood and another area.
> A very nice job indeed. 2Mb zipped file. Certainly use this
> file on the lab top for DQ and save the covers of my
> rulebooks. A number of other full games rule there as well.
> Dont know how they have got around copyright etc.

> Did a web search using 'google' and found their web page. Low and behold
>178 page pdf of 2nd edition rules with arcane wisdom slotted nicely into
>relevant bits plus frontiers of alusia including detailed bits of
>Thornewood and another area. A very nice job indeed. 2Mb zipped file.
>Certainly use this file on the lab top for DQ and save the covers of my
>rulebooks. A number of other full games rule there as well. Dont know how
>they have got around copyright etc.

 

Did a search and found the website as well.  I don't see the file
though.  I found the dragonquest section.  Where on the site might I find it?


At 07:21 PM 8/10/02, you wrote:
>  Did a web search using 'google' and found their web page.  Low and

----- Original Message -----

From: mailme@leetaylor.freeserve.co.uk

Sent: 12 August 2002 18:35

To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Re: Re: [DQN-list] DQ rulebooks online

 

have you got a link for them?

cheers
Lee


>
> From: "davis john" <jrd123@hotmail.com>
> Date: Sat 10/Aug/2002 18:21 GMT
> To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] DQ rulebooks online
>
>  Did a web search using 'google' and found their web page.  Low and behold 178 page pdf of 2nd edition rules with arcane wisdom slotted nicely into relevant bits plus frontiers of alusia including detailed bits of Thornewood and another area.  A very nice job indeed.  2Mb zipped file.  Certainly use this file on the lab top for DQ and save the covers of my rulebooks.  A number of other full games rule there as well.  Dont know how they have got around copyright etc.
>
> John
>  
>
>
> >(2) Dialog Publishing's work seems to make these files a little
> >     irrelevant, at this point, no?
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>  
> Click here to find your contact lenses!
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
>
>


_______________________________________________________________________
Freeserve AnyTime, only £13.99 per month with one month's FREE trial!
For more information visit http://www.freeserve.com/time/ or call free on 0800 970 8890





Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

> Would you mind giving a site address? I found
> www.dlg.co.nz/roleplay/ and the DragonQuest page, but the only
> things there are a Character Creation Guide, Grievous Injury
> Translator, and Character Record Sheet. No 2nd edition rules
> that I can find...

> > Did a web search using 'google' and found their web page. Low

> >178 page pdf of 2nd edition rules with arcane wisdom slotted nicely

> >relevant bits plus frontiers of alusia including detailed bits of
> >Thornewood and another area. A very nice job indeed. 2Mb zipped

> >Certainly use this file on the lab top for DQ and save the covers

> >rulebooks. A number of other full games rule there as well. Dont

> >they have got around copyright etc.
>
>
> Would you mind giving a site address? I found

> the DragonQuest page, but the only things there are a Character

> Guide, Grievous Injury Translator, and Character Record Sheet. No

> edition rules that I can find...
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:

> > > There isn't enough room for me to put it all so
> I didn't put
> > > the Monsters section there, but if sombody had
> some extra disk
> > > space I could send it there!
>
> I've got a geocities page I'm not using. Contact
> me.
>
> > > please download, mirror and distribute!
> >
> >I must admit to some curiosity as to thinking
> behind posting
> >these files on Yahoo Groups, for two reasons,
> really.
> >
> >(1) Scanning in and distributing a book, even one
> that's out of
> > print, is a clear violation of copyright law.
> It's almost
> > certainly also against the Yahoo's usage
> rules, isn't it?
>
> I'm sure it is.
>
> >(2) Dialog Publishing's work seems to make these
> files a little
> > irrelevant, at this point, no?
>
> Who is "Dialog Publishing" and what work have they
> done?
>
> >Just curious, really: I'm a newbie to this list, so
> I don't know
> >the protocol around here for this sort of thing.
> >
> >I, for one, would feel a lot more comfortable if
> these were taken
> >out of the file area. But I'm not a list moderator,
> or owner, and
> >in the end it's there decision.
>
>
>
>

> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
> http://mobile.msn.com
>
>

> > Did a web search using 'google' and found their web page. Low

> >178 page pdf of 2nd edition rules with arcane wisdom slotted

> >relevant bits plus frontiers of alusia including detailed bits of
> >Thornewood and another area. A very nice job indeed. 2Mb zipped

> >Certainly use this file on the lab top for DQ and save the covers

> >rulebooks. A number of other full games rule there as well. Dont

> >they have got around copyright etc.
>
>
> Would you mind giving a site address? I found

> the DragonQuest page, but the only things there are a Character

> Guide, Grievous Injury Translator, and Character Record Sheet. No

> edition rules that I can find...
>
>
>

> runeshaper writes:
> > I've posted the rulebooks for everyone here:
> >
> >
>

> >
> > There isn't enough room for me to put it all so I
> didn't put
> > the Monsters section there, but if sombody had
> some extra disk
> > space I could send it there!
> >
> > please download, mirror and distribute!
>
> I must admit to some curiosity as to thinking behind
> posting
> these files on Yahoo Groups, for two reasons,
> really.
>
> (1) Scanning in and distributing a book, even one
> that's out of
> print, is a clear violation of copyright law.
> It's almost
> certainly also against the Yahoo's usage rules,
> isn't it?
>
> (2) Dialog Publishing's work seems to make these
> files a little
> irrelevant, at this point, no?
>
> Just curious, really: I'm a newbie to this list, so
> I don't know
> the protocol around here for this sort of thing.
>
> I, for one, would feel a lot more comfortable if
> these were taken
> out of the file area. But I'm not a list moderator,
> or owner, and
> in the end it's there decision.
>
> --
> Viktor
>
>

--- In dqn-list@y..., "runeshaper" <runeshaper@y...> wrote:
> I have been asked to move the DQ files so they are in my new group
> called Dragonquestfiles. It is a yahoo group and everyone can join
> and get the files there.
>
> RuneShaper

The direct link to this group is the following:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dragonquestfiles/

the files area contains:

dq2er.zip

Under the Bantam 2nd Edition PDF folder is:
DQBook1a.pdf Character Creation
DQBook1b.pdf Combat and Weapons
DQBook2a.pdf Magic and Colleges
DQBook2b.pdf Greater Summonings and Demons
DQBook3a.pdf Skills
DQBook3b.pdf Monsters
DQBook3c.pdf Adventure

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

From: Martin Gallo <martimer@mindspring.com>
Date: Wed Aug 14, 2002 1:38pm
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] DQ Files



I tried to find the group, but it does not appear to exist yet.

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: "D. Cameron King" <monarchy2000@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed Aug 14, 2002 5:13pm
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] DQ Files


I can't find your group.

Is the Monsters section going to be available there? I still have
geocities space available if you want to use it...
--------------------------------------------------

>In the section about Fatigue Loss and Recovery, it says that a
>fatigued character can continue to act by making "Willpower Checks"
>every (2 x Endurance) minutes, and that an exhausted character must
>make a "Willpower Check" to engage in any sort of strenuous exercise.

>My question is -- what do people read by the phrase "Willpower
>Check"? Is that (Willpower x 2), (Willpower x 3), or is it judged by
>the referee at the time of the roll, based on the action the player
>wants to take?

>The rules in "Effects of Damage" state that to recover from being
>stunned is ((Willpower x 2) + Remaining Fatigue), so (Willpower x
>3) seems reasonable.
>
>Nowhere can I find something that gives a multiplier as a "standard
>Check" value, but given the range .5 through 5, x3 seems appropriate.

>Comments? (Is this the right list to post this question to?)

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Cameron King" <monarchy2000@hotmail.com>
To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Fatigue Loss and Recovery question


> >In the section about Fatigue Loss and Recovery, it says that a
> >fatigued character can continue to act by making "Willpower Checks"
> >every (2 x Endurance) minutes, and that an exhausted character must
> >make a "Willpower Check" to engage in any sort of strenuous exercise.
>
> Not quite. What it says is that an exhausted character (i.e., one
> whose Fatigue Points are reduced to zero) can continue to exercise
> at any rate less than Strenuous for a period of time during which
> he would normally expend, if he had them, one-half of his initial
> Fatigue Points. This requires no Willpower Check at all. If he
> attempts to engage in Strenuous Exercise, however, he must first
> succeed at a Willpower Check. At the end of this period of time
> during which he would normally expend, if he had them, one-half of
> his initial Fatigue Points, and every (2 x EN) minutes thereafter
> (if he continues to exercise at *any* rate), he must succeed at
> Willpower Checks every (2 x EN) minutes or collapse.
>
> >My question is -- what do people read by the phrase "Willpower
> >Check"? Is that (Willpower x 2), (Willpower x 3), or is it judged by
> >the referee at the time of the roll, based on the action the player
> >wants to take?
>
> It's a stat check as explained in [4.1], and thus the Difficulty
> Factor should be based on the action the player wants to take.
>
> >The rules in "Effects of Damage" state that to recover from being
> >stunned is ((Willpower x 2) + Remaining Fatigue), so (Willpower x
> >3) seems reasonable.
> >
> >Nowhere can I find something that gives a multiplier as a "standard
> >Check" value, but given the range .5 through 5, x3 seems appropriate.
>
> I'd assign the Difficulty Factor based on the rate of exercise
> attempted: 1.0 for Strenuous, 2.0 for Hard, 3.0 for Medium, and
> 4.0 for Light. (5.0 would be the appropriate DF for "leisurely
> walking" or less, if any Check were required to engage in such
> activity.)
>
> >Comments? (Is this the right list to post this question to?)
>
> I can't think of a better place to post this question. :-)
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

> I put it here because no one is making these books
> anymore. So why pay ebay gougers too much money for
> it?

> Plus the other one is already gone and no one else can see it
> on there site but I put a copy of it here too. Everyone can
> get a copy and play DQ! If moderators want to take it down
> they can. get a copy now and post online so everyone can have
> a copy.

> Not only is this the best place to ask this kind of question,
> it is the best place to get the best, and correct, answer!

----- Original Message -----
From: "virtualelder" <virtualelder@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 06:57:48 -0000
To: strategicon@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [strategicon] Vote for GenCon West!


> The new owners of the GenCon game convention are mulling over a West
> coast version of GenCon. Go to here...

http://www.gencon.com/pages/1/index.htm

... to send in your comments.
> Inform all the gamers you know about this and maybe, just maybe, we
> can get GenCon out here.
>
> - Denys
--
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Hullo Mr. Kahane

     Sorry, I don't check out the mail very often. So what I meant by More streamlined (or mor compact if you wish) is that the entire game is now in one volume, instead of several small books, colleges which seemed to introduce magic rules contrary to the designers previous colleges (ie. Greater summonings and Dark Magic) were removed... which also removed the hokiness value of these seriously monty haul spell colleges... and spell cast chances were altered so that some of the more abusable and overly powerful spells became less easy to abuse to to lower, even negative cast chances... therefore providing game balance. This is just my opinion, you may of course disagree if you like, most people who like second or even first edition do, lthough they can never explain what heroic characters would need or gain from the two removed colleges, and a creative GM can come up with far more sinister and less unbalancing effects for the bad guys anyway. As for adaptable, I have managed to adapt much of the rolemaster/Merp material to use in my DQ campaign as well as some Chivalry and sorcery, Gurps, and Dnd (including Magic
Items, monsters and NPC's). That's about it for now, as I stated before, this is MHO, I didn't like the material removed anyway, it was unbalanceing and unnecessary , and I like the need to work harder for certain spells, skills etc, as well as wording changes in certain parts of the book, other than thta it seems identicle to 2nd ed, and can pretty much be used close to interchangably.

Hello,-

no, actually what I have done is go through Mythology and mythological books and create things that were more in line with exisiting mythological data bases.  Acurate Mythology is very impotant to me in fantasy games, and it was my personal opinion that while much in DQ was good, it could be improved upon, so I used all the resources at my disposal to attempt and do so. Your arguments do not seem to stand up to the DQ texts I have read, and while I liked the book of arcane knowledge, it was never published so I do not consider it to be cannon.

As far as the removed colleges not being against the grain of the rest of the colleges in the system, they had soecial abilites and requirements which from what I read were completly contrary to the other spell colleges in the same book.

I spent the last too many years since 1978 playing as many games as I can get my hands on, so while I haven't spent all of that time playing DQ, I have enjoyed it, and based on my experiences with hundreds of other systems, there are serious inconsistancies in the first and second edition, which does not mean I don't enjoy the game, it means it could be a lot better and that I like third edition better.. no room for rebtals or counter arguments, I don't expect you to like third edition and don't expect me to like first edition.

Ah, so you've gotten away from the mythology-based origins and designs of the DQ material? Oh well, that's okay too, since everyone will run their campaign differently.

 Sometimes it is just necessary to be silent, and rest in the fact that we are in the arms of God

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

Hey John, Just wanted to finish my e-mail to you becuase I got interupted and diodn't quite finsh... my remarks are interspersed so you might have to hunt.

 "John M. Kahane" wrote:

Umm, err, the 2nd Edition of DRAGONQUEST was in one volume, but the volume was divided up into books, such as the Book of Magic, Character Generation and so forth. So that's not a valid point here.

SHawn: Well actually it IS VALID.. ie, I never had access to 2nd edition, and the only copies I have are loose printed copies from the internet, very unwieldy to use, although I am spiral binding my Second edition revised with some other works that I have compiled. The copy of first edition which I have is coming apart and I got it from a friend, it is in two books, and I think  there may be other things missing... so having everything available in a single volume is necessary just fro the ability to smoothly teach people the system and run it.. Once I have about four copies of the second edition revised compiled them I will probably switch to using those, plus some of the mythological creatures I have converted or translated from literature. I may incorperate some of the information from poor Brendans Almanac as well, but I have not had the opportunity to read it

>colleges which seemed to introduce magic rules contrary to the designers
>previous colleges (ie. Greater summonings and Dark Magic) were removed...
>which also removed the hokiness value of these seriously monty haul spell
>colleges...

The second edition of the game had no Colleges which "semed to introduce magic rules contrary to the designers' previous colleges." Necromantic Conjurations, Black Magic and Greater Summonings were part of both the 1st Edition and the 2nd Edition, and neither of these Colleges were "Monty Haul" Colleges at all. The 3rd Edition of the game, the TSR version of it, removed these Colleges for other reasons - primarily ones that had to do with the powers that be there no longer wishing to have Colleges that dealt with the "dark arts" in the game; their own D&D at the time had the same thing going on with it, as did most of the rpgs they were doing at the time.

>and spell cast chances were altered so that some of the more abusable and
>overly powerful spells became less easy to abuse to to lower, even negative
>cast chances...
>therefore providing game balance.

Game balance? So you're saying that a College like Water Magics is balanced when compared to Fire Magics or Ensorcelments and Enchantments? Riiiiight....

Shawn Hmmm.. I have never had a single problem with running water magics, do you think it is too powerful  or too weak? I am interested to what what you would do to balnce it out either way.

>This is just my opinion, you may of course disagree if you like,

Of course this is all opinion. When push comes to shove, the reasons you state for liking the 3rd Edition are exactly the reasons that most of us who prefer the 2nd Edition like that one better. And some of us have been running this game for over twenty years using the 2nd Edition, and have never really had any problems with the game mechanics or other stuff in it.

Shawn: I disagree, if no one had any probelms with game mechanics then there would not be thousands of pages of material on the net. Just as an example, I have alway felt that the Military scientist got cheated when Adventuring skills were made, and apparently so do many other people because I have seen several modifications to the Skill on the net. In fact, I have seen house rules, skill modifications and mechanics changes in abundance, now while you may not use any of these, it is easy to see that everyone who has been playing for 20 years does not think the system is just fine. The main problem seems to be that a newbie is having problems with the system, and the old guard doesn't like it. One of the things I have most often read by people who have been playing since time began is that TSR didn't fix the things they thought needed fixed, so to tell me the mechanics are "just fine" disagrees greatly with what I have read, I just have different problems with the system thatn you do, but maybe later I will have some of the same ones... who knows. I like the system... I even like 2nd Edition (but NOT first) but I like 3rd edition a slight bit better.

                                                                           SHawn

 Sometimes it is just necessary to be silent, and rest in the fact that we are in the arms of God

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

> Hey John, Just wanted to finish my e-mail to you becuase I got
> interupted and diodn't quite finsh... my remarks are interspersed so
> you might have to hunt. > "John M. Kahane" wrot

> volume was divided up into books, such as the Book of Magic,
> Character Generation and so forth. So that's not a valid point here.

> SHawn: Well actually it IS VALID.. ie, I never had access to 2nd
> edition, and the only copies I have are loose printed copies from
> the internet, very unwieldy to use, although I am spiral binding my
> Second edition revised with some other works that I have compiled.
> The copy of first edition which I have is coming apart and I got it
> from a friend, it is in two books, and I think there may be other
> things missing... so having everything available in a single volume
> is necessary just fro the ability to smoothly teach people the
> system and run it.. Once I have about four copies of the second
> edition revised compiled them I will probably switch to using those,
> plus some of the mythological creatures I have converted or
> translated from literature. I may incorperate some of the
> information from poor Brendans Almanac as well, but I have not had
> the opportunity to read it
>

>
> Of course this is all opinion. When push comes to shove, the reasons
> you state for liking the 3rd Edition are exactly the reasons that
> most of us who prefer the 2nd Edition like that one better. And some
> of us have been running this game for over twenty years using the
> 2nd Edition, and have never really had any problems with the game
> mechanics or other stuff in it.
>
> Shawn: I disagree, if no one had any probelms with game mechanics
> then there would not be thousands of pages of material on the net.
> Just as an example, I have alway felt that the Military scientist
> got cheated when Adventuring skills were made, and apparently so do
> many other people because I have seen several modifications to the
> Skill on the net. In fact, I have seen house rules, skill
> modifications and mechanics changes in abundance, now while you may
> not use any of these, it is easy to see that everyone who has been
> playing for 20 years does not think the system is just fine. The
> main problem seems to be that a newbie is having problems with the
> system, and the old guard doesn't like it. One of the things I have
> most often read by people who have been playing since time began is
> that TSR didn't fix the things they thought needed fixed, so to tell
> me the mechanics are "just fine" disagrees greatly with what I have
> read, I just have different problems

> but maybe later I will have some of the same

> like the system... I even like 2nd Edition (but NOT first) but I
> like 3rd edition a slight bit better.>

Shawn                       No Stephen, you did not understand the purpose of my post, and you attacked for which I am sorry. I was merely talking with the other DQ lover to see why he felt as he did, he disagreed with my statements quite strongly, which is why I felt inclined expand upon my staetments so that he could do so on his and we could have an intelligent discource discussing which things he felt were valid and why, which were invalid and why and I can do the same. It is a long discussion, and I fully expect that he will rebut some if not all of what I have said. This will, I hope, bring some examples of what he would like to change into the conversation. You missed the entire point of the post which is in part but not whole, everyone makes modifications to suit their own needs so like every system it needs modification. Basically exactly what you stated. The apparent arrogance and rudeness you seem to display merely because you disagree with my opinon is luckily not the attitude of most players of this game, or even most people on the list thankfully. Most people seem to respect than anyone can post an opinon without being flamed. I was merely pointing out my opinon, and asking about inconsistences I saw in his (Johns) arguemnets against me. Since I am new and he is old at this, I thought he could explain his position of the college of water magics for example, and explain what if anything could be done to fix the imbalance he percieved. If you felt any of my comments were directed at you in some unseen way then I apologise that you were offended. From your reply it seems that you may be assuming some things about my statements which are not true... if I had meant to be rude, I assure you I would have used profanity and told everyone they were full of. Instead I disagreed, as I sometimes do when I don't share someones opinion.

                    As far as the second edition is concerned you missed the point of my post again.. my point is that the only way second edition has been available to me is in that form, I never had access to the "original second edition in a book", and in fact never new one existed as I started playing after third edition came out. ... I did not choose to make it that way, and I did not create anything. If you chose do see my staement as invalid becuase you had access to differnet rule sets than i, you are of course in your rights to do so.  I believe a DQ lover on the internet created the files I have access too, and the fact that I don't like having to use them that way, but perhaps once I have been able to bind them I may use them since the person spent a lot of time adding in material... now if it offends you that I want to bind them before I enjoy using or that I didn't have access to the real second edition as you did then I am sorry. It wasn't arogance, and there was no need to be rude, it is simply a fact that this is the only version that was ever available to me. I have never even seen and original copy of the second edition book, since most poeple I know who play second edition ,which is remarkably like third edition,  use a copy printed from the net. My point was also that if the second edition had been available to me in it's original form then I may have liked it better, although I still thought the special requirements for some of the removed colleges were out of the norm when compared to the colleges in the rest of the book, ie. comparing the College of Black magics to the College of fire magics was concerned. If they are consistant, then I am missing it, becuase they don't seem so to me... that is only an example.

And so your opinion is more valid than everyone else's? You, by virtue of
being you, are automatically right in all things?

Shawn       No, I never said that, however you did throughout this post. If you don't care what someone elses opinon is or what they do, than I wonder why you would even take the time to attack them with a responce. I obviously offended you by having a differing opinion which was not the purpose at all. All I said was that I disagre and stated why, it wasn't an attack, it was merely a statement of opinon, I can state my opinons and hear other peoples opinions at the same time without becomeing emotionally distraught or attached to them. As a matter of fact, I used to hate DQ entirely, but several people with whom I have had wonderful disagreements about the system were able to convince me it was worth trying. As I stated, I enjoy the system, so I don't see what the attack is all about.. I certainly wasn't disagreeing with you, I don't even remember talking to you before. No I did not say he was wrong, I said I disagree, and that is neither a staement of right or wrong, as I said earllier, I fully expect he will send a reply and state more completly what he meant, which is unfortunatly how internet discussions must be conducted. I fully expect that after talking to a calm and well spoken player and GM of DQ that perhaps some of my opinions may change as they have in the past, I am not attached to opinons that can be logically argued away. I do however, expect that they be argued away by example.
   I value the opinions that people on this DQ list have, except when they seem to be as inflamitory as this one, and yes I have had problems with some people, like yourself, becomeing rude because I disagree with them, many of them from the "old guard of DQ". ... My opinion was asked for by the person with whom I was speaking, I believe his name is John, and I was doing my best to give it. It does not mean however, that I disvalue the things he is saying, in fact, during every conversation, I am flipping through my rule books and comparing what he says and what I say so that I can try to have a good frame of reference since mine is different from his. It doesn't always work however. I believe he has been playing from first edition and I only came in at third, so it would be somtimes difficult for me to understand his frame of referenece and visa versa.  Again, I appologise that you were obviously quite offended that I would try to rebut John's arguements with what I experienced. I appologise if you think I disvalue your opinon. As far as I know, I have never heard your opinon on DQ rules, and I would never disvalue it, although I might differ with it at times.

  Now, you stated that I was ignoring the fact that people said that TSR broke DQ or some similar thing? I don't remember the exact phrase so forgive me. No I wasn't ignoring that, I have never heard anyone say that, or perhaps I just missed it... so I will pose the question to John tell me what things you feel TSR broke, what were they like before being broken, and why do you feel that they were obviously better before hand. Were the things broken necessary to the game mechanics or were they aditional items which added flavor to the game but the game could still be played without them? WHat things was it that poeple hoped TSR would change in the third edition becuase no one has ever stated that either and I am curious to hear.

 Sometimes it is just necessary to be silent, and rest in the fact that we are in the arms of God

Now this seems interesting Stephen, hmmm, I am a bit curious...

    Which things are strengths of say first edition vice second or third, andwhich things in third are strengths or weaknesses concerning the other two in your opinon? Since you are using a combined version of Dq, as I am sure many people though not all are attempting to do, which things have you combined for your use, and why do you prefer them?

 Stephen Lister wrote:

I have played all three editions, and find
all of them to have different strengths and flaws. Those differences are
what give each version its own particular flavour, and I tend to use a
blend of what I consider best from all of them.

 Sometimes it is just necessary to be silent, and rest in the fact that we are in the arms of God

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

>From: Archangel <archangelkelley@yahoo.com>
>
>No Stephen, you did not understand the purpose of my post

>and you attacked for which I am sorry. I was merely talking with
>the other DQ lover to see why he felt as he did, he disagreed with
>my statements quite strongly, which is why I felt inclined expand
>upon my staetments so that he could do so on his and we could have
>an intelligent discource discussing which things he felt were
>valid and why, which were invalid and why and I can do the same.
>It is a long discussion, and I fully expect that he will rebut
>some if not all of what I have said. This will, I hope, bring some
>examples of what he would like to change into the conversation.
>You missed the entire point of the post which is in part but not
>whole, everyone makes modifications to suit their own needs so
>like every system it needs modification. Basically exactly what
>you stated. The apparent arrogance and rudeness you seem to
>display merely because you disagree with my opinon is luckily not
>the attitude of most players of this game, or even most people on
>the list thankfully.

>Most people seem to respect than anyone can post an opinon
>without being flamed.

>I was merely pointing out my
>opinon, and asking about inconsistences I saw in his (Johns)
>arguemnets against me. Since I am new and he is old at this, I
>thought he could explain his position of the college of water
>magics for example, and explain what if anything could be done to
>fix the imbalance he percieved. If you felt any of my comments
>were directed at you in some unseen way then I apologise that you
>were offended. From your reply it seems that you may be assuming
>some things about my statements which are not true... if I had
>meant to be rude, I assure you I would have used profanity and
>told everyone they were full of. Instead I disagreed, as I
>sometimes do when I don't share someones opinion.
>
>As far as the second edition is concerned you missed the point
>of my post again.. my point is that the only way second edition
>has been available to me is in that form, I never had access to
>the "original second edition in a book", and in fact never new
>one existed as I started playing after third edition came out.

>My point was also that if the second edition had been available
>to me in it's original form then I may have liked it better,

>although I still thought the special requirements for some of
>the removed colleges were out of the norm when compared to the
>colleges in the rest of the book, ie. comparing the College of
>Black magics to the College of fire magics was concerned. If
>they are consistant, then I am missing it, becuase they don't
>seem so to me... that is only an example.

>If you don't care what someone elses opinon is or what they do,
>than I wonder why you would even take the time to attack them with
>a responce. I obviously offended you by having a differing opinion
>which was not the purpose at all. All I said was that I disagre
>and stated why, it wasn't an attack, it was merely a statement of
>opinon, I can state my opinons and hear other peoples opinions at
>the same time without becomeing emotionally distraught or attached
>to them.

>I am not attached to opinons that can be logically argued away.
>I do however, expect that they be argued away by example.

Chello!

 Archangel wrote:

  Now, you stated that I was ignoring the fact that people said that TSR broke DQ or some similar thing? I don't remember the exact phrase so forgive me. No I wasn't ignoring that, I have never heard anyone say that, or perhaps I just missed it...

Let me weigh in as someone who thinks that T$R broke DQ with 3e.

First, the penalties involved in being a non-human were doubled.

Two, the exclusion of the "dark arts" and the "negative cast chances" (already cited) was an attempt to bring a D&D style magic system into existance.  Nobody who knew anything about DQ was ever consulted.

The magic system in 2e was designed to have a "sword & sorcery" feel to it...not a classic fantasy style.  The colleges were never meant to be balanced.  The Namers especially, as per the design notes of Arcane Wisdom, were meant to be the most powerful mages.

Three, there was an early attempt made at "poltical correctness"--courtesan skill was changed to "courtier."  Assassin was excluded. Again, this is contrary to the S&S feel.

Four, there was never any attempt made to support the line (see below).  One (poorly done) module ("Shattered Statue"), set in the Forgooten Realms, does not constitute support by any strectch of the imagination.

The only reason T$R published DQ 3e was to retain control of the TM and copyright status.

I don't even have my 3e...I tossed onto the trash heap and burned it.  My 2e feel apart a few years back...I dismembered it, put the pages in protectors and put them into a binder.  Still more accessible than any other rpg on the market.

Just my thoughts....

Anthony N. Emmel

HMGMA# TX-1-00162-01

Yahoo! Messenger ID: lord_kjeran

�And suppose�suppose that when rationalism does go, it�s as if a bright dazzle has gone for a while and we could see�Dark magic�A universe of marvels where water flows uphill and trolls live in the deepest woods and dragons live under the mountains.�

Stephen King, The Stand

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

>>Ah, so you've gotten away from the mythology-based origins and
>>designs of the DQ material? Oh well, that's okay too, since everyone
>>will run their campaign differently.
>
>no, actually what I have done is go through Mythology and mythological books
>and create things that were more in line with exisiting mythological data bases.

>Acurate Mythology is very impotant to me in fantasy games, and it was
>my personal opinion that while much in DQ was good, it could be improved
>upon,

>Your arguments do not seem to stand up to the DQ texts I have read,
>and while I liked the book of arcane knowledge, it was never
>published

>so I do not consider it to be cannon.

>As far as the removed colleges not being against the grain of the rest
>of the colleges in the system, they had soecial abilites and requirements
>which from what I read were completly contrary to the other spell colleges
>in the same book.

>
> Now this seems interesting Stephen, hmmm, I am a bit
> curious...
> Which things are strengths of say first edition
> vice second or third, andwhich things in third are
> strengths or weaknesses concerning the other two in
> your opinon? Since you are using a combined version
> of Dq, as I am sure many people though not all are
> attempting to do, which things have you combined for
> your use, and why do you prefer them?

> Can this argument please be taken to private email rather than broadcast
> to the entire list? This ground has been covered.
>
> Omaq
>

Brad

certainly, did not realise you had already discussed this as I am new. Sorry

                                   Shawn

 Brad Hakala wrote:

Can this argument please be taken to private email rather than broadcast
to the entire list?  This ground has been covered.

Omaq

 Sometimes it is just necessary to be silent, and rest in the fact that we are in the arms of God

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

Hullo Anthony,

     Okay, in the copy of 3rd ed I have the name courtier is still used instead of cortesean, but assasin is included. Mine must be a slightly later printing or some such. I have played several assasins in DQ, so I would probably be annoyed if that had happened while I was Playing as well.

   And TSR not supporting the DQ stuff... yes... if I had been playing at the time it was published that would have torqued me off too. That no one who ever played or originally worked on DQ was consulted was another tidbit of which I was unaware.

  I don't know that I would have thrown my Dq 3rd Ed away at that point as you did, but I certainly would have been miffed.

    Thanks for the insights from your point of view, very enlightening.

 "Anthony N. Emmel" wrote:

Chello!

 Archangel wrote:

  Now, you stated that I was ignoring the fact that people said that TSR broke DQ or some similar thing? I don't remember the exact phrase so forgive me. No I wasn't ignoring that, I have never heard anyone say that, or perhaps I just missed it...

Let me weigh in as someone who thinks that T$R broke DQ with 3e.

First, the penalties involved in being a non-human were doubled.

Two, the exclusion of the "dark arts" and the "negative cast chances" (already cited) was an attempt to bring a D&D style magic system into existance.  Nobody who knew anything about DQ was ever consulted.

The magic system in 2e was designed to have a "sword & sorcery" feel to it...not a classic fantasy style.  The colleges were never meant to be balanced.  The Namers especially, as per the design notes of Arcane Wisdom, were meant to be the most powerful mages.

Three, there was an early attempt made at "poltical correctness"--courtesan skill was changed to "courtier."  Assassin was excluded. Again, this is contrary to the S&S feel.

Four, there was never any attempt made to support the line (see below).  One (poorly done) module ("Shattered Statue"), set in the Forgooten Realms, does not constitute support by any strectch of the imagination.

The only reason T$R published DQ 3e was to retain control of the TM and copyright status.

I don't even have my 3e...I tossed onto the trash heap and burned it.  My 2e feel apart a few years back...I dismembered it, put the pages in protectors and put them into a binder.  Still more accessible than any other rpg on the market.

Just my thoughts....

Anthony N. Emmel

HMGMA# TX-1-00162-01

Yahoo! Messenger ID: lord_kjeran

�And suppose�suppose that when rationalism does go, it�s as if a bright dazzle has gone for a while and we could see�Dark magic�A universe of marvels where water flows uphill and trolls live in the deepest woods and dragons live under the mountains.�

Stephen King, The Stand

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

 Sometimes it is just necessary to be silent, and rest in the fact that we are in the arms of God

---

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

Hullo John

  Well, I never liked DnD to begin with, just some of there monsters. But as an axample of a creture which I felt was a slight bit out of mythological perspective, one was dragons. They seemed to easy to defeat for me. Many of the Mytholocial storeis I had read about dragons had them destroying villages towns and armies before a hero found a way to defeat them, but my first DQ party defeated several. Since that may not be your experience I won't go into detail, but Increased ED and FT and made the scales absorb more damage.

     DRAGONQUEST, in both the 1st and 2nd Editions, did exactly that. 
D&D certainly did not.

>Acurate Mythology is very impotant to me in fantasy games, and it was
>my personal opinion that while much in DQ was good, it could be improved
>upon,

Shawn      More cannon adventuring skills to choose from, more spell colleges which covered different types of mythological abilities, little things like that.


      Of course it was published, otherwise how would playtesters have
been able to work with it and see it and playtest it? :)

Hmm, then I recieved disinformation from the site I downloaded it at. They said it had been palytested but never officially published and therefore the net was the only place you could get it. If it was in fact a published book from 2nd ed DQ then of cource it would be cannon, my apologies.

>As far as the removed colleges not being against the grain of the rest
>of the colleges in the system, they had soecial abilites and requirements
>which from what I read were completly contrary to the other spell colleges
>in the same book.

Hmmm.. okay that perspective does make sense as well. Where would I find the bit in Arcane knowledge about negative cast chances? can't seem to locate it.

 Sometimes it is just necessary to be silent, and rest in the fact that we are in the arms of God

Thanks William,

     So those things are what you have found useful from each system. Question, for your group do you use the backfire tables from the book or something else, I have seen one or two modified backfire tables on the net. The ones  in the book are the ones I currently use, but another group I play with uses backfire results from MERP with their DQ and it can be very harsh indeed.. even more so than the current tables.

   Thanks for the perspective on the spell cast chances, I have only one adept, a water college adept, and he does backfire quite often, but I still hadn't really thought of it that way. Also, is their a way to make it easier for non adepts to get 8 at 4, 4 at 8 etc?

 Sometimes it is just necessary to be silent, and rest in the fact that we are in the arms of God

>From: William Hough <houghpt@yahoo.com>

>Finally, even though I like 2nd ed
>magic a lot better, the damned Fire College has GOT to
>be toned down. 7 summoned efreets at the Adventurer
>level? Every other pulse? Get the fugg outta here!

>Giant Glaive requires a 26
>PS to wield in 3rd, as opposed to 22 in 2nd Edition
>(no wonder no-one ever picked up the two handed sword
>at +7 with it's max RK of 5 when they could have the
>ass-kicking Giant Glaive at +9 with its max RK of 9).