> 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?

> >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).
>

> We found the backfire tables a good deterrent to
> over-use of magic
> (except for those with dice lice), but found that
> players would find
> themselves stuck without a character to play for a
> good part of the
> evening as a result of some of the backfires. We,
> therefore, instituted
> a policy of making backfires, other than the
> additional fatigue
> backfires, resist-able by the affected character,
> without any
> same/different branch modifiers. This also provides
> opportunity and
> motivation to rank the Purification ritual and those
> counterspells. It
> also adds the entertainment value of watching a
> player blow his brains
> out casting the counterspell before he gets around
> to the "risky" spell,
> and hearing a player groan about a low roll on the
> counterspell that
> would have resulted in a success with the spell he
> was protecting
> himself against.
>
> We did have to make a modification to the Fire
> Magics G-8 Protection
> Against Magical Fire to stipulate that backfires
> happen inside the
> protection and don't make the fire mage immune to
> the damage effects of
> his own backfires. (btw, we also have established a
> Guild of Fire Mages
> law against casting that spell on anyone but a fire
> mage, except in
> catastrophic situations. Don't want to make a habit
> of gutting your own
> college. Ya break da law, Vinnie breaks ya legs.)
>
> Russ Jones
>
>hey well ill tell you what i had an elven

>Mr King: I don't understand this comment. What do you
>mean, "7 summoned efreets at the Adventurer level?"
>
>Oh. Well, spell S-16 of the College of Fire Magics
>(2nd Ed) shows a base chance of 25% (kinda high in my
>opinion) and an xp multiple of only 225(!). So an
>adept with say, 20 MA (certainly not an extravagant
>score) and Rank 8 in the spell (realistically
>achievable in about 8 game sessions), has a 54% chance
>to summon an efreet "which will be sympathetic to the
>summoner and usually attempt to aid him" every other
>Pulse (prepare, cast, prepare, cast...etc).
>
>Now, a superficial persusal of the spell, and even a
>close glance at it, does not indicate any limit of the
>number of efreets an adept can summon, provided the
>Fatigue required is up to snuff.
>
>I guess I kinda rushed that statement...I am still
>smoldering about a player of an adventurer-level
>character, several years back, who did this very
>thing, until the night he backfired and I suddenly had
>his ass up in front of the efreet king and his court
>for "abuse and enslavement of his subjects." The
>hapless fire mage agreed to be more conservative in
>the future.

> > >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).
> >
>Mr King: As long as they *also* have the 18 MD
>required...
>
>True, but let's look at it from the perspective of a
>player who's been through his share of games (and
>given the high mortality rate of DQ combat, his share
>of characters). Not a veteran, but perhaps a
>second-year student. Now, he's a-rolling up his ninth
>BUC (back-up character), and he wants a decent shot at
>survival this time around. My guess is that, if he
>really wants to get that glaive, he's *going* to slap
>an 18 down for Manual Dexterity and a 16 down for
>Physical Strength. Even if his character points are
>but 82 total, he could have a PS 16, MD 18, AG 15
>(modified 12 for the Improved Plate and resultant TMR
>of 4), MA 5, WP 10, and EN 18 (still needing 7
>effective DP to Stun). Oh yeah, FT 21. That is a
>playable character in my book.

>I used to think that APA (Action Point Allowance) in
>the 1st edition was inferior to the present 2nd/3rd
>combat system, being mostly replaced by TMR and
>"Actions of (Non) Engaged Figures". But now I'm not so
>sure. The one thing that impressed me about the
>Fallout PC games was a similar system (also called
>Action Points). It seems that assigning a certain
>point value to various actions in DQ is not so
>illogical. But I still don't use it. Perhaps 4th?

I think I saw some advanced combat manuvers or options in either poor Brendans Almanac or the book of worldly endevor. I don't remember where I saw those though.

What 2nd edition combat rules could benefit from are more "special"
attacks/maneouvres ... and it would be nice to see some things (e.g.,
grapple) have some tie-in with Rank in Unarmed Combat, etc.

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

> >Mr King: As long as they *also* have the 18 MD
> >required...

> >True, but let's look at it from the perspective of
> a
> >player who's been through his share of games (and
> >given the high mortality rate of DQ combat, his
> share
> >of characters). Not a veteran, but perhaps a
> >second-year student. Now, he's a-rolling up his
> ninth
> >BUC (back-up character), and he wants a decent shot
> at
> >survival this time around. My guess is that, if he
> >really wants to get that glaive, he's *going* to
> slap
> >an 18 down for Manual Dexterity and a 16 down for
> >Physical Strength. Even if his character points are
> >but 82 total, he could have a PS 16, MD 18, AG 15
> >(modified 12 for the Improved Plate and resultant
> TMR
> >of 4), MA 5, WP 10, and EN 18 (still needing 7
> >effective DP to Stun). Oh yeah, FT 21. That is a
> >playable character in my book.

> Oh, I agree. I'm a huge fan of the glaive in DQ.
> But you were talking about the *giant* glaive,
> which requires a PS of 22 (rather than 16). Now
> you've gotta shave 6 more points off AG, WP, and/or
> EN. That makes the 82-point character a bit less
> playable, in my opinion.

> But that's nitpicking with you. Assuming that the
> character has the requisite stats for either
> weapon, it's true that there is no reason--no
> reason at all--to pick a two-handed sword over
> a giant glaive. And that's kind of unfortunate,
> in my opinion. But I don't think that upping
> the PS requirement to 26 changes all that much.

    While we seem to be on the subject of weapons, does anyone have any insight as to why the broadsword and shortsword can only be ranked to 6(IIRC) while the hand and half sword can be ranked to 8 (IIRC). It seems to me that used one handed the broadsword and bastard sword would use similar style in executing attacks, but perhaps there was a developer note which may explain this and I just missed it.

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

>
> While we seem to be on the subject of weapons,
> does anyone have any insight as to why the
> broadsword and shortsword can only be ranked to
> 6(IIRC) while the hand and half sword can be ranked
> to 8 (IIRC). It seems to me that used one handed the
> broadsword and bastard sword would use similar style
> in executing attacks, but perhaps there was a
> developer note which may explain this and I just
> missed it.
>
>
>
> 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

             Wrong me, of course you are right, max rank 7. Hmmm, yes I had never considered the two handed manuvers as the reason for ranking it that way, however, it would make sense. Thanks.

                                Shawn

 William Hough wrote:

The information I have in my DQ 2nd and 3rd show the
hand and half going to a max Rank of 7.

You may have hit upon the reason for the difference;
since the bastard sword also involves knowledge of
two-handed manuevers, not to mention switching between
the two modes, that may be why the developers decided
upon a max Rank of 7. Just my two pesos worth.

Peace,

Pat Hough (William to a Matrix Agent)


--- "S.M. Kelley" <archangelkelley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>     While we seem to be on the subject of weapons,
> does anyone have any insight as to why the
> broadsword and shortsword can only be ranked to
> 6(IIRC) while the hand and half sword can be ranked
> to 8 (IIRC). It seems to me that used one handed the
> broadsword and bastard sword would use similar style
> in executing attacks, but perhaps there was a
> developer note which may explain this and I just
> missed it.
>
>
>
>  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


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com


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

>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.

>>>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 let's see some examples of this so-called "improvement."
>
>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.

>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.

Hullo John, on twelve hour shifts for the 9/11 anniversary so I have a bit of break time to respond here, will try to make it quick.

when I was running and playing D&D, enivronments and locations would
constantly get new creatures depending on which new beasties book came
out.   And, of course, most of the beasties had no basis in mythologiy
at all.

Shawn: would definately concur with you there... however, at the time I was playing it didn't really seem that there was much else out there. I had never even heard of DQ for instance, until eight years ago, and only then did I discover It actually came out in 1980 or so.

>They seemed to easy to defeat for me.

     What??  ::Look of astonishment::

>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.

       Wait a minute.   Dragons tend to have Endurance and Fatigue that
is at least 10 times that of a normal character, the fire breath is a
devastating weapon, most dragons have at least 10 point armour
everywhere (except one weak spot), and if you hit a dragon with a
non-magical weapon, the weapon's going to be destroyed very quickly. 
What the frell was the party equipped with that they could kill a
dragon so easily?

Shawn: Yes and after conversing with party members from that same group, I realised that the Gm we had was extremely generous in giving out potions and magic items. My character was only Mercenary level, but the rest of the party was Hero level. I seem to recall that until we faced the last dragon I died in every adventure. However, the rest of the party always seemed to eat those dragons for breakfast. If I factor in the overage of magic potions and items then I guess the dragons wouldn't be that easy. However,I still would like to see Dragons capable of facing a medireview army of 2000 plus and burning them to the ground, I'm not sure that the book dragons could.

Actually, when the game fell apart because of the
self-destruction of SPI, there was bound to be a dearth of game
materials for the world.   Most of us who've been running the game for
so long have added all sorts of new skills (my own campaign has
Craftsman, Armourer, Scholar, Scribe, Warrior, Hunter, and around eight
or more new skills in it) not to mention Colleges of Magic (I've got an
extra seven or so in my campaign).  The game was only really getting
off the ground when the company went under, so...

Shawn: Are these the same skills found in poor Brendans almanac, or different?

Arcane Wisdom was the definitive source of
material on creating magical items, gem and herb lore, and the rules
and mechanics for creating new spells and rituals.  It still is.

Shawn: and it does have a few really nice magic items in it.

I have to wonder if there is actually a
net copy of DRAGONQUEST 2nd Edition and/or Arcane Wisdom on the net
that are the actual, original versions of both products with no changes
or alterations made to them.

Shawn: I am fairly certain the ones I have are not exact original versions... and I doubt I would be able to distinguish the added material from the original as the person who compiled it did a good Job of working in the new data.

Just because it wasn't published officially, doesn't mean it's
not canon.

Shawn: okay, I guess that would depend on ones point of view, but I can buy that, especially since it seems to be taken from official playtest copies. 



      It's in the section on the rules for creating spells, rituals,
and talents.   I believe in the section dealing with the Base Chances
and the like, but I could be mistaken.  Don't have my copy of AW handy
at the moment.

Shawn: thanks for the info, found it.

....."It certainly gets drafty when they leave the doors open." - Pal Kenzy (SC

 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! News - Today's headlines

>From: "S.M. Kelley" <archangelkelley@yahoo.com>
>Yes and after conversing with party members from that same group,
>I realised that the Gm we had was extremely generous in giving out
>potions and magic items. My character was only Mercenary level, but
>the rest of the party was Hero level. I seem to recall that until
>we faced the last dragon I died in every adventure. However, the
>rest of the party always seemed to eat those dragons for breakfast.
>If I factor in the overage of magic potions and items then I guess
>the dragons wouldn't be that easy. However,I still would like to
>see Dragons capable of facing a medireview army of 2000 plus and
>burning them to the ground, I'm not sure that the book dragons
>could.

> Well, the first thing a dragon would do when faced
> by an army of
> 2000 is induce fear. Roll (3 x WP) or drop
> everything and run.
> Assuming average human Willpowers of 10, that means
> 1400 of your
> soldiers are now, in their haste to escape,
> trampling the 600 or
> so guys who *did* manage to conquer their fear.
>
> If there's much of an "army" left to burn after
> *that* gets
> straightened out, the dragon can start whipping off
> some spells.
> Let's assume the dragon is a Sorcerer of the Mind
> (the most
> common college for dragons), and that he has the
> minimum Rank
> of 10 with all spells. I'd have the dragon cast a
> Spell of
> Invisibility on himself before doing anything else.
> Now,
> assuming an average human Perception of 8, 92% of
> your 600
> remaining soldiers are unable to sense the dragon in
> any way.

> True, the 48 remaining soldiers who *can* sense the
> dragon may
> pose some threat to it--I mean, you can always get
> lucky on your
> Strike Check and score a Direct Endurance hit--but I
> wouldn't
> worry too much. With its own incredible Perception,
> the dragon
> shouldn't have too much trouble concentrating its
> firepower on
> the few soldiers who dare to take a swing at it.
> And they won't
> last long.
>
> All in all, I'd say a 2000-man army doesn't pose
> much of a
> threat to the standard "book dragon" (even assuming
> a dragon
> chose to face such odds).

Excellent points, I don't recall our GM useing any of the spell abilities of the Dragons, but it was nearly eight years ago. However, I can see that he used them ineffectivly against our parties. If they had been used in this manner I don't think the party would have survived.

 William Hough wrote:

 

 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! News - Today's headlines

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

From: William Hough

Sent: 13 September 2002 19:44

To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [DQN-list] Common RPG Phrases

 

Hello, all.

Seems like there are certain verbal gems out there
that we hear a lot at roleplaying games. Or perhaps
they are oft-repeated movie lines that just somehow
seem to fit. Or they are spawned out of sheer
frustration. In any case, they have become a time-
honored part of our gaming culture.

The following list of phrases comes from an idea I got
from the person who taught me DragonQuest, Lawrence G.

"Doc" Beck. Although Doc and I had a falling out years

ago, I still like to give credit where it is due.

So, here are:

> Hello, all.
>
> Seems like there are certain verbal gems out there
> that we hear a lot at roleplaying games. Or perhaps
> they are oft-repeated movie lines that just somehow
> seem to fit. Or they are spawned out of sheer
> frustration. In any case, they have become a time-
> honored part of our gaming culture.
>
> The following list of phrases comes from an idea I
> got
> from the person who taught me DragonQuest, Lawrence
> G.
>
> "Doc" Beck. Although Doc and I had a falling out
> years
>
> ago, I still like to give credit where it is due.
>
> So, here are:
>
>
> Common Phrases Heard at Roleplaying Games
>
> 1. Is it/are we surprised?
> 2. Loot the bodies.
> 3. Missed by *one*.
> 4. Just made it.
> 5. What did he/she have on him/her?
> 6. Hand me my *other* dice.
> 7. Ought-one. (01)
> 8. *Roll* again.
> 9. In - the - shorts.
> 10. Alright, grab everything that kills.
> 11. It's not a dungeon, it's an underground
> fortified
> defense installation.
> 12. Best foot forward.
> 13. Let's get outta here!
> 14. Resistance is futile.
> 15. Eat this.
> 16. Die already!
> 17. Did I make it?
> 18. He's/She's/It's toast.
> 19. I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.
> 20. Listen for noise.
> 21. I listen at the door.
> 22. I'll guard the rear.
> 23. Beat feet.
> 24. Put me somewhere in the middle.
> 25. I'm in the lead.
> 26. Can I try again?
> 27. Maybe you can help me, I was looking for my
> boat.
> 28. I don't think these guys are here to sell us
> insurance.
> 29. I have you now.
> 30. Who's their leader?
> 31. Can I see him/her/it from here?
> 32. Wrong answer.
> 33. Search for secret doors.
> 34. Sorry, I thought I was putting my hand into *my*
> pocket.
> 35. Set up a defensive perimeter.
> 36. Kill 'em all!
> 37. I say we take off and nuke the entire site from
> orbit.
> 38. I'll take first watch.
> 39. Who's gonna go first/last?
> 40. Thrills! Chills! Fresh fruit.
> 41. Take all their stuff.
> 42. Wait for it...
> 43. Sploot.
> 44. God, no.
> 45. Let's roll for initiative.
> 46. Beat that!
> 47. I evade.
> 48. What's their defense (value)?
> 49. Did I take any damage?
> 50. You *want* to save.
> 51. Oh shit.
> 52. It's all ____________'s fault.
> 53. This sucks.
> 54. Sounds good.
> 55. Here we go...
> 56. I ain't going in there.
> 57. I'll follow you.
> 58. I follow him/her.
> 59. That's not a bad idea.
> 60. I detect traps.
> 61. Come and get me.
> 62. That had to hurt.
> 63. Next!
> 64. Gotta be a mango tree around here somewhere.
> 65. Has-san chop!
> 66. I'll run next game.
> 67. Is this character OK?
> 68. We go back to town and train.
> 69. Ouchie.
> 70. Cocked die.
> 71. For the love of...
> 72. What *is* the word of unbinding?
> 73. What do we get for experience?
> 74. I...I don't know that!
> 75. Gleam!
> 76. Make a Stealth roll.
> 77. Talk, you.
> 78. Ssssshhhing!
> 79. Charging, full TMR!
> 80. Move half and attack.
> 81. Prepare spell.
> 82. Prepare weapon and shield.
> 83. Roll to recover.
> 84. Death! Death!
> 85. He/She/It drops unconscious.
> 86. Slow to one-half impulse power.
> 87. This is gonna hurt.
> 88. That's a critical.
> 89. Glorp.
> 90. My character's gonna look for an
> astrologer/healer/
> alchemist/tavern, etc.
> 91. Bink!
> 92. Head for the bar/tavern/inn/etc.
> 93. Sucks ass.
> 94. Backshots go first.
> 95. Attempt to close and grapple.
> 96. Parry, reposte!
> 97. To our deaths, then!
> 98. Save for half.
> 99. What is it's/her/his Armor Class?
> 100. Is it/she/he dead?
> 101. Charging, non-pole weapon.
> 102. What's the range penalty?
> 103. OK, then, we curse your name.
> 104. Run *towards* the danger.
> 105. Prepare sword and hobbit.
> 106. Who's on watch?
> 107. Make a tracking roll.
> 108. Who's got some rope?
> 109. Let's get on with this game.
> 110. Jesus Saves. Roll for initiative.
> 111. 'Tis a terrible noise; we must flee.
> 112. Hit the deck!
> 113. Just die, will ya?
> 114. Dice Storm!!
> 115. What's the formula for
> Stealth/Horsemanship/etc.?
>
> Always open to additions!
>
> Peace,
>
> Pat (called William by the inquisitors)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
> http://news.yahoo.com
>

>Seems like there are certain verbal gems out there
>that we hear a lot at roleplaying games. Or perhaps
>they are oft-repeated movie lines that just somehow
>seem to fit.

> Well, between Monty Python and the Holy Grail,
> Hitchhiker's Guide to the
> Galaxy, The Princess Bride and the Simpsons, you can
> construct an entire
> evening of role-playing dialogue without ever saying
> anything original.

 Actually, I thought most of your lines were funny, and I have even heard one or two of them at the game tables I have been at. One that really made me chuckle was the "Jesus Saves" One. A guy at my gaming table, when in need of a great roll, would cup the dice in his hand, blow on them twice and then roll his eys skyword chanting the Mantra "puerify the motive and the luck will follow). It was amusing to us anyway 

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

>Yes, well, Monty Python (which includes not only the
>Holy Grail, but also Life of Brian and a little bit of
>The Meaning of Life) in combination with a roleplaying
>game is old and tired. That's why they for the most
>part don't show up on my list. I mean, MPATHG and D&D
>were born in the same year: 1974. And 28 years later,
>you still hear it at every gaming con, and with that
>annoying tone and exuberance that suggests the speaker
>thought it was an original idea!

> Well, the first thing a dragon would do when faced
> by an army of
> 2000 is induce fear. Roll (3 x WP) or drop
> everything and run.
> Assuming average human Willpowers of 10, that means
> 1400 of your
> soldiers are now, in their haste to escape,
> trampling the 600 or
> so guys who *did* manage to conquer their fear.
>
> If there's much of an "army" left to burn after
> *that* gets
> straightened out, the dragon can start whipping off
> some spells.
> Let's assume the dragon is a Sorcerer of the Mind
> (the most
> common college for dragons), and that he has the
> minimum Rank
> of 10 with all spells. I'd have the dragon cast a
> Spell of
> Invisibility on himself before doing anything else.
> Now,
> assuming an average human Perception of 8, 92% of
> your 600
> remaining soldiers are unable to sense the dragon in
> any way.

> True, the 48 remaining soldiers who *can* sense the
> dragon may
> pose some threat to it--I mean, you can always get
> lucky on your
> Strike Check and score a Direct Endurance hit--but I
> wouldn't
> worry too much. With its own incredible Perception,
> the dragon
> shouldn't have too much trouble concentrating its
> firepower on
> the few soldiers who dare to take a swing at it.
> And they won't
> last long.
>
> All in all, I'd say a 2000-man army doesn't pose
> much of a
> threat to the standard "book dragon" (even assuming
> a dragon
> chose to face such odds).

>As we have interpreted it, ritual spell preparation requires that
>the time to be spent in preparation is committed at the beginning
>of the ritual, so using opportunity fire in the middle of a ritual
>is not permitted.

--- In dqn-list@y..., Bruce Probst <bprobst@n...> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 11:40:02 -0700 (PDT), William Hough
<houghpt@y...>
> wrote:
>
> >Seems like there are certain verbal gems out there
> >that we hear a lot at roleplaying games. Or perhaps
> >they are oft-repeated movie lines that just somehow
> >seem to fit.
>
> Well, between Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Hitchhiker's Guide
to the
> Galaxy, The Princess Bride and the Simpsons, you can construct an
entire
> evening of role-playing dialogue without ever saying anything
original.
>
> "None shall pass!"
> "It's only a flesh wound!"
> "Run away!"
> "Come see the oppression inherent in the system!"
> "Help help I'm being repressed!"
> "I am <insert name>, you killed my father, prepare to die!"
> "This is some new meaning of the word <insert word, usually 'safe'>
that I
> was previously unacquainted with."
> "So this is it, we're going to die" followed by "Stop SAYING that!"
> "Krusty wants out!"
> and of course
> "D'oh!"
>
> etcetera ad infinitum
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce Probst bprobst@n... ICQ 6563830
> Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
> "Make it stop! MAKE IT STOP!!"
> ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

Hey everyone,

I would appreciate someone emailing Mr. Mark Bagnall, a fellow DragonQuest player who recently got himself an Internet account, and instruct him on how to join the dqn-list Yahoo newsgroup. I would appreciate it.

Mark's email is:

scifimage01@yahoo.com

Thanks,

Pat Hough

> --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, William Hough
> wrote:
> >

> account not too long ago. Could someone please
> email him and tell him
> how to join this newsgroup? I would appreciate

Hi!

when a assasin  uses his garrotte to entrangle a person, he must make a Strike chance only one time, and then damage is made atomaticaly every future turn.

1)If the dice roll was a 15% of the SC, must he substract EN points every round?

2)and if the roll was a 5% of the SC?

3) A person that is being entrangled, can attack?

4) to entrangle a person, you have to execute a Close & Grapple?

>From: H�ctor Rosso <hector_rosso@yahoo.com.ar>

>when a assasin uses his garrotte to entrangle a person, he must make a
>Strike chance only one time, and then damage is made atomaticaly every
>future turn.
>1)If the dice roll was a 15% of the SC, must he substract EN points every
>round?

>2)and if the roll was a 5% of the SC?

>3) A person that is being entrangled, can attack?

>4) to entrangle a person, you have to execute a Close & Grapple?

>3) A person that is being entrangled, can attack?

>4) to entrangle a person, you have to execute a Close & Grapple?

OK, thanks!

and forgive me about my english speeling, its so bad....

1)The rules says that, when a character uses his garrotte to strangle a person, the victim may avoid future damage by making some efective damage to the assassin, Don´t you think that the victim´s strike checks needs a penalization.

 2) efective damage, is damage inflicted directly to the character body (EN and FT)  ??

3) I don´t understand the way that active resistace is made, the rulebook says that is cosidered as an evade action, and you must declare what spell are you going to actively resist, I understand that you can only actively resist a spell if you see the caster that is preparing the spell, this is correct?.

I describe you a case that I can´t solve about active resistance, you have a caster that is going to cast a spell on a character

Turn 1) the victim wins the initiative, and makes any past action, wathever. Then the caster prepares the spell

Turn 2) the casters wins initiative, and, POW!! cast the spell against the character, so the character is unable to use his Active resistance check,

I know that if you win the initiative you may let the other side to act first, in these case the character see the caster preparing the spell, but is the only solution??

>From: H�ctor Rosso <hector_rosso@yahoo.com.ar>

>1)The rules says that, when a character uses his garrotte to strangle a
>person, the victim may avoid future damage by making some efective damage
>to the assassin, Don�t you think that the victim�s strike checks needs a
>penalization.

> 2) efective damage, is damage inflicted directly to the character body
>(EN and FT) ??

>3) I don�t understand the way that active resistace is made, the rulebook
>says that is cosidered as an evade action, and you must declare what spell
>are you going to actively resist, I understand that you can only actively
>resist a spell if you see the caster that is preparing the spell, this is
>correct?.

>I describe you a case that I can�t solve about active resistance, you have
>a caster that is going to cast a spell on a character
>Turn 1) the victim wins the initiative, and makes any past action,
>wathever. Then the caster prepares the spell
>Turn 2) the casters wins initiative, and, POW!! cast the spell against the
>character, so the character is unable to use his Active resistance check,
>I know that if you win the initiative you may let the other side to act
>first, in these case the character see the caster preparing the spell, but
>is the only solution??

>Officially, yes. That's why I suggest you roll for Initiative
>just *once*, at the beginning of the combat...to avoid exactly
>this sort of unfairness. It works much better that way.

> >Officially, yes. That's why I suggest you roll for Initiative
> >just *once*, at the beginning of the combat...to avoid exactly
> >this sort of unfairness. It works much better that way.
>
>I disagree -- I don't see it as "unfair" at all. Remember, winning the
>iniative doesn't mean you automatically go first; it means that you can
>choose whether you go first or second.
>
>The ability to occasionally manage the "double whammy" (also known as the
>"flip-flop") is an important tactical consideration. It just emphasises
>that having the initiative is important.

>
>It is precisely the "double whammy" or "flip-flop" that I find
>unfair. In a game system such as DQ, allowing one side to take
>*two* turns before the opposing side takes one is poor design.
>To argue that the opposing side can redress this imbalance by
>opting to delay its own action on Round 1 just encourages
>unnecessary delay of the game, dragging out the resolution of
>action in an already cumbersome (though quite enjoyable) combat
>system.
>
>Furthermore, it is horribly unrealistic. Real-world combat is
>not divided into 5-second increments where it is possible for
>one side to "have the initiative" at one point, only to lose it
>5 seconds later. Using such a mechanic in a game system like
>DQ results in absurdities like the situation described by Hector,
>where an individual either Actively Resists the opponent's spell
>or stands helplessly to one side as the spell is cast without
>interruption--based entirely upon whether his side "won the
>initiative" in the *first* 5-second period only to "lose the
>initiative" in the *second* 5-second period.
>
>So while I agree with you that "having the initiative is
>important," I must disagree that it makes any sense to re-roll
>it every Pulse.

>From: Jason Winter <Alarian@harbornet.net>

>I think not to re-roll every round is extremely unrealistic
>personally. Rolling initiative only once per combat results in a very
>unrealistic battle. Fighter one chops at fighter 2, ok, fighter two chops
>at fighter one then back to the start. Imagine any movie/story/whatever
>where a battle goes back and fourth like this.

>In the heat of combat, bad
>guy takes a swing at good guy, good guy swings back, then good guy waits
>around holding his punch for bad guy to get his "fair" swing at him in
>first. Then bad guy waits around for good guy to get his fair swing in at
>good guy, and so on. talk about taking the excitement out of an action
>scene!

>The randomness of who is going to go first in any given round adds a lot of
>excitement to combat if you ask me.

>Will the mage get that spell off in
>time before the charging fighter can attack. In your version, everyone
>knows the answer to this 3 rounds before it even happens.

>When rolling
>initiative every round, no one ever knows what is going to happen next.

>Do
>you risk everything doing a long shot that will only work if you win
>initiative?

>Who knows. If everyone knows their initiative for the entire
>combat, I personally feel it takes a away a lot of the excitement of
>battle. No one is going to try anything risky if they know beforehand it
>will not work.

>I can't tell you how many times over the years the party
>cheered as someone won a critical initiative or groaned when they lost
>one. I can't imagine doing away with that.

>It would be one thing if it
>were somehow unbalanced against one side, but it's not. Either side can
>and will win initiative at any given time.

>All in all, it's a rule I feel is vital to the entire game.

>The only
>advantage I could see to rolling only once for initiative would be to make
>combats much simpler.

>GM rolls all the monster attacks at once, party
>rolls all their attacks, next turn. What you lose though far outweighs the
>benefits though in my point of view, so I think I'll keep rolling every
>round.

I'm more than willing to do it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rodger Thorm [mailto:rodger_thorm@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:19 AM
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DQN-list] Making a WebRPG archive

By now, I think a number of you have seen that things
have been changed again over at WebRPG, and there is a
new DragonQuest forum there:

http://forums.rpghost.com/forumdisplay.php?s=31ad23b20ec261d3c8214b3a3a693497&forumid=64

I don't think the old forum will stay around for ever,
and I would like to see it archived in some fashion,
but I don't really have the time to take on another
new project.

Would someone else be willing to go through and copy
all of the old messages into a text file or a set of
text files?  I'd be happy to have them on file in
this, or one of the other DQ groups, or on someone
else's server.  But I think it would be very useful to
get all of this information gathered and saved
someplace before it is lost.

The old files are at:
http://townhall.webrpg.com/index.phtml?groupid=59

  --Rodger Thorm

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>The Book of Toth is mentioned in the College of Greater Summonings
>(2nd Ed. hardcover). It involves Succubi and Incubi. Has anyone
>used this in their campaigns?
>Why would it only relate to these creatures? It seems like you could
>build a whole campaign around this sort artifact.

>This leads me to a second more complicated question:
>What do you think of the campaign world of DQ?

>The Book of Toth is mentioned in the College of Greater Summonings
>(2nd Ed. hardcover). It involves Succubi and Incubi. Has anyone
>used this in their campaigns?
>Why would it only relate to these creatures? It seems like you could
>build a whole campaign around this sort artifact.

>What do you think of the campaign world of DQ?
>I have heard many people mention that they liked it. I have always
>found it very open ended. By that I mean that I felt it allowed you
>in impose what ever world you wanted to on the game very easily. I
>felt that trying to piece together a game world from the published
>materials (adventures, Alusia) was a huge chore. Has anyone done
>this?

> The Book of Toth is a "real" document. It's some sort of history of the
> Egyptian mythology; in modern astrological/mystic circles it's strongly
> associated with the Tarot (or the Tarot is associated with it).

> Precisely how this links to succubi I have no idea. My (admittedly not
> excessively thorough) research didn't yield any clues. Unfortunately I'm
> separated by quite some distance from my "Encyclopedia of Demons" which has
> been very useful in the past for filling in some of the questions raised by
> the DQ rules.

> In general, note that very little, if any, of the "mystic" stuff in DQ was
> made-up for the game. Certainly most of, if not all, the demonic stuff was
> researched from "real" demonology sources (all of the DQ Greater Demons are
> from the "Book of Solomon", a classic demonology text).

> I like Alusia for all the ideas of a past history it gives, and the variety
> of locations it provides in a relatively small geographical area (compared
> to many of the D&D world maps, which document rather enormous tracts of land
> with very little imagination, as though area is a substitute for
> creativity).
>
> I was able to use the "printed" Alusian history to generate an overall
> history for my campaign world, and I have a general idea of how Alusia fits
> into the rest of my world (not that I ever mapped it in any great detail).
>

> I'd love to find a good copy of the Alusia material to look at

> actually buy it on eBay. Hard to come by though. Sometimes,

> even offer maps of it there, but, again, I'd like to authenticate

> before I take the risk of sending money.
>

>Actually, I think the Egyptian document would be the Book of Thoth, not
>Toth. It's been some time since I've read much of either occultism or
>Egyptian mythology, but Thoth is the Egyptian god of writing, knowledge,
>the occult (i.e. "hidden knowledge") and magic.

>I'd love to find a good copy of the Alusia material to look at before I
>actually buy it on eBay. Hard to come by though. Sometimes, people
>even offer maps of it there, but, again, I'd like to authenticate it
>before I take the risk of sending money.

>Actually, I've always thought it was a shame that no one worked up more
>in the way of a campaign world for DQ. Think about how different things
>would be if Ed Greenwood had done the Forgotten Realms for DQ instead of
>D&D... There may yet be room for a generic campaign setting, similar to
>the Kingdoms of Kalamar, but, these days especially, everything seems
>geared specifically toward d20. Ah, if only I was independently wealthy
>instead of having to work for a living, I'd make one myself. Well, I
>can dream of it, anyway.

>
> It's spelt both ways, apparently, and both turned up in my Google search.
> The infamous Crowley wrote a book called "The Book Of Toth" (with that
> spelling) dealing (apparently) with the Egyptian mythos and the Tarot, but I
> don't know if that's the text referred to in the DQ rules.

> The trouble with truly "generic" campaign backgrounds is that they can be
> difficult to fit around any *specific* game system. I guess the classic
> example is Hârn, which is a wonderful world description, but requires heavy
> modification of any non-HârnMaster rules you might choose to use (even in
> the early days, before there *were* any HM rules). (It's especially
> difficult to make it fit with DQ, since it has a heavy emphasis on religion
> and religious "magic", although the sorcery magic system is somewhat
> analogous to the DQ magic system.)
>
> IMO the specific focus of the DQ rules -- in particular the way magic is
> organised, contrasted with the more "generic" magical rules that most other
> games use -- makes creation of your own campaign world a practical necessity
> -- noting, of course, that any GM worth his salt will steal whatever his
> world lacks from the works of others <g>.

>Excellent points, of course, and most likely why it doesn't happen more
>often. H�rn was actually what I had in mind. I know a bunch of people
>that use H�rn for gaming and they didn't seem to think it required that
>much in the way of rules modification. Though, for DragonQuest it sure
>would. Low magic and DragonQuest don't seem all that compatible to me!

>This comment confuses me, since DQ is the lowest-

>I've ever played. So maybe I'm misunderstanding

>magic" suggests relatively few magic items, rules

>the casual/everyday casting of spells, and more real-

>than mythical monsters as encounters (among other

>not thinking of at the moment). What do *you* mean

>

>Really? You think that the rule
>discourage "casual/everyday casting of spells"? Why?
>I sort of thought the rules that let one get better at
>one or two spells *encouraged* spell casting, as
>practice if nothing else.

>As for magic "items", sure
>there aren't any premade +5 vorpal swords of flaming
>doom, but any adept can invest a spell. To me, that
>meant lots of single-shot magic laying about. A
>pocket full of polished stones that all
>had "lightning" or "bolt of fire" invested on them
>aren't "magic items", per se, but they're fairly "high
>magic".

>As for animals vs. mythological creatures,
>well, there's a point I suppose, but the book has them
>split fairly evenly. How the GM sets up their
>encounters is entirely subjective. But, then, it also
>depends on how one sees things like leopards in
>Medieval Europe or "orang-outangs", etc.

>Of course, in many ways, it's less "high magic" than a
>lot of D&D games, but it's certainly more "high magic"
>than say, Ars Magica or the aforementioned H�rn
>Master. All a matter of perspective, I guess.