> 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.

>As far as I know there are four different versions of the material
>that was to be included in Arcane Wisdom.
>
>A text version that has been floating around for many years taken
>from a playtest release.
>
>The material in the Shattered Statue Module.
>
>The material put into 3rd Editon DragonQuest.
>
>Craig Brain's Version [Snaf's PDF] (creating in consultation with
>Gerry Klug, I believe).

> I envision that this would include a carefully proofed electronic
> version of the 2nd Edition Rules (Bantam probably) and a carefully
> proofed electronic version of Arcane Wisdom.
>
> I know that another person is currently working on complete
> unrevised version of the 2nd Edition Rules.
>
> I will first spend my time sorting out differences between versions
> of Arcane Wisdom and compile a little report.

> I think you're right about the ARES articles and
> related material, but I disagree on other points.
>
> While some of the Dragon articles are worthwhile,
> others (such as the recently debated "Warrior's
> Alternative") are pretty far from standard DQ. No one
> from SPI authored any of the DQ articles in Dragon.
>
> On the other hand, over the years, I've seen many good
> suggestions from the these groups. I think that we
> should evaluate all of these on the basis of their
> content, rather on who published it.
>
> --RT

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 10:36:24 -0000, John Rauchert wrote:

>> 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 we need a consistent body of rules that act as a basis
>for common play. When is DragonQuest no longer DragonQuest?

I think the answer to this question is that the game is no longer
DQ when the game gets away from the mechanics that make up the
DRAGONQUEST roleplaying game, including the percentile dice system, the
use of Characteristics and Skills as established in the game rules, and
the manner in which the Combat System and Magic function. DQ would not
be DQ without the Colleges of Magic in it.

>As an extreme example:

[stuff snipped]

Substituting Luck for MA or D20 for percentile dice certainly is
an extreme example, but one that clearly illustrates when DQ is no
longer DQ.

>I personally think that there ARE a group of "Core Rules" that
>clearly identify a game called DragonQuest. Things like the use of
>percentile dice and set base characteristics form the most obvious
>basis of this core rule set.

Exactly. :)

>Adding and changing these rules should involve the DQ Community
>as a whole (such as the discussion at DragonQuestCathedral around
>whether we need to add a characteristic like JohnK's Devoutness
>in order to develop a set of religion rules).

Ooh, I think I'm going to stay away from this subject. :)

.....Gossip (n): Information that travels faster than e-mail.

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

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 15:58:01 -0000, John Rauchert wrote:

>What do people consider to be the Core Rules Set of DragonQuest?

Ooh, boy, this is the proverbial can 'o worms...although I don't
think that it will seem that way to most folks.

>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.

Hmm, my core set of rules are the SPI 2nd Edition, in combination
with Gerry Klug's articles from Ares Magazine, as well as the version
of Arcane Wisdom that I playtested (which has a copyright listing for
1981, 1982 on it).

In order to use the Bantam 2nd Edition as the core rulebook, I
would have to see an extensive list of the changes between SPI and
Bantam 2nd Edition (which I don't have either), similar to the list of
changes between 2nd and 3rd Editions.

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

I suspect there would be. :)

>Then we could shift our concentration on producing rule
>clarifications, variants and supplements to our heart's content.

Which I think is where most of the effort of people running the
game these days does go. Heck, I don't think for a moment that any of
us doesn't run a variant of the game these days. :)

.....In the past, no one can hear you scream.

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

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Rodger Thorm wrote:

>I disagree with Bruce and JohnK as to the definition of what can
>or cannot be canon (which is why I brought this matter up in the
>first place).

Which is what I figured, in the first place. :)

>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.

Perhaps not, but if the folks here can't even agree what "canon"
is in the case of the DQ core rules, then... :)

In any event, the OED, 12th Edition (1999) describes canon as:

"1. A general rule or principle by which something is judged > a
church decree or law.
2. A collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine. -
the works of a particular author or artist that are recognised as
genuine.
3. A list of literary works considered to be permanently
established as being of the highest quality."

The term "canonical" is described as:

"1. According or ordered to ordered by canon law.
2. Accepted as being accurate and authoritative."

Note that being "canon" has more to do with the authors than being
"published" per se.

I would argue that, regardless of what we might think, the only
people who know the answers to some, if not all, of the questions that
have been posted about DQ and the game on this, and other, mailing
lists, are the folks who designed this game and then added to it in
official supplements for the game. What we are doing is making
additions or house rules as some prefer to call them, and I have no
objection to this.

>There have been so many business changes that 'ownership'
>of DragonQuest is questionable at this point. And I don't see
>that as the most valid criterion for determining the legitimacy of
>the canon at this point, since DQ has not been a viable
>commerical concern for over a decade.

Exactly, which by and large, makes this whole discussion moot. :)

>We can never know what would have happened if SPI had not
>gone out of business and kept supporting DragonQuest. But at
>this point, I don't think anyone accepts the idea that any set of
>the DQ rules is flawless.

I think most of us would agree that DRAGONQUEST is not without its
flaws, but what game system is? That said, one has to wonder how many
of the folks who still run DQ are influenced by other rpgs that came
out after DQ had hit the market. After all, the wargamer mentality
that is so obvious in the writing of most of the DQ products (because
that was the period of SPI's wargamer height) has influence the look,
feel, and reading of the mechanics and rules, and since then
roleplaying games and gaming have changed in many ways.

>If there is sufficient consensus, accepted canon can go
>beyond what was published in 1980.

Not to be picky, but 2nd Edition was published in 1981. :)

>In order for that to happen, it will be necessary for there to be
>general agreement. It doesn't have be unanimous; there will
>certainly be disagreements and differences of opinion.

I would suspect so :)

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

I would think so. Even if I don't use all the material that comes
out of this, it will be worthwhile to have a set of rules for the game
that are...well-fleshed out. :)

>The DragonQuest Newsletter has become moribund. I've not
>published much of late because there have been few
>submittals and very little general interest.

I find the lack of general interest to be sad, but to be honest, I
think there's a limit to what one can do for the game in terms of
writing things up for it. After all, take monsters. The Beastiary
section of the DQN was very useful, and would be if everyone submitted
every beastie that they've ever created for the DQN to print. But
unlike D&D, it seems that the DQ community doesn't feel the need to
constantly add new beasties to the game, and hence not a lot of beastie
material is available. (Hmm, wonde what ever happened with the
MonsterQuest stuff for the game, since they must have got submissions
for it?)

That said, there perhaps would be a better solution...rather than
make the DQN monthly, why not make it quarterly or twice quarterly or
whatever, depending on the number of submissions? And perhaps print
larger articles (complete Colleges of Magic perhaps?) for the issues?

>(Arguably there have been few submittals of late because there
>have been few new issues, but that's a whole chicken-and-egg
>thing I won't bother with here.)

Good thing. :)

> Discussion groups such as this one have served to largely replace
>the need for a more directed magazine style publication.

I always viewed the DQN as a forum to discuss and introduce new
house rules to the game, to get an idea for what other people were
doing for their campaigns (assuming anyone was running the game, of
course), and to serve as a source of information on the game and
anything else that folks who subscribe, edit, or write for the magazine
feel like doing.

>As much as anything else, I am looking for a new impetus and a
>new direction with which to revive the DQN. If the other view is
>correct, and there can be no extention of the canon beyond the
>once commercially published version, then the DQN has no further
>use.

As I said above, the DQN can be a forum for the discussion of
various sets of House Rules, and given the sheer number of people on
the mailing list and the multitudes of things found on different sites
devoted to the game, there appears to be a lot of House Rules out
there. And I'm sure hoping that others offer some more incentive and
ideas for keeping the DQN alive. It's an institution that I feel
should not be allowed to die.

.....Windows? Been there, done that, using OS/2 because of it.

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

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:19:43 -0700 (PDT), Rodger Thorm wrote:

>Remember that the copies of AW that are floating around were
>proof copies, IIRC.

Heck, I don't even remember what the copies of AW were. All I
know is that mine has a copyright of 1981, 1982 on it. And one of the
notes scrawled in the margin on the copy is that it's the "second
revision" (whatever that means).

>What does 3rd edition classify those colleges as?

3rd Edition DQ classifies the Colleges of Summoning, Shaping
Magics, and Rune Magics as belonging to the Entities.

.....The Honeymoon is the time between "I do" and "You'd better!"

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

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:52:18 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>>I think that we need a consistent body of rules that act as a basis
>>for common play.
>
>Yes, that's the version(s) printed in the rule book(s). Everything after
>that is a personal customisation.

I agree with this statement, with the one question: which version
of the printed editions of DRAGONQUEST do most of the folks here
consider to be the canon for the game?

>The "DQ Community" can do no more than discuss customisations.
>Even if everyone agrees to use a particular customisation (and I
>would consider that highly* unlikely) it doesn't alter the "core rules"
>(i.e., the printed rules) in any way.

I agree with this statement set 100%. :)


....."While it's fine to forgive your enemies, never forget to learn their True
Names." - Claysia, Naming Adept

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

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:41:50 -0700 (PDT), Rodger Thorm wrote:

>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.

That was something I've had in the system for a while, but no one
in my campaigns takes an Alchemist all that often. Never reallly did
anything about making notes on the Alchemist's Script or anything like
that, so I might be interested in seeing the stuff that Steve/Mort has
done on that side of things.

>There may be other written-form-only languages, as well.
>Alchemy and astrology both have historical precedents for
>at least a rudimetary written language.

Yes, I would agree with you on this point. Alchemy and Astrology
are the two places to start, and I can see where others would come into
it. The real place to start would be some of the ancient, old
languages (and this might also include some of the magical tongues that
might have been around way back when).

.....Physics and mysticism are complementary aspects in a single reality.
(Wolfgang Pauli)

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

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:12:59 +1000, Bruce Probst 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.

Ah, I was wondering if I'd been hallucinating that. Steve Ross
printed up a copy for himself of AW, and we'd already commented to one
another that it seemed that there was stuff missing.

>Does anyone know if it is in any other ways different to the original?
>I've never bothered doing a comparison myself.

Not a clue. I haven't done a comparison, either.

.....Warning! This vehicle is protected by attack faeries!

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

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:51:04 +1000, Stephen Lister wrote:

>Instead of arguing over what is or is not canon, or indeed over whether
>what we could produce here can be regarded that way, why not just produce
>a set of consensual Optional Rules, binding all of the clarifications and
>additions into one place?

You make a good point, and I agree wtih you. :) I'm going to
stop discussing the whole business about canon/non-canon now. :)

....."I'm sorry, but reality is not in service at this time....."

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

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:03:55 +0300 (EEST), Esko Halttunen 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.
>
>Just how many versions of AW are there?

To be honest, I don't know. Are we talking the copies found on
the web, or the copies that were actually given to playtesters and the
like, or what? I know there were at least two playtest versions of it,
one from 1981 and one from 1982. There's the versions of some of the
material from AW that appeared in "The Shattered Statue" scenario from
TSR and in the 3rd Edition of DQ, not to mention Ares Magazine (which
had the version of Rune Magics that appeared to be the one from the AW
proof). And there's the PDFs and Word/text files that I've seen around
(but haven't been able to access). Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

As you pointed out yourself, Edi, there's a lot of versions of that
one floating around as well, it seems. So, perhaps the question also
arises as to not only which version of the game rules are "canon" but
which version of AW is "canon" as well?

Personally, I suspect that the answer to both of these questions
is: "Whichever version of the core rules and Arcane Wisdom you happen
to be using to run/play the game." This doesn't include any House
Rules, of course.

.....That which is never attempted, never transpires. (Jack Vance)

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

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:08:03 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>> 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?
>
>Sorry, that argument makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Before
>you can increase it by an *additional* Rank, you must satisfy the
>requirements, which involve using it on an adventure -- which you
>can't have done if you've only just increased it a moment before!

Yes, I would have to agree with you on this. However, I think
it's pretty plain that the rule as written is somewhat ambiguous on
this point, although most will take it in the literal sense of it all.

>>I was just needing to play devil's advocate for a few posts on this. :)
>
>I have no objections to "Devil's Advocate" as a general principle, but
>in this case the DA argument is simply wrong, sorry.

Yes, I agree with you. And did you notice that you were the only
one to even discuss this element with me? :)

.....Man cannot live on bread alone; that's why there's orange marmelade.

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

>
> Ah, I was wondering if I'd been hallucinating that. Steve

> printed up a copy for himself of AW, and we'd already commented to

> another that it seemed that there was stuff missing.
>
> >Does anyone know if it is in any other ways different to the

> >I've never bothered doing a comparison myself.
>
> Not a clue. I haven't done a comparison, either.
>

> I agree with this statement, with the one question: which version
>of the printed editions of DRAGONQUEST do most of the folks here
>consider to be the canon for the game?

> In order to use the Bantam 2nd Edition as the core rulebook, I
>would have to see an extensive list of the changes between SPI and
>Bantam 2nd Edition (which I don't have either), similar to the list of
>changes between 2nd and 3rd Editions.

>And did you notice that you were the only
>one to even discuss this element with me? :)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rodger Thorm" <rodger_thorm@yahoo.com>
To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] What are the Core Rules of DragonQuest >> Was Re:
Forming a DragonQuest Canon


> I think you're right about the ARES articles and
> related material, but I disagree on other points.
>
> While some of the Dragon articles are worthwhile,
> others (such as the recently debated "Warrior's
> Alternative") are pretty far from standard DQ. No one
> from SPI authored any of the DQ articles in Dragon.
>
> On the other hand, over the years, I've seen many good
> suggestions from the these groups. I think that we
> should evaluate all of these on the basis of their
> content, rather on who published it.
>
> --RT
>
> --- Deven Atkinson <deven@bright.net> wrote:
> >
> > ----- 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.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

> Hullo, Rodger,
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:41:50 -0700 (PDT), Rodger Thorm wrote:
>
> >There may be other written-form-only languages, as well.
> >Alchemy and astrology both have historical precedents for
> >at least a rudimetary written language.
>
> Yes, I would agree with you on this point. Alchemy and Astrology
> are the two places to start, and I can see where others would come into
> it. The real place to start would be some of the ancient, old
> languages (and this might also include some of the magical tongues that
> might have been around way back when).

> Hullo, Bruce,
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:52:18 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:
>
> >>I think that we need a consistent body of rules that act as a basis
> >>for common play.
> >
> >Yes, that's the version(s) printed in the rule book(s). Everything after
> >that is a personal customisation.
>
> I agree with this statement, with the one question: which version
> of the printed editions of DRAGONQUEST do most of the folks here
> consider to be the canon for the game?

>

> Hullo, Rodger,
>
> On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:41:50 -0700 (PDT), Rodger Thorm wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> That was something I've had in the system for a while, but no one
> in my campaigns takes an Alchemist all that often. Never reallly did
> anything about making notes on the Alchemist's Script or anything like
> that, so I might be interested in seeing the stuff that Steve/Mort has
> done on that side of things.
>

> Hullo, Bruce,
>
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:08:03 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:
>
> >> 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?
> >
> >Sorry, that argument makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Before
> >you can increase it by an *additional* Rank, you must satisfy the
> >requirements, which involve using it on an adventure -- which you
> >can't have done if you've only just increased it a moment before!
>
> Yes, I would have to agree with you on this. However, I think
> it's pretty plain that the rule as written is somewhat ambiguous on
> this point, although most will take it in the literal sense of it all.
>
> >>I was just needing to play devil's advocate for a few posts on this. :)
> >
> >I have no objections to "Devil's Advocate" as a general principle, but
> >in this case the DA argument is simply wrong, sorry.
>
> Yes, I agree with you. And did you notice that you were the only
> one to even discuss this element with me? :)
>

> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:43:29 -0400, "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@comnet.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > In order to use the Bantam 2nd Edition as the core rulebook, I
> >would have to see an extensive list of the changes between SPI and
> >Bantam 2nd Edition (which I don't have either), similar to the list of
> >changes between 2nd and 3rd Editions.
>
> I wrote up such a list, many many years ago (I mean, I wrote it
> *longhand*!). I used it to modify my SPI hardcover and then discarded it.
> I wish I hadn't, I would type it up and post it for all to see otherwise.
>

> I did say that Dragon articles were not likely to be
> considered core rules.

> Perhaps as part of the discussion we can end up with
> a rank for all known
> professional and fan produced DQ related materials.
> List it all and provide
> a rank. [snip] We could make it clear that we are
> ranking the rules based
> aspect. Perhaps we could even rank the modules and
> scenerios for
> playability, etc..

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Rodger Thorm <rodger_thorm@y...> wrote:
> John has spoken of the website for DragonQuest
> adventures that he is working on. I wonder if it
> would be possible for him to implement a ranking and
> reviewing system such as you are describing.
>
> As a GM, I would really like it if I could read
> comments from other GMs and players about an adventure
> before presenting it to my players.
>
> --- Deven Atkinson <deven@b...> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Perhaps as part of the discussion we can end up with
> > a rank for all known
> > professional and fan produced DQ related materials.
> > List it all and provide
> > a rank. [snip] We could make it clear that we are
> > ranking the rules based
> > aspect. Perhaps we could even rank the modules and
> > scenerios for
> > playability, etc..
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "johncarcutt" <jcarcutt@bellsouth.net>
To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 6:44 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Back from the Trenches ...


> Hi all,
>
> I just wanted to say hi. I am going to make an attempt to get back
> into the DQ comminity on a regular basis again.
>
> I recognize quite a number of names in the group, some I have only
> known online and others I have played with. I am thrilled to see
> Deven in this group. He was sitting across the table from me during
> "The Camp of Alla-Akabar", the first time either of us played the
> game.

That first game was amazing. The entire group got every single die roll we
needed and turned Alla-Akabar into a Mony Haul. And, actually, Clark and I
had already played a tavern scene. Steve threw a lycnathrope at us just to
see if the combat mechanics played as well as they read. Alla-Akabar was
the first real session with our group.

Great to see you back, John!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Viktor Haag" <vhaag@rim.net>
To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] What are the Core Rules of DragonQuest >> Was Re:
Forming a DragonQuest Canon


> Deven Atkinson writes:
> > I did say that Dragon articles were not likely to be
> > considered core rules.
>
> This post is NOT an attack or rebuke on Deven: I'm merely taking
> this opportunity to jump into the mix with a concerned
> observation.
>
> James Flowers has not like the tenor of the 'canon vs non-canon'
> debate at all, in fact someone in this discussion has pissed him
> off enough to produce this result:
>
> "[10th September 2003] I have chosen to no longer support this
> document. *shrugs* I can't be bothered entering into a debate
> on what is "canon" or "not canon" materials and am offended by
> a recent party's dqn-list response to my well-intentioned
> post. Therefore I choose to exercise my right to no longer
> support this OOP game in any way or form. This sub-site will
> be removed on my next major complete site update."
>
> Whether you agree with him, or not, or agree with his posting his
> transcription and collection of DQ rules, or not, the plain fact
> is that he provided a resource that could have gathered more
> players to an excellent, albeit out of print, game. I'm sure
> there are others out there with his PDF that might likely place
> it in areas where people can get it, whether that would be the
> right thing to do, or not. But unless someone can convince him to
> share his sources, that seems a bit pyrrhic.
>
> I'm not sure how I feel about this in total yet, but I do know
> one thing -- if you all want DQ to prosper and survive as a game,
> it's probably not the best policy to alienate folks like James
> who put in a heck of a lot more effort than most of us do.
>
>
> --
> Viktor Haag : Software & Information Design : Research In Motion
> +--+
> Disclaimer mandated by employer: "This transmission may contain
> confidential or privileged material. Any use of this information
> by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
> have received this transmission in error, please immediately
> reply to the sender and delete this information from your
> system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
> transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may
> be unlawful."
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

> Well, since my name was singled out..... I must be
> an example of what went
> wrong, but I can not see how.... geeze, now I am
> upset.
>
> I am personally sad that James was upset.
> I think that there was a discussion about
> terminology. Definitional
> disagreement occured.
> No particular site or anyones hard work was being
> disagreed with. Just
> because some of us take the view that "canon" can
> only be set by the owners,
> does not mean that James' collection and
> clarifications could not be a major
> part of what the DQ community prefers.
>
> My discussion about "canon" the word has nothing to
> do with anyone's site,
> collected works, house rules, hard work, or favorite
> "football" player.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Viktor Haag" <vhaag@rim.net>
> To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 11:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] What are the Core Rules of
> DragonQuest >> Was Re:
> Forming a DragonQuest Canon
>
>
> > Deven Atkinson writes:
> > > I did say that Dragon articles were not likely
> to be
> > > considered core rules.
> >
> > This post is NOT an attack or rebuke on Deven: I'm
> merely taking
> > this opportunity to jump into the mix with a
> concerned
> > observation.
> >
> > James Flowers has not like the tenor of the 'canon
> vs non-canon'
> > debate at all, in fact someone in this discussion
> has pissed him
> > off enough to produce this result:
> >
> > "[10th September 2003] I have chosen to no longer
> support this
> > document. *shrugs* I can't be bothered entering
> into a debate
> > on what is "canon" or "not canon" materials and
> am offended by
> > a recent party's dqn-list response to my
> well-intentioned
> > post. Therefore I choose to exercise my right to
> no longer
> > support this OOP game in any way or form. This
> sub-site will
> > be removed on my next major complete site
> update."
> >
> > Whether you agree with him, or not, or agree with
> his posting his
> > transcription and collection of DQ rules, or not,
> the plain fact
> > is that he provided a resource that could have
> gathered more
> > players to an excellent, albeit out of print,
> game. I'm sure
> > there are others out there with his PDF that might
> likely place
> > it in areas where people can get it, whether that
> would be the
> > right thing to do, or not. But unless someone can
> convince him to
> > share his sources, that seems a bit pyrrhic.
> >
> > I'm not sure how I feel about this in total yet,
> but I do know
> > one thing -- if you all want DQ to prosper and
> survive as a game,
> > it's probably not the best policy to alienate
> folks like James
> > who put in a heck of a lot more effort than most
> of us do.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Viktor Haag : Software & Information Design :
> Research In Motion
> > +--+
> > Disclaimer mandated by employer: "This
> transmission may contain
> > confidential or privileged material. Any use of
> this information
> > by anyone other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited. If you
> > have received this transmission in error, please
> immediately
> > reply to the sender and delete this
> information from your
> > system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or
> reproduction of this
> > transmission by unintended recipients is not
> authorized and may
> > be unlawful."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>

> It would be nice, for example, to have a consistent format for

> Well, since my name was singled out..... I must be an example of

> wrong, but I can not see how.... geeze, now I am upset.
>
> I am personally sad that James was upset.
> I think that there was a discussion about terminology. Definitional
> disagreement occured.
> No particular site or anyones hard work was being disagreed with.

> because some of us take the view that "canon" can only be set by

> does not mean that James' collection and clarifications could not

> part of what the DQ community prefers.
>
> My discussion about "canon" the word has nothing to do with

> collected works, house rules, hard work, or favorite "football"

<edited for brevity>

{Strapping on his armor and checking his weapons, Axl prepares to enter the "Canon War"}

I have tried to read as much as I could about the whole "canon" issue. Frankly it was tough, way to many different threads tied to one subject. It made it VERY hard for someone jumping in in the middle to try and follow everyone's views. So let me start by saying if I hit on things that have already been covered or disregarded, I apologize.

I think the term "canon" is muddying the water way to much, I am not going to use it at all (except for that one time :) There should defiantly be a clear line between "Core Rules" and "Supplemental Materials". Just to keep this post as focused as I can, I am not going to go into "Supplemental Materials" either, except to say I consider anything not published in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Edition Rule Books to be supplemental. I believe someone has started a thread on organizing supplemental materials and I will post comments on that there.

OK ... Core Rules. Here's my 2 cents. Lets get 1st Edition out of the way and agree that those rules do not apply to current DQ play. Now, this leaves us with the 2nd and 3rd Editions, which while similar but published by two different companies who had different views on acceptable materials. The 3rd Edition attempted to correct some minor problems with the game while at the same time removed some of the more "controversial" aspects. Sorry for the overview, I was trying to gather my thoughts. I think 3 things need to be done to "Finalize" the Core Rules of DQ.

1. Both the 2nd and 3rd Edition rules need to be reviewed and combined, picking the best of both. Anything that is not in both will be included in the final and when there are two versions of a rule or item, discussion should be had to select the most appropriate of the two. Once the two versions are combined, then we have the base set of core rules.

2. The base set of core rules should be reviewed for errors or poor mechanics and these should be corrected.

3. Finally, the base set of core rules should be amended with any materials that should have been included in the core rules but were not. This will be tricky, because most additional rules should be considered supplemental.

Once this has been done, we can proclaim a set of "Core Rules" and any additional materials from that point forward would be supplemental. Unless of course we fine mistakes we made in the core rules. :) This sounds like a job for the DQ Open Source Project.

JohnC (aka: Axl)

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:06:47 -0000, John Rauchert wrote:

>I will begin my review of Arcane Wisdom this weekend. It will be a
>line by line comparison of all the versions of Arcane Wisdom that I
>possess.

This is something that I've always wanted to do, but a) didn't
have the time for, and b) not having a decent pdf viewer, couldn't do
even if I wanted to.

>I will probably use the playtest version that I have (although I
>don't know which one that is) as my base copy and then run through
>each additional source noting differences (by page number of the
>additional source).
>
>As you can guess this is time consuming and tedious so it may take me
>some time to complete but I will attempt to keep the community up-to-
>date on my progress.

Please do. I look forward to the udates on the progress of this
work.

>This should give a good indication about what the revisions have been
>from version to version.

I would certainly think so.

.....We do not remember days; we remember moments. (Cesare Pavese)

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

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 03:54:01 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>> I agree with this statement, with the one question: which version
>>of the printed editions of DRAGONQUEST do most of the folks here
>>consider to be the canon for the game?
>
>As I said elsewhere, *all* the printed versions are canon *for that
>edition*.

Hmm, that's an interesting perspective on this subject, and one
that I think is valid. However, as noted in an earlier message, I'm
not going to get involved in the "canon vs. non-canon" debate any
longer.

>Which is the *preferred edition* to use as a "baseline" for
>discussion is a different question ... I would vote for the
>Bantam edition, myself.

Hmm, now the "preferred edition" is a whole different subject. I
use the SPI 2nd Edition, with the modifications that Gerry Klug did up
in Ares Magazine, but that may be because I don't have a copy of the
Bantam version of the game. Didn't really feel the need for it at the
time.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 03:55:52 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>> In order to use the Bantam 2nd Edition as the core rulebook,
>>I would have to see an extensive list of the changes between SPI
>>and Bantam 2nd Edition (which I don't have either), similar to the
>>list of changes between 2nd and 3rd Editions.
>
>I wrote up such a list, many many years ago (I mean, I wrote it
>*longhand*!). I used it to modify my SPI hardcover and then
>discarded it. I wish I hadn't, I would type it up and post it for
>all to see otherwise.

I also wish that you hadn't discarded that list. Oh well, perhaps
that is another project for someone who has both the SPI and Bantam 2nd
Editions of the game to do now. :)

....."Oh, bother!" said Pooh, and deleted his message base.

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

>Howdy all.

>I have not put much if any input to this group.

>But I liked the topic of dead languages. It would seem to me
>that many magical tomes would contain such.

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:09:27 -0400, Deven Atkinson wrote:

[stuff snipped]
>Perhaps as part of the discussion we can end up with a rank for all
>known professional and fan produced DQ related materials. List it
>all and provide a rank. This way DQ fans that stumble on this
>resource would know that we think (for example only) that the
>SPI 1st edition gets a 6, the SPI 2nd edition gets a 9, the
>Bantam 2nd Edition ranks 10, while the TSR 3rd Edition gets a 3.
>We could make it clear that we are ranking the rules based
>aspect. Perhaps we could even rank the modules and scenerios
>for playability, etc..

Hmm, I rather like this idea. We need to determine the nature of
the Ranking system, and put together a listing of every single DQ
product, both professiona and fan produced. I rather like the idea of
ranking these things based on rules for products and playability for
scenarios.

....."Make another pot of herbal tea, dear. I'm going to read mail."

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

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:54:16 +0300 (EEST), Esko Halttunen wrote:

>> >There may be other written-form-only languages, as well.
>> >Alchemy and astrology both have historical precedents for
>> >at least a rudimetary written language.
>>
>> Yes, I would agree with you on this point. Alchemy and Astrology
>> are the two places to start, and I can see where others would come
>>into it. The real place to start would be some of the ancient, old
>> languages (and this might also include some of the magical tongues
>>that might have been around way back when).
>
>I think that if you're interested in this dead languages and related
>stuff and where to get ideas, I would suggest reading a book titled
>AlphaBeta by John Man. It explores the development of our
>alphabet from its ancient roots and explores the history of different
>writing systems and a lot of other things besides, is eminently
>readable because it doesn't bog down on superfluous details and
>gives a very good overall view of how and why many things we
>take for granted are that way. It's less than 300 pages too, and a
>swift read. It certainly gave me a ton of ideas and then some.

Actually, _AlphaBeta_ is one of the books that I've been meaning
to get my hands on to add to my reference book shelf for this purpose.
I've got a couple of other books on the shelf that deal with the
origins of languages, but that's one of the books I've been meaning to
pick up.

.....Actually, it's not replying that takes time, it's choosing a tagline!

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

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 06:57:49 -0400, Deven Atkinson wrote:

>> >>I think that we need a consistent body of rules that act as a basis
>> >>for common play.
>> >
>> >Yes, that's the version(s) printed in the rule book(s). Everything after
>> >that is a personal customisation.
>>
>> I agree with this statement, with the one question: which version
>> of the printed editions of DRAGONQUEST do most of the folks here
>> consider to be the canon for the game?
>
>Canon? Preference?
>Current canon would have to be TSR 3rd edition.
>My preference would be Bantam 2nd edition and I would recommend
>2nd edition over third edition any day until I am blue in the face, but it
>is not the current canon per the owner.

Yep, the difference between "canon" and "preference" is certainly
one that needs to be taken into account, and I agree with the
separation between the two. I'd have to agree with you on what is
currently the canon version of the game, but prefer the SPI Edition
myself. I guess the SPI version is v2, and the Bantam version is v2a.

....."There is no such thing as a 2% margin of error when making a hyperjump, Captain.
You either get it right, or you don't." - Jenja Kaythan, psionic navigator

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

> Hey gang,
>
>
> Scuze me if I'm a day late and a dollar short,
> but am I to
> understand, based on what I've seen in the last
> few posts, that
> the softcover rules (2nd ed) and the hardcover
> rules were actually
> different in content???? Seriously?! If that's
> true, I'm stunned.
> I had no idea.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:16:37 -0400, Deven Atkinson wrote:

[stuff snipped]
>I remember this discussion during gaming. I took the cowards route
>and did not weigh in with my opinion :) Poorly constructed sentences
>are a problem in most rules.

This is certainly one of the problems with this particular rule,
at least in my opinion.

>I can handle playing with a munchkin player, but a rulesmith
>is a real PAIN.

Agreed. :)

>For what it is worth, every GM I have played with only allows one
>rank between sessions, and only that if the training requirements
>were met.

Something that I agree with completely.

.....Bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of cheques.

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

> Scuze me if I'm a day late and a dollar short, but am I to
> understand, based on what I've seen in the last few posts, that
> the softcover rules (2nd ed) and the hardcover rules were actually
> different in content???? Seriously?! If that's true, I'm stunned.
> I had no idea.

>There are a number of differences between the two. To
>my mind, the most notable one is starting PC (5 in the
>SPI hardcover vs. 8 in the Bantam softcover). I think
>most of it was meant to be editorial claeanup and
>error-fixing, rather than a different version, but
>they are not absolutely, line-for-line identical.

> Well, since my name was singled out..... I must be an example
> of what went wrong, but I can not see how.... geeze, now I am
> upset.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Viktor Haag" <vhaag@rim.net>
> To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 11:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] What are the Core Rules of DragonQuest
> >> Was Re: Forming a DragonQuest Canon
>
>
> > Deven Atkinson writes:
> > > I did say that Dragon articles were not likely to be
> > > considered core rules.
> >
> > This post is NOT an attack or rebuke on Deven: I'm merely
> > taking this opportunity to jump into the mix with a
> > concerned observation.

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 11:12:12 -0400, Viktor Haag wrote:

>This post is NOT an attack or rebuke on Deven: I'm merely taking
>this opportunity to jump into the mix with a concerned
>observation.
>
>James Flowers has not like the tenor of the 'canon vs non-canon'
>debate at all, in fact someone in this discussion has pissed him
>off enough to produce this result:
>
> "[10th September 2003] I have chosen to no longer support this
> document. *shrugs* I can't be bothered entering into a debate
> on what is "canon" or "not canon" materials and am offended by
> a recent party's dqn-list response to my well-intentioned
> post. Therefore I choose to exercise my right to no longer
> support this OOP game in any way or form. This sub-site will
> be removed on my next major complete site update."

I'm sorry to hear about James's decision to drop the DQ support
material that he had up on the website, and am also sorry that he chose
to intepret Deven's words as being so personally directed at him. This
mailing list is one of the friendliest, least flame-war oriented that
I've ever been a member of, and I hope that if James is reading this
mailing list, he returns to the DQ community and resumes his place
among us. Any and all contributions to the DQ community are important,
and James's work is one of those contributions. I hope to see him back
here soon.

.....File not found. (A)bort (R)etry (I)nfluence with hammer

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