On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rodger Thorm wrote:

>> How many folks have added Colleges of Magic to the game
>>because they've liked what they saw in literature or because
>>they had a neat concept strike them for a new College?
>
>Definitely me.

:)

>Witchcraft and Time Magics (in "Poor Brendan's Almanac")
>and a College of Sun Magics [Entities] that I am currently developing.

But Rodger, you've been developing Sun Magics for as long as I can
remember. :) Seriously, though, I am looking forward to seeing it
when you finish it up. :)

.....Experience is what you get when you don't get what you want.

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

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 16:02:57 -0500 (CDT), Arturo Algueiro Melo wrote:

>Sorry for the late append, but I had too many messages to catch
>up with and too little time.

Not a problem. Understand about this sort of thing all too well.
:)

>> >adding a new rule: the ability to raise a weapon's level 1 rank
>> >above the tabulated limit, at the XP cost of that last rank, when
>> >the WARRIOR skill rk is greater or equal than the new level the
>> >character wants to attain with the weapon.
>>
>> Now this sounds like a good addittion to the skill... Any chance
>> you can post the paragraph section of this to the mailing list? I'd
>> like to see the write-up on this, if possible.
>
>The original paragraph was written in Spanish, so the translation may be a
>little ackward; feel free to correct my english:

No doubt...

>12) The character who chooses the Warrior skill may increase the
>maximum level he/she can rank his/her weapons
>A Warrior may increase in 1 the tabulated maximum level he can
>rank a weapon. The XP cost needed to attain this additional rank
>is equal to the last tabulated level for that weapon; and to be able
>to get this rank, the character must have a rank with the Warrior
>skill that is greater than or equal to the new rank level with the
>weapon. So, a character must have at least rk 5 with the Warrior
>skill to be able to rank shield to level 5.

Hmm, I rather like this rule and am thinking of adding it to the
version of Warrior skill which I currently have in place. How well has
this rule been playtested and how effective is the rule in the game, in
terms of characters taking the additional weapon Ranks?

....."There are old legends that tell us we shouldn't go into caves, because we'll
encounter monsters. Why don't we ever listen to them?" - Shariana the sage

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

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 13:48:32 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>>(One could likewise make an argument for playing a mage
>character who never, ever ever uses a weapon nor carries
>anything, and thus feels no need to have a PS of more than
>5. Having just thought of that, I think I may have to explore
>that concept as an NPC at some point.)
>
>One of the players in my game had a PS of 5 ... he was
>laughed at a lot for being so puny, and god help them all
>if they needed him to actually *carry* something ... but he
>*was* one heck of a powerful Celestial mage (eventually).

Just out of curiosity, Bruce, just exactly what did this Mage
character carry? I've just looked at the Weight Chart, and to be
honest, I can't see him carrying all that much at all, if anything.
Interesting concept, though. :)

....."The conscience of the King doesn't matter. His head rolling on the floor,
that's another matter entirely." - Samir Olagsson, mercenary

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

>>One of the players in my game had a PS of 5 ... he was
>>laughed at a lot for being so puny, and god help them all
>>if they needed him to actually *carry* something ... but he
>>*was* one heck of a powerful Celestial mage (eventually).
>
> Just out of curiosity, Bruce, just exactly what did this Mage
>character carry? I've just looked at the Weight Chart, and to be
>honest, I can't see him carrying all that much at all, if anything.
>Interesting concept, though. :)

> Well, yes, I have one of the original copies of AW. I don't
>know whether Bruce does, too.

> Because SPI went under and the game never really "developed",
> there are just so many questions and issues that arise from
> time to time with DQ. Over the years, that has been the most
> frustrating part of running the game, although I have to
> admit that I find myself in a position where, like most DQ
> GMs, I created and innovated the solutions that I needed at
> the time I needed them. :)

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 16:43:47 -0700 (PDT), Steven Wiles wrote:

>> >When they finally completed it and returned to civilisation they took a
>> >*long* training break. Yet even then they could only improve each
>> >thing by one Rank, so they still ended up with a pile of unspent XP.
>>
>> See even though several people have mentioned the ability to only
>> go up by one Rank in an ability that one has used, I still can't seem
>> to (re-)find this rule in the book.
>
>[87.1], end of section: "A character must satisfy all requirements to
>increase his Rank by one in an ability or skill before he again
>increases it by one. Thus, a character may never `skip` Ranks. A
>character must have attempted an ability or skill on the adventure
>previous to a gain in Rank in that ability or skill."

Thanks for finding the rule, and quoting it directly. :)

See, something that isn't really explicit here is how many Ranks
the character can achieve with that same skill, assuming he did use it
on the adventure, has the time to spend increasing his Rank, and can
find someone who might be willing to help him or her out with this in a
"long-term" teaching kind of arrangement. Mind you, I'd limit the
increase myself to two Ranks, no more, at any one time.

>I agree, though, that this is a rule that can be waived by appropriate
>circumstances. Apparently, so did the designers: "[87.7] The
>requirements noted above for the advancement of skills are
>ultimately up to the discretion of the GM."

That one I did see. :)

>I always perceived this rule as being more of an anti-munchkin rule.

Hmm, I can understand that, too. :)

>My old GM used to give the example of his old high-school group,
>who had their Merc characters take five years off to build up
>between-campaign XP (15 EP/day). In his case, his Earth Mage
>went from Rank 0 to Rank 20 in Diamond Javelins, and never
>feared anything again. After that, their GM enforced this rule
>and so did he. However, if one of us had used a skill/spell/weapon
>a very great deal on the previous adventure, he'd agree to let us
>do jumps of two Ranks, and rarely even three.

Hmm, I don't know whether I would have gone that far with it.
But taking five game years to do stuff seems excessive to me, since
characters need to live somehow during that time. It's not like you're
just studying - you've got to eat, sleep, and the like, and this
requires somewhere to do that, unless you're lucky enough to own land
or property.

>For mature gamers, it shouldn't be a real serious issue.

Agreed. :)

>Come to think of it, everyone saying how character progression
>is -rapid- surprised the heck out of me. I always thought of it as
>-slow- in this game. My college group gamed nearly every
>weekend with the same characters for 4 years, and we only hit
>Hero levels at the before we graduated.

However, think about that in terms of how many XPs it cost to
raise the skills that were needed to that Rank in order to become Hero
level.

>However, it was real typical in our group to spend XP on many
>abilities, and we certainly weren't thinking in terms of reaching
>Adventurer or Hero as quickly as possible.

Exactly. :)

> A couple of us spent tons of XP on Perception as Mercs
>(probably 'cause we were tired of constantly getting jumped)
>until our GM actually asked us to stop (he couldn't surprise
>our characters anymore). :)

Actually, the surprise issue because of low Perception scores
isn't really a problem to me, simply because of how most animals have
high Perceptions (within certain limits) to begin with. What's more
important is that when one takes a typical goblin or orc and gives it
the same Rank as a starting character with the identical weapon, the
orc/goblin is going to have a higher Initiative in Engaged combat, and
thus will usually go first. That's where party tactics and strategy
come in, but raising Perception is useful too. :)

>> I think that if a character is willing to spend that long learning
>>one or two or three Ranks in the skill (and if he wants to pay
>>a teacher that much, although the teacher may not want to
>>invest that amount of time), there shouldn't be anything wrong
>>with this...other than the fellow party members all itching to
>>leave the town as soon as possible. <g>
>
>Exactly. That's another technique I've seen used effectively in
>some campaigns. Don't give the characters enough down-time
>to train for too long. Of course, that only works if the characters
>have obligations they can't or won't ignore.

Yes, agree with you on this. Like you said, it works well to get
them back out there (so to speak), but has the deficit that they have
some sort of obligation to begin with. Starting characters don't,
early in their careeers, and the ones who do are old enough and skilled
enough that increasing their abilities will take significant time.

.....Cats took many thousands of years to domesticate humans.

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

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 16:18:01 -0700 (PDT), Steven Wiles wrote:

>> >used, and they had a 78 card Tarot deck priced at 30 sp.
>> >Sounds about right. Weight = 3 oz. Don't see anything
>> >about divination crystals, though...
>> That's not bad for a tarot deck, although 30 sp for a real
>>deck sounds a bit cheap. And that might not even be a good
>>quality deck...
>
>Yeah, I would say that represents a common's man deck,
>designed more for use in card games than in divination.

Yep, that's exactly what I was thinking. :)

>Probably still servicable for an Astrologer on the road, though.
>A more aesthetically pleasing deck painted by a true artist
>would, of course, be more expensive.

I would think so. Maybe 60-80 gs would be appropriate for that
sort of deck of Tarot, and some of the truly ancient decks available to
characters passed down from generation to generation for hundreds of
thousands of years wouuld be priceless.

>> >Don't see anything about weight. However, given the
>> >density of quartz (2.65 g/cm3) and assuming a six-inch
>> >diameter spherical crystal, we're talking a 10.8 lb chunk
>> >of stone, if I did my math right.
>>
>> I have no clue on this right now, but it doesn't sound
>>right. Or maybe it does. Anyone else who wants to contribute
>> to this is surely welcome. :)
>
>Ho, you impugn my capacities as a natural philosopher,
>sirrah! :)

No, not at all, Steven, just merely...ah, never mind. :)

>Still, as a teacher of collegiate physics I would be remiss
>if I neglected empirical evidence. Also, it's the weekend
>and I'm bored.

Ah, okay, that's why you did the math on this, huh? :)

>So, I grabbed a brick and weighed it. It has about half
>the volume of the 6" quartz sphere [(4/3)*Pi*radius^3, 3"
>radius vs. 7.5"x3.5"x2.25" brick]. On my bathroom
>scales, it weighed 4 pounds. Brick is a little less dense
>than quartz crystal (say about 2 g/cm3). Alas, 10 pounds
>is about right. That ain't even counting the metal
>stand/settings/etc.

I didn't actually mean to question you on this...but thanks for
providing the math. That is one *heavy* crystal ball. :)

>Man, I'm gonna miss this free time when school gets going again.

Up here in Canada, schools are now going full speed. :)

>I know what you mean when you say it sounds too heavy,
>though. I'm getting the idea that crystal balls are for home use,
>and nice light card decks (rune-carved finger bones, chicken
>entrails, etc.) are more travel friendly. :)

That was the conclusion I came to some time ago, given what I
thought the crystal balls and the like should weigh... but then what
does the travelling fortune teller that one sees in carnivals do, and
what about the travelling astrologer type of character?

.....Bring back the snakes; Ireland was better off Pagan!

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

>
> Is it possible to have active development of DragonQuest when the
> original designers are no longer involved?

>
> There has been a lot of very good discussion lately about a lot of
> topics. JohnK's return to the DQ community here, and in particular,
> some of the questions he asked for his FAQ revisions forms a good
> basis for some of this. Collected experience and wisdom can lead to
> good solutions and interpretations of existing rules, and I think that
> is one of the strengths of our DragonQuest community.

>
> My thought is to look at the open source software community as a model.
>
> There has been some discussion about this before. The dq-rules group
> was meant to work in this fashion for the development of new rules for
> DQ. But even there, the organization was always more ad-hoc than
> formalized. What I am now proposing is a formal system.

>
> Not everything needs or should be incorporated into the rules. This
> is not an attempt to force everyone to accept everyone else's house
> rules as canon. I think it is as important to set boundaries for what
> should remain as house rules, rather than be incorporated into the
> 'official' canon of DragonQuest.

>
> I think that this process should be done with the approach of 'What
> would the original designers of DragonQuest have done/be doing with
> this question?' I think that there are a number of people in this
> group who take that perspective when considering the questions that
> come up. The idea is to add clarity to the existing rules and to
> allow the addition of new rules that are in the style and spirit of
> the basic rules.

> I can already guess how a couple of people may react to this idea,
> based on comments they have made before. There is nothing that will
> force anyone to adopt any of the changes this process would adopt, any
> more than there is now.

> I've even gone back and deleted my preliminary outline for the
> process, because I don't want to get into that right now. The basic
> question that I would like to lay before everyone is whether or not
> this would be worthwhile. Do you think this would be beneficial, or
> are you likely to ignore it?

> That was the conclusion I came to some time ago, given what I
>thought the crystal balls and the like should weigh... but then what
>does the travelling fortune teller that one sees in carnivals do, and
>what about the travelling astrologer type of character?

>>[87.1], end of section: "A character must satisfy all requirements to
>>increase his Rank by one in an ability or skill before he again
>>increases it by one. Thus, a character may never `skip` Ranks. A
>>character must have attempted an ability or skill on the adventure
>>previous to a gain in Rank in that ability or skill."
>
> See, something that isn't really explicit here is how many Ranks
>the character can achieve with that same skill, assuming he did use it
>on the adventure, has the time to spend increasing his Rank, and can
>find someone who might be willing to help him or her out with this in a
>"long-term" teaching kind of arrangement.

>I've even gone back and deleted my preliminary outline for the
>process, because I don't want to get into that right now. The basic
>question that I would like to lay before everyone is whether or not
>this would be worthwhile. Do you think this would be beneficial, or
>are you likely to ignore it?

> I've even gone back and deleted my preliminary outline for the
> process, because I don't want to get into that right now. The basic
> question that I would like to lay before everyone is whether or not
> this would be worthwhile. Do you think this would be beneficial, or
> are you likely to ignore it?

> Not everything needs or should be incorporated into the rules.

> is not an attempt to force everyone to accept everyone else's house
> rules as canon. I think it is as important to set boundaries for

> should remain as house rules, rather than be incorporated into the
> 'official' canon of DragonQuest.
>

> My natural inclination
> would be to put Time into the Elemental branch. My
> rationale for this is that the Elemental colleges
> all
> have to do with manipulation of -material- reality,
> whether of an earthly or celestial nature.
> Thaumaturgies seems distinguished by manipulation of
> intangibles and abstracts (mind, intrinsic essence
> [True Names], subjective perception, and magic
> itself), the things that lie behind the material
> universe, while Entities is of course about dealing
> with things that lie outside the material universe.
> What's more intrinsic to the nature of the
> -material-
> universe than the concepts of Time and Space, the
> stage upon which all matter and energy perfoms its
> dances?
>
> I have no idea what to do with Spider. Of course,
> I'm
> an arachnophobe, so I don't even like thinking about
> it... :O ;>
>
> Mort

>I was following the mage-warrior discussion, and I want to raise a

>think it takes more or less the same effort for a mage or warrior to

>adventurer, but it is very hard for a warrior to become a hero. There

>few weapons that can be raised to rk 8, and it is very very expensive

>get rk 8 with skills.

>What is canon? From my point of view, this is nothing more than a
>simply concensus of opinion from a group of people with a vested
>professional or personal interest in the subject matter.

>I think that we need a consistent body of rules that act as a basis
>for common play.

>Adding and changing these rules should involve the DQ Community as a
>whole

>I think that what most frustrates returning and new players is that
>they are unable to find a single consistent set of rules that are
>considered the basic set required for play.

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:13:27 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>>>One of the players in my game had a PS of 5 ... he was laughed
>>>at a lot for being so puny, and god help them all if they needed
>>>him to actually *carry* something ... but he *was* one heck of
>>>a powerful Celestial mage (eventually).
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, Bruce, just exactly what did this Mage
>>character carry? I've just looked at the Weight Chart, and to be
>>honest, I can't see him carrying all that much at all, if anything.
>>Interesting concept, though. :)
>
>Hardly anything. Basic personal items (which included a lot of invested
>items, more as he progressed in ability).

Hmm, I suspect that the character wasn't even able to carry any
extra equipment that he might have needed for stuff, simply because
with a PS of 5, you just can't carry anything around with you. Of
course, I assume that he got someone else to carry some of his
belongings, right?

.....Please, clean your screen! I can't see out!

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

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:28:36 -0000, rthorm wrote:

>> Because SPI went under and the game never really "developed",
>> there are just so many questions and issues that arise from
>> time to time with DQ. Over the years, that has been the most
>> frustrating part of running the game, although I have to
>> admit that I find myself in a position where, like most DQ
>> GMs, I created and innovated the solutions that I needed at
>> the time I needed them. :)
>
>John brings up a point that I have been thinking about for a while.
>To some extent, I suppose that this was part of the original impetus
>behind starting the DragonQuest Newsletter (and subsequently these
>groups and the other online resources for DragonQuest).

Oh, dear, Rodger, that old can 'o worms, again... :)

>We have had some occasional contact with some of the original
>designers of the game from time to time. In particular, I think Craig
>Brain had developed a bit of a working relationship with Chris Klug,
>who was SPI's lead person on DQ at the time of the company's demise.
>But while they are pleased that something that they created back then
>is still enjoyed by a group of people, they don't seem to be
>interested in being involved in supporting it today.

Which is one of the major stumbling blocks towards creating a
definitive set of rules for DQ with answers to some of those questions
about rules and elements of the game that are highly unclear, murky at
best.

>Is it possible to have active development of DragonQuest when the
>original designers are no longer involved?

Honestly, Rodger, I don't believe that it is. :(
>
>There has been a lot of very good discussion lately about a lot of
>topics. JohnK's return to the DQ community here, and in particular,
>some of the questions he asked for his FAQ revisions forms a good
>basis for some of this. Collected experience and wisdom can lead to
>good solutions and interpretations of existing rules, and I think that
>is one of the strengths of our DragonQuest community.

While that is the one of the strengths of the DQ community, that is
also the primary weakness. With each GM running their own variant of
the game, there may not be a way to get a consensus on the FAQs, any
revisions, and other materials along those lines.

>There has been some discussion about this before. The dq-rules group
>was meant to work in this fashion for the development of new rules for
>DQ. But even there, the organization was always more ad-hoc than
>formalized. What I am now proposing is a formal system.

While it's a terrific idea, Rodger, a more formal system means
people making a committment to the project. The reason that the
previous attempt may have fallen apart at the seams is there was a lack
of cohesive organisation, and agreement on what constituted the rules
in the first place.

>Not everything needs or should be incorporated into the rules. This
>is not an attempt to force everyone to accept everyone else's house
>rules as canon. I think it is as important to set boundaries for what
>should remain as house rules, rather than be incorporated into the
>'official' canon of DragonQuest.

Agreed. :) Part of the problem may stem from deciding what is
"canon" and what isn't.

>I've even gone back and deleted my preliminary outline for the
>process, because I don't want to get into that right now. The basic
>question that I would like to lay before everyone is whether or not
>this would be worthwhile. Do you think this would be beneficial, or
>are you likely to ignore it?

I think the project would be beneficial if done right, but at the
same time, a lot of folks who run or play this game may still end up
ignoring any of the rules that are presented during this project that
they don't like. However, at this moment and time, I can't tell you
how much time I'll likely have for the project, what with all the
personal stuff that I've got going on right now.

....."Violence never settled anything!" - Genghis Khan

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

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 00:16:37 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>> Well, yes, I have one of the original copies of AW. I don't
>>know whether Bruce does, too.
>
>I have a copy of a copy (of a copy etc.). It's not pretty, but it's legible
>and intact <g>.

hehe Legible and intact are all that count. :)

.....What do you call thirteen witches in a hot-tub? A self-cleaning coven!

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

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 19:46:25 -0000, rthorm wrote:

>Technically, I suppose I ignore the rule, because I tend to award
>languages to characters based on their background and description.
>(In fact, in my current campaign, none of the characters is native to
>the city they are based in, and all of them speak at least one other
>language besides the local Common.)

Yes, this is pretty much the approach that I've taken to the game
in the past as well, although a player who writes a highly detailed
background (say 9 pages! <g>) is going to be able to obtain a few more
languages possibly than one who write five paragraphs of background.

>My current approach with this rule is that none of the languages I've
>given them as part of their background can be counted towards
>calculating Merc/Adventurer/Hero. But then I only require them to
>have 6 skills (rather than 8) since the other two are automatic
>through language. Functionally, it's the same thing.

With the exception of the latter part here, I agree with you. I
hadn't even really considered the idea of cutting it down from 8 skills
to 6 skills because of the two language skills. Hmm...

....."Ooh! We're stuck here? Oh! No power...no comforts...no defenses.
Sounds like paradise." - Rygel (FS: JC)

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

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:25:08 +0300 (EEST), Esko Halttunen wrote:

[Lots of stuff snipped]
>So I've noticed. Opening the Inbox lately has been like being
>buried under an avalanche every time. :-)

Yeah, but hasn't it been fun? <g>

>I don't want to turn DQ into a bloated, overly complicated mess
>that requires me to leaf through the 2nd E and then some five
>or six additional supplement sort of things people have made up.

Interesting that you would make that observation, since a lot of
folks who run so-called "generic" rpgs have that problem anyway.
However, I'm using the 2nd Edition SPI version of the game, with an
extra binder of material on character creation, skills, beasties,
equipment, weapons, armour, and the like, and a second binder wtih
Arcane Wisdom and other magic materials that I've created over the
years. Personally, I have no desire to add any more binders at this
time. <g>


.....Love is like an hourglass, with the heart filling up as the brain empties.

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

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 06:16:10 -0000, James Flowers wrote:

[Stuff snipped for brevity]

>FWIW, personally, I laud the idea of a "canon" DQ volume.
>
>What is canon? From my point of view, this is nothing more than a
>simply concensus of opinion from a group of people with a vested
>professional or personal interest in the subject matter.

Frankly, that is not the definition of "canon" that I would use.
In the case of a roleplaying game, I would say the term applies to a
document or rulebook for the game written and issued by someone or
several people who have a recognised authority to do so. For the most
part, that would be the people who own the game, currently Wizards of
the Coast (or perhaps Hasbro, since they own WotC?) - and they don't
have any intention of reprinting the game, let alone publishing the
game anew.

>The original game designers effectively formed the "canon DQ
>collective," if I can term it as such. I see no reason why
>subscribers to this list, being representative of the current "DQ
>collective" can't contribute materials as being "canon"?

The only real point to make here is: *Who* establishes that the
material is canon? None of the game designers have an interest in
turning their attention back to a dead rpg...

.....Pagans are born again...and again...and again...

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

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 17:27:09 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>>>[87.1], end of section: "A character must satisfy all requirements to
>>>increase his Rank by one in an ability or skill before he again
>>>increases it by one. Thus, a character may never `skip` Ranks. A
>>>character must have attempted an ability or skill on the adventure
>>>previous to a gain in Rank in that ability or skill."
>>
>> See, something that isn't really explicit here is how many Ranks
>>the character can achieve with that same skill, assuming he did use it
>>on the adventure, has the time to spend increasing his Rank, and can
>>find someone who might be willing to help him or her out with this in a
>>"long-term" teaching kind of arrangement.
>
>"satisfy all requirements to increase ... by one" seems pretty explicit to
>me. I don't see any room for wishi-washiness there. "Attempting an ability
>or skill on the adventure previous" is one of those requirements that must
>be satisfied.

Ah, but the argument could be made that if one has satisfied the
requirements to increase one's Rank by one, isn't the requirement
satisfied to increase one's Rank by an additional one? The second
point that you note here might allow one to refute this point, but I
think it's a moot matter. Everyone will make a different ruling on
this point for their own campaigns, so... However, in the end, I
might as well add that I have never allowed player characters to
increase the abilities by more than one Rank between scenarios, simply
because my interpretation of the rule is the same as yours. I was just
needing to play devil's advocate for a few posts on this. :)

.....Sleep (n.): The fleeting moment just before the alarm goes off.

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

> To my mind, canon is what is broadly accepted by a
> majority of those concerned. While the publisher may
> have some influence in the matter, I don't see their
> position as exclusive and absolute. In any case, they
> have abandoned it, and if there is a will to replace
> that void, rather than to accept it as henceforth
> unchanging, then I think it is fair for us to fill
> that void.

> Hullo, Steven,
>
> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:32:54 -0700 (PDT), Steven
> Wiles wrote:
>
> >> >I have no idea what to do with Spider. Of
> course, I'm an
> >> >arachnophobe, so I don't even like thinking
> about it... :O ;>
> >>
> >> hehe Not so crazy about spiders myself.
> In any event,
> >>that College so obviously belongs in the Entities.
> Imnsho. :)
> >
> >Heh. Yeah, it's a basically evil, corrupting
> college, so it would
> >be in good... er... appropriate company.
>
> Exactly. :)
>
> >That brings up a question, though. I can't seem to
> find in the
> >ArcWis (with my cursory searches) where it defines
> the Branch
> >to which each of the new colleges (Lesser
> Summonings,
> >Rune Magics, Shaping) belongs. If someone with
> sharper
> >eyes or a better memory can find where that info
> is, I'd appreciate
> >it.
>
> I figure you'll get a few answers to this one,
> but what the heck..
> I believe it's in Section 88. Lesser Summonings is
> a Thaumaturgy,
> Rune and Shaping are in the Entities. Never did
> understand the
> rationale for that with the Shaper College, but...
>
>
> .....Virus found - Windows95. (C)lean (W)ipe
> (I)nstall OS/2 Warp
>
> JohnK
> e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
> web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane
>
>
>

> Hullo, Deven,
>
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:30:24 -0400, Deven Atkinson
> wrote:
>
> >Dead languages... cool idea. In our real world
> there are dead
> >languages where all we know are the texts, no
> chance of
> >speaking it because that knowledge has passed away
> (Myan
> >glyphs, cuniform). Then there are languages like
> Navajo
> >that have (or at least had) no written text.
> [Devious GM mind
> >kicks into full gear] :)
>
> Yes, the business of dead languages is
> something that fascinates
> me in real life, too, and so naturally it spills
> over into the
> roleplaying games, especially the fantasy ones. I
> ran one plot where
> an understanding of a phrase from an ancient
> language was the central
> element to the plot, and the party had to track down
> the only known
> person who understood the language (and there was a
> secret behind that
> as well, much to the party's surprise for some
> reason), and that worked
> out kind of well.
>
> ....."The only good gargoyle is one decorating the
> top of a church." - Willem Anders,
> city guard
>
> JohnK
> e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
> web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russ Jones" <russjon@earthlink.net>
To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 9:46 PM
Subject: RE: [DQN-list] Weapons rank limits


> Something we've been trying out, for several years now, was a doubling
> of the weapon ranks, modifying the rank gain effects (strike chance,
> evade, shield defense,...) and spreading the experience costs. To
> compensate for the initiative effect, creatures using natural weapons
> get a +5 to initiative.
>
> We figured, since magic goes to 20, why not do the same for weapons?
> This makes it possible for grunts to make Master Adventurer (we decided
> Hero was a title of acclamation, not advancement), without having to
> pile on the language skills or change to less effective weapons with
> higher rank limits.
>
> I believe there are details still sitting on my old AOL website (not
> sure why it's still there - I left AOL years ago.).
>
> http://members.aol.com/rjonesdq/dqrules/index.htm
>
> Russ Jones
> russjon@earthlink.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loki Freyr [mailto:loki@faralloncapital.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 2:49 PM
> To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [DQN-list] Weapons rank limits
>
> I considered removing the weapon rank limits, but decided they probably
> reflected reality. Weapons have different techniques that vary in
> complexity. Perhaps there isn't as much to be learned about a wooden
> club as there is a fencing foil? Please let me know what reasoning you
> used in making that alteration; I might talk myself into removing the
> limits after all.
>
> --Loki
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Probst [mailto:bprobst@netspace.net.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 9:54 PM
> To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Mages and Warriors
>
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:52:27 -0500 (CDT), Arturo Algueiro Melo
> <aleam00@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I was following the mage-warrior discussion, and I want to raise a
> point: I
> >think it takes more or less the same effort for a mage or warrior to
> become
> >adventurer, but it is very hard for a warrior to become a hero. There
> are very
> >few weapons that can be raised to rk 8, and it is very very expensive
> in XPs to
> >get rk 8 with skills.
>
> This is very true. In my game, I removed the upper limit on Ranks with
> weapons; all weapons can advance to Rank 10 (although for most they
> start to
> get *very* expensive to push them higher than the limits imposed by the
> rules).
>
> I also expanded the Skills list with a bunch of relatively-cheap but
> still
> important options (e.g., Climbing for non-thieves).
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
> Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
> "Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined."
> ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Rauchert" <john.rauchert@sait.ca>
To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 11:58 AM
Subject: [DQN-list] What are the Core Rules of DragonQuest >> Was Re:
Forming a DragonQuest Canon


> What do people consider to be the Core Rules Set of DragonQuest?
>
> I have taken as my core rules set as being the Bantam 2nd Edition
> (which I don't have btw) and Craig Brain's Arcane Wisdom.

I agree with these two. I would add any ARES articles or DragonNotes that
clarify rules, add skills, monsters, etc. Most of these were written by the
core development team for the second edition.
After this I would add any rules clarifications, skills, monsters, etc. that
are in the three SPI modules.

In my opinion, once we step away from SPI published material, we are
stepping away from "canon", and thus stepping away from the core rules.

Should the information in the Chaosium's "Thieves' World" article by Eric
Goldberg be part of the core? Perhaps. Should the information in articles
in other magazines (like Dragon) written by members of the core team be
added? Likely. Should info in non-Ares articles by non-core team members
be added. I don't think so. But they are nice Optional rules.


>
> I know that there has been and is some work towards creating an
> accurate complete set of these rules electronically.
>
> I have done some of the line-by-line proofreading of previous
> electronic versions (using my old hardcover 2nd Edition). It is
> tedious undertaking but one that I strangely enjoy.
>
> Would there be support for a DQPA approved version of such a Core
> Rules Set?
>
> Then we could shift our concentration on producing rule
> clarifications, variants and supplements to our heart's content.
>
> JohnR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Probst [mailto:bprobst@netspace.net.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 7:52 PM
> To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Re: Forming a DragonQuest Canon [long]
>
>
>
> Right -- which is why the widely-disseminated printed versions must
> remain
> the "core rules" by which every modification is compared to.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Rauchert" <john.rauchert@sait.ca>
> To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 11:58 AM
> Subject: [DQN-list] What are the Core Rules of
> DragonQuest >> Was Re:
> Forming a DragonQuest Canon
>
>
> > What do people consider to be the Core Rules Set
> of DragonQuest?
> >
> > I have taken as my core rules set as being the
> Bantam 2nd Edition
> > (which I don't have btw) and Craig Brain's Arcane
> Wisdom.
>
> I agree with these two. I would add any ARES
> articles or DragonNotes that
> clarify rules, add skills, monsters, etc. Most of
> these were written by the
> core development team for the second edition.
> After this I would add any rules clarifications,
> skills, monsters, etc. that
> are in the three SPI modules.
>
> In my opinion, once we step away from SPI published
> material, we are
> stepping away from "canon", and thus stepping away
> from the core rules.
>
> Should the information in the Chaosium's "Thieves'
> World" article by Eric
> Goldberg be part of the core? Perhaps. Should the
> information in articles
> in other magazines (like Dragon) written by members
> of the core team be
> added? Likely. Should info in non-Ares articles by
> non-core team members
> be added. I don't think so. But they are nice
> Optional rules.
>
>
> >
> > I know that there has been and is some work
> towards creating an
> > accurate complete set of these rules
> electronically.
> >
> > I have done some of the line-by-line proofreading
> of previous
> > electronic versions (using my old hardcover 2nd
> Edition). It is
> > tedious undertaking but one that I strangely
> enjoy.
> >
> > Would there be support for a DQPA approved version
> of such a Core
> > Rules Set?
> >
> > Then we could shift our concentration on producing
> rule
> > clarifications, variants and supplements to our
> heart's content.
> >
> > JohnR
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce Probst
> [mailto:bprobst@netspace.net.au]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 7:52 PM
> > To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Re: Forming a DragonQuest
> Canon [long]
> >
> >
> >
> > Right -- which is why the widely-disseminated
> printed versions must
> > remain
> > the "core rules" by which every modification is
> compared to.

> Hmm, I suspect that the character wasn't even able to carry any
>extra equipment that he might have needed for stuff, simply because
>with a PS of 5, you just can't carry anything around with you. Of
>course, I assume that he got someone else to carry some of his
>belongings, right?

>Remember that the copies of AW that are floating
>around were proof copies, IIRC. That seems like a
>typo to me.
>What does 3rd edition classify those colleges as? I
>think that would be the more definitive information.

> Ah, but the argument could be made that if one has satisfied the
>requirements to increase one's Rank by one, isn't the requirement
>satisfied to increase one's Rank by an additional one?

>I was just needing to play devil's advocate for a few posts on this. :)

>Would there be support for a DQPA approved version of such a Core
>Rules Set?

>I would add any ARES articles or DragonNotes that
>clarify rules, add skills, monsters, etc.

>To my mind, canon is what is broadly accepted by a
>majority of those concerned.

>In any case, they have abandoned it

>TSR published 3rd edition DQ, but I know very few
>players who accept those changes or who use those
>rules by preference. Among much of the existing DQ
>community, 2nd edition, and not 3rd, is canon, so the
>case for the publisher as ultimate arbiter doesn't
>stand well there, either.

>There have been so many business changes that
>'ownership' of DragonQuest is questionable at this
>point.

>since DQ has not been a viable
>commerical concern for over a decade.

>But if a large enough group concurs, then
>I think it is a project worth doing.

> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 15:58:01 -0000, "John Rauchert"
> <john.rauchert@sait.ca> wrote:
>
> The obvious problem with accepting the PDF-version of AW as "core"
> is that it's incomplete, since it is missing text from the original. Does
> anyone know if it is in any other ways different to the original? I've never
> bothered doing a comparison myself.
>

> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Rodger Thorm <rodger_thorm@y...> wrote:
>
>
> I think we as a comunity can take charge of DQ, lets face it no one
> else will (and probably no one will stop us).

>
> perhaps Canon is an emotive word; try artillary -err no wrong cannon
> how about "a standard" or "basic" or "consensus" modules of rules

>
> We all have our own rules that fit our world best and no one would
> even think about imposing these rules on individual GMs. But it
> would be usefull if there was a core of commonly accepted rules in
> addition to the book. This would have the advantages of:-
>
> 1) Allowing every one to talk the same language ( eg spell in the
> [99.] version of the College of White magic rather than the [98.] version
> 2) A central reposotory of alternative rules you could pick and mix from
> 3) Sets of rules you could refer to when you come across an area you
> have just found out you need
> 4) A firm and argued basis on which to expand, possibly even taking
> account of diferences of opinion
> 5) Avoiding things like umpteen colleges of White magics when
> probably if those interested had got together we would have 1
> consensus college put together with the combined knowledge of those
> experts in a much shorter time
>
> I personally am in favour of it, but its not going to be easy, and I
> have a feeling in my thumbs that it probably won't happen - sadly.
> It all depends on what the objectives are and how its organised

> Just how many versions of AW are there? There is the pdf that is

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Probst <bprobst@n...> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 15:58:01 -0000, "John Rauchert"
<john.rauchert@s...>
> wrote:
>
> >Would there be support for a DQPA approved version of such a Core
> >Rules Set?
>
> The DQPA doesn't have the "authority" to "approve" anything.
>

> Another language idea to incorporate is "Alchemist's
> Script." This is a great idea that I've shamelessly
> taken from Steve/Mort and his group, although I
> haven't done nearly as much with it as they had worked
> out.
>
> There may be other written-form-only languages, as
> well. Alchemy and astrology both have historical
> precedents for at least a rudimetary written language.