Hullo, JohnC,

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 19:41:21 -0000, jcorey30 wrote:

>Rodger was kind enough to bring this thread to my attention. Much
>like John K, I had to be away from DQ for a while, but I am working
>myself back in to it...

Yeah, like me, you seem to gravitate back to the game, don't you?
:) I guess it's a matter of game preferences, shifting interests from
time to time, and all sorts of other factors.

>I am designing a site for people to post their DQ adventures. As
>always real life hgas intervened. BUT, I am back in the saddle,
>and getting ready to publish it.

I'm glad to hear this, JohnC...while I want to post some
adventures on my website, preferably in zipped format after being made
into pdfs, I haven't had a lot of time to do work on that, given that
I'm running the game and reassembling some old scenarios from the days
when I ran ARS MAGICA for DRAGONQUEST. I'd actually like to post story
seeds and scenario ideas that people can render into scenarios, so I
applaud you for wanting to do the adventure site, and hope this site
goes on-line soon.

>I have been debating the idea of having ratings. JohnR (how many
>John's do we have here? I wish I had a cooler name like Deven, but I
>digress)

There seem to be quite a few Johns around here, don't there? :)

>pointed out that this has never been the most prolific community. The
>issues is one of volume.

Personally, I think the DQ community is pretty prolific,
considering how long the game has been out of print, even if copies of
it are (relatively) easy to find.

>Right now I have maybe 20 adventures that i can publish on the
>new site.

Wow!! That's quite a nice number of adventures, JohnC. Are
these all things that have been pulled in off the web, as well as your
own scenarios, or is this strictly your own stuff?

>JohnR pointed out that having rankings might be a barrier to
>publication. If someone was insecure about their creation, it
>might cause them to avoid submitting it for publication on the
> site.

I think that is a possibility, but isn't that a risk that one
takes every time one posts/publishes something on the website(s)?

>I know open this question up to the group:
>Is this a valid concern?

Yes.

>Should we be (right now) more concerned about getting more
>content?

Yes.

>Will the rankings keep people from submitting adventures?

I suspect that this will keep people from submitting scenarios and
adventures to some extent, but to be honest, I think that there is more
ego involved in this than anything else. Perhaps a solution might be
to rate the scenario in a review or some such section of the scenarios,
and just publish the submitted adventures as they are.

>One solution is sort of a compromise... I could post reviews and
>comments to start, but not ratings.

Exactly. Multiple reviews might be good too, since not everyone
will agree on some of the scenarios. I've heard that some people don't
like, oh, "The House of Kurin", while others do. :) Same thing can be
said for some of the scenarios that are likely to be submitted.

>I should also point out that to start, this site will not be automated.
>People will email their adventures to me, and I will make pages for
>them and post them.

Frankly, I think this is the way to go, John. Don't automate the
process at all, simply because it loses the personal touch and because
some of the modules and adventures submitted might not be for this
version of DQ - there are scenarios out there for the computer game of
the same name (I can't remember the website where I saw them, but...).

.....Computer upgrade (n.): Removing the old bugs and installing new ones.

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

Hullo, JohnC1,

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 22:44:21 -0000, johncarcutt wrote:

>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.

Oh, wow, it is terrific to see you back here again! <g> Missed
you and the input that you have for the DQ community. Welcome back. :)

.....Patience (n.): A minor form of despair, disguised as a virtue.

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

John M. Kahane writes:

>
> 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.

As far as I know there is NO indication WHO's words James
permitted to offend him. I did NOT mean to imply that it was
Deven, and in hind-sight, I can see that I should have been more
clear on that point.

Unless James responds to the list, there's no real way of
knowning who it was he took offense to.

I'm not saying that James handled the situation appropriately, or
inapporpriately, or indeed that anyone did (or did not). I was
merely pointing out that we seem to have lost a potentially
useful resource.



--
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."

Bruce Probst wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:58:31 -0700 (PDT), Rodger Thorm
><rodger_thorm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
>The other "most obvious" change is the Table for initial characteristic
>points, which was 4D5 in the hardcover, but 2D10 in the Bantam edition (and
>thus has a slightly different distribution).

One "less obvious" but significant change was, as I recall, the
formula for recovering from being stunned. And Magic Resistance
modifiers for the Branches of Magic (5 vs. 15 or something like
that...it's been a while).

-Cameron King

_________________________________________________________________
Compare Cable, DSL or Satellite plans: As low as $29.95.
https://broadband.msn.com

----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodger Thorm"

> Viktor did explicitly state that he wasn't attaking or
> rebuking you.

I know. But my words were forwarded as either an example or strawman.
Either way, to think that I may have had any part in James pulling his
information off his website is very upsetting to me.

>
> I haven't seen the discussion turning into flames;
> this group is generally very good about that, and I
> hope it will stay that way.
>

If James is willing, I'll explain my position to him, and assure him that
the internet is a poorer place without his DragonQuest info.

Okay, I thought I was being sufficiently clear when I
said the example was the most notable to my mind.
There's more than just that, of course. Clearly there
are differences between the two versions of the 2nd
edition.

And Bruce also rightly points out that there may be
two softcover versions (the 3-hole punched SPI
boxed-set version, and the Bantam version). I assumed
that they were identical but for the 3-hole punching,
but I've never seen a copy of that version myself, so
I can't say definitively.

Does anyone who has access to both versions have an
answer to this one?

And I ought to be mocked for spelling cleanup as
"claeanup." Nothing like misspelling a word when
talking about editorial work.

--Rodger


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Deven Atkinson writes:

>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodger Thorm"
>
> > Viktor did explicitly state that he wasn't attaking or
> > rebuking you.
>
> I know. But my words were forwarded as either an example or
> strawman. Either way, to think that I may have had any part
> in James pulling his information off his website is very
> upsetting to me.

OK -- in that case, please just ignore the fact that your words
were quoted at all. They didn't need to be, and in hindsight,
they probably shouldn't have been. I reiterate, once again, that
I wasn't intending to point a finger at anyone.





--
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."

----- Original Message ----- From: "Viktor Haag"

> Deven Atkinson writes:
> > 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 was afraid that this would happen -- Deven I was NOT singling
> you out. I was jumping in to the thread, and your post was the
> latest (and only one remaining) in my mailbox in the thread.
>
> I thought I had made this clear; if I did not, I apologize.
>

I was not upset at you. I was upset by the possiblity that I may have had
something to do with James removing his DragonQuest material.

Rodger Thorm wrote:

>And Bruce also rightly points out that there may be
>two softcover versions (the 3-hole punched SPI
>boxed-set version, and the Bantam version). I assumed
>that they were identical but for the 3-hole punching,
>but I've never seen a copy of that version myself, so
>I can't say definitively.
>
>Does anyone who has access to both versions have an
>answer to this one?

I have both softcover versions as well as the hardcover. The
3-hole punched version and hardcover are textually identical
to each other, AFAICT; the Bantam softcover has differences.

-Cameron King

_________________________________________________________________
Try MSN Messenger 6.0 with integrated webcam functionality!
http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_webcam

Deven Atkinson wrote:

>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodger Thorm"
>
> > Viktor did explicitly state that he wasn't attaking or
> > rebuking you.
>
> I know. But my words were forwarded as either an example or strawman.
> Either way, to think that I may have had any part in James pulling his
> information off his website is very upsetting to me.

It wasn't your post James was offended at, Deven. I reread the whole thread a couple of days ago, but then my ISP decided to do a mail service upgrade so I couldn't post the reply I wrote. The offending post was very obvious and dated far earlier than the post Viktor quoted. I'm not going to start naming any names here, no need for a flamewar, but I *will* point out that everyone should keep in mind that things that would normally be perfectly all right in conversation are not necessarily so on a mailing list/forum/newsgroup, because we only see the written words, unaccompanied by facial expressions, body language and tone of voice that would mitigate their impact, and so giving offense is far easier than face to face.

Random factoid of the day: When we communicate with other people, words have roughly 7% impact, tone of voice 70% and body language 20%, with the remaining 3% from other miscellaneous things such as the moods the listener and speaker have at the moment. Those figures might not be quite exact, it was nearly five years ago since I heard them in communications/Finnish class at school, but they are in the right neighborhood, so at best we're limited to using 7 to 10% of our communications capability here, so we'd better make damn sure that the message that comes across is the one we intend to come across. Because, as far as I know, nobody here is a Sorcery Adept with long range ESP capabilities that allow them to peer into the other members' minds to discern intent.

>
> >
> > I haven't seen the discussion turning into flames;
> > this group is generally very good about that, and I
> > hope it will stay that way.

That would be my preference too. Flamewars are all well and good when they are called for, namely when some troll needs to get smacked down, but there are no such creatures on this list. I don't see a need to commit arson here, because this group is quite mature enough to settle any differences there might be in a civilized manner.

>
> If James is willing, I'll explain my position to him, and assure him that
> the internet is a poorer place without his DragonQuest info.

Does anybody have his email address? The one indicated by the message he posted gave me a bounce when I tried to email him about this, and I haven't had time to get back to it yet. I wanted to say exactly the same thing to him.

Edi

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 12:35:12 -0700 (PDT), Rodger Thorm
<rodger_thorm@yahoo.com> wrote:

>And Bruce also rightly points out that there may be
>two softcover versions (the 3-hole punched SPI
>boxed-set version, and the Bantam version). I assumed
>that they were identical but for the 3-hole punching,
>but I've never seen a copy of that version myself, so
>I can't say definitively.

The 3-hole punched softcover version was published by SPI, at the same time
the hardcover was published. They are identical in content.

The Bantam softcover was published somewhat later (the next year, I think).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"It's an intriguing mix of genocide and modern dance."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

I have to echo Edi's view.

My general rule of thumb when posting is to imagine that I am in a
room talking to total strangers. A tone that you might talk in with
your close friends is not one that you would use with this group of
strangers.

Although I have not met any of you face-to-face, some I feel I have
known personally for years and this may cause me want to take some
liberities in my written communication that would be normally would
be passed off as friendly banter among friends, but I have to remind
myself to back away a little and adopt a more formal tone.

As the co-moderator of this list I find it distressing when anyone
leaves because of such a misunderstanding, especially since we are a
small group and need all the bodies we can muster.

John F. Rauchert, Co-Moderator
"Oh no, not another John!"


--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Esko Halttunen
<esko.halttunen@l...> wrote:

but I *will* point out that everyone should keep in mind that things
that would normally be perfectly all right in conversation are not
necessarily so on a mailing list/forum/newsgroup, because we only
see the written words, unaccompanied by facial expressions, body
language and tone of voice that would mitigate their impact, and so
giving offense is far easier than face to face.

Once I have finished with reviewing versions of Arcane Wisdom, I
will be starting to do the same for the available electronic version
based on the Bantam edition and the third ed, comparing it to my
hard cover second ed. version.

I will need someone to confirm that the differences in the
electronic version are actually Bantam edition changes and not house
rules added by the creator of the electronic version but that will
be some time down the road.

On the plus side is that I did such a review of the first book with
a previous version of the electronic edition and I still have my
notes from that as well as the creator's comments.

As I predicted things are going slow with Arcane Wisdom. I started
with the College of Rune Magics. I have six "versions" of this
college. I have compared three of the versions so far and found them
to be identical in content, except for a few changes in spelling.

The next three versions are from "published" resources but a cursory
glance shows that they might also be very close to my baseline text
copy.

John F. Rauchert

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Probst <bprobst@n...> wrote:
>
> The 3-hole punched softcover version was published by SPI, at the
same time
> the hardcover was published. They are identical in content.
>
> The Bantam softcover was published somewhat later (the next year,
I think).

Any thought on this on DQ. Not really interested in a skill rank system in
it just a base number for an adventurer who can swim. Cant decide whether it
should be MD, AG, PS based with a bit of FAT / EN thrown in!!!

Maybe a way to tie in to the floatation spell?

Scenario Im working on is a dispute between the colleges of air and water so
may be some sea / swimming invloved..

ta

JohnD


*********************************************************************
This e-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, are
confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee.
If this message was not addressed to you, you have received
it in error and any copying, distribution or other use of any
part of it is strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions presented
are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent
those of the British Geological Survey. The security of e-mail
communication cannot be guaranteed and the BGS accepts
no liability for claims arising as a result of the use of this medium
to transmit from or to the BGS. The BGS cannot accept any
responsibility for viruses, so please scan all attachments.
http://www.bgs.ac.uk
*********************************************************************

Hi Johns and Others
Adventure site sounds a very good idea. Its the one thing time always
steals away is a chnace to write fully detailed adventures. I think the
game has plenty of rules and so much variability is skills, spells etc I
cant say I too interested in new colleges, skill groups etc. Adventures I
am very hungry for, as I always GM. I think a reviewing / comments idea is
good as you can discuss bits you found tricky to comprehend, innovative ways
the party handled things etc. Im not sure about a ranking system because
say with something as expandive as D&D 3rd edition where an adventure has a
good statistical number off 'ranks' they still may not agree with a persons
personal views.

Another John, also recently returned to DQ...personally I blame global
warming

-----Original Message-----
From: jcorey30 [mailto:john@dragonquestadventures.com]
Sent: 12 September 2003 20:41
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DQN-list] DragonQuest adventures site.


Hi All,

Rodger was kind enough to bring this thread to my attention. Much
like John K, I had to be away from DQ for a while, but I am working
myself back in to it...

I am designing a site for people to post their DQ adventures. As
always real life hgas intervened.
BUT, I am back in the saddle, and getting ready to publish it.
I have been debating the idea of having ratings. JohnR (how many
John's do we have here? I wish I had a cooler name like Deven, but I
digress) pointed out that this has never been the most prolific
community. The issues is one of volume. Right now I have maybe 20
adventures that i can publish on the new site. JohnR pointed out that
having rankings might be a barrier to publication. If someone was
insecure about their creation, it might cause them to avoid submitting
it for publication on the site.

I know open this question up to the group:
Is this a valid concern? Should we be (right now) more concerned
about getting more content? Will the rankings keep people from
submitting adventures?

One solution is sort of a compromise... I could post reviews and
comments to start, but not ratings.

I should also point out that to start, this site will not be
automated. People will email their adventures to me, and I will make
pages for them and post them. This is possible, because like i said,
I have less than 20 right now.

Comments?
Juanc

--- 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





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



*********************************************************************
This e-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, are
confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee.
If this message was not addressed to you, you have received
it in error and any copying, distribution or other use of any
part of it is strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions presented
are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent
those of the British Geological Survey. The security of e-mail
communication cannot be guaranteed and the BGS accepts
no liability for claims arising as a result of the use of this medium
to transmit from or to the BGS. The BGS cannot accept any
responsibility for viruses, so please scan all attachments.
http://www.bgs.ac.uk
*********************************************************************

JohnD

Even if you are not looking for a ranked system for swimming I think
that the Dragon Magazine articles on swimming for DragonQuest are a
good place to find some inspiration.

If you do not have them already, you can find them reproduced in our
files area at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/files/

DragonQuestGoingUpandGettingWet.pdf
DragonQuestSwimming.pdf

JohnR

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Davis, John R" <jrda@b...> wrote:
>
> Any thought on this on DQ. Not really interested in a skill rank
system in
> it just a base number for an adventurer who can swim. Cant decide
whether it
> should be MD, AG, PS based with a bit of FAT / EN thrown in!!!
>
> Maybe a way to tie in to the floatation spell?
>
> Scenario Im working on is a dispute between the colleges of air
and water so
> may be some sea / swimming invloved..
>
> ta
>
> JohnD

Hi JohnK,

The 20 adventures maybe a little high. Some of them are mine, but most
are taken fro mthis site and other sources on the web.

John

On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 08:27 AM, John M. Kahane wrote:

>       Hullo, JohnC,
>
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 19:41:21 -0000, jcorey30 wrote:
>
> >Rodger was kind enough to bring this thread to my attention.  Much
> >like John K, I had to be away from DQ for a while, but I am working
> >myself back in to it...
>
>      Yeah, like me, you seem to gravitate back to the game, don't you?
> :)  I guess it's a matter of game preferences, shifting interests from
> time to time, and all sorts of other factors.
>
> >I am designing a site for people to post their DQ adventures.  As
> >always real life hgas intervened.  BUT, I am back in the saddle,
> >and getting ready to publish it.
>
>      I'm glad to hear this, JohnC...while I want to post some
> adventures on my website, preferably in zipped format after being made
> into pdfs, I haven't had a lot of time to do work on that, given that
> I'm running the game and reassembling some old scenarios from the days
> when I ran ARS MAGICA for DRAGONQUEST.  I'd actually like to post story
> seeds and scenario ideas that people can render into scenarios, so I
> applaud you for wanting to do the adventure site, and hope this site
> goes on-line soon.
>
> >I have been debating the idea of having ratings.  JohnR (how many
> >John's do we have here? I wish I had a cooler name like Deven, but I
> >digress)
>
>       There seem to be quite a few Johns around here, don't there? :)
>
> >pointed out that this has never been the most prolific community.  The
> >issues is one of volume. 
>
>      Personally, I think the DQ community is pretty prolific,
> considering how long the game has been out of print, even if copies of
> it are (relatively) easy to find. 
>
> >Right now I have maybe 20 adventures that i can publish on the
> >new site.
>
>       Wow!!   That's quite a nice number of adventures, JohnC.  Are
> these all things that have been pulled in off the web, as well as your
> own scenarios, or is this strictly your own stuff?
>
> >JohnR pointed out that having rankings might be a barrier to
> >publication.  If someone was insecure about their creation, it
> >might cause them to avoid submitting it for publication on the
> > site. 
>
>      I think that is a possibility, but isn't that a risk that one
> takes every time one posts/publishes something on the website(s)? 
>
> >I know open this question up to the group:
> >Is this a valid concern?
>
>      Yes.
>
> >Should we be (right now) more concerned about getting more
> >content?
>
>      Yes.
>
> >Will the rankings keep people from submitting adventures?
>
>      I suspect that this will keep people from submitting scenarios and
> adventures to some extent, but to be honest, I think that there is more
> ego involved in this than anything else.   Perhaps a solution might be
> to rate the scenario in a review or some such section of the scenarios,
> and just publish the submitted adventures as they are.
>
> >One solution is sort of a compromise... I could post reviews and
> >comments to start, but not ratings.
>
>       Exactly.  Multiple reviews might be good too, since not everyone
> will agree on some of the scenarios.  I've heard that some people don't
> like, oh, "The House of Kurin", while others do. :)  Same thing can be
> said for some of the scenarios that are likely to be submitted.
>
> >I should also point out that to start, this site will not be
> automated. 
> >People will email their adventures to me, and I will make pages for
> >them and post them.
>
>      Frankly, I think this is the way to go, John.  Don't automate the
> process at all, simply because it loses the personal touch and because
> some of the modules and adventures submitted might not be for this
> version of DQ - there are scenarios out there for the computer game of
> the same name (I can't remember the website where I saw them, but...).
>
> .....Computer upgrade (n.):  Removing the old bugs and installing new
> ones.
>
>      JohnK
>      e-mail:  jkahane@comnet.ca
>      web page:  http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane%c2%a0%c2%a0
>
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

what was James URL?

On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 03:35 PM, Viktor Haag wrote:

> Deven Atkinson writes:
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodger Thorm"
> >
> > > Viktor did explicitly state that he wasn't attaking or
> > > rebuking you.
> >
> > I know.  But my words were forwarded as either an example or
> > strawman.  Either way, to think that I may have had any part
> > in James pulling his information off his website is very
> > upsetting to me.
>
> OK -- in that case, please just ignore the fact that your words
> were quoted at all. They didn't need to be, and in hindsight,
> they probably shouldn't have been. I reiterate, once again, that
> I wasn't intending to point a finger at anyone.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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."
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, John Corey <john@d...> wrote:

> what was James URL?

http://www.ellipsis.net.nz/ is the still active portion. The
DragonQuest link circles back to that main page now.

I've sent an email to James at an address that did not bounce (the
address he was using to post to this group seems to have been closed),
but I haven't heard anything from him, and I don't know if I will.

I'm sorry to see this happen, and I'm very sorry that James felt the
need to take such drastic action. I hope that he is aware of the
support he has from the rest of the DQ community and that he will
rejoin the DQ groups in due time.

--RT

John Rauchert wrote:

>I will need someone to confirm that the differences in the
>electronic version are actually Bantam edition changes and not house
>rules added by the creator of the electronic version but that will
>be some time down the road.

I'd be happy to help you with that when the time comes.

-Cameron King

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with MSN Messenger 6.0 -- download now!
http://www.msnmessenger-download.com/tracking/reach_general

I've given this topic a new subject line in order to help get more
people's attention to it and comments about it. The original item is
included at the bottom of this message.

David proposed a numbering system that would allow for the
organization of additional DragonQuest material. I'll weigh in with
my own specific comments in a separate message. But some sort of
unified structure is essential to produce a coordinated work of any kind.

--RT

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@e...>
wrote:

> > It would be nice, for example, to have a consistent format for
> numbering and organizing various contributions and additions. That's
> just one of many reasons that I see for this to be a more formally
> organized project.
>
>
> OK to get more practical things started and get away from the rather
> tedious discussion about whether we can call it a canon
>
> How about this for a consistent numbering system
>
> Interpretations/clarifications of the existing rules drop down one
> level, eg a clarification of rule [12.3] becomes [12.3.1] and so on.
>
> The original rules (including AW) go up to about 97., additional
> rules would go above this. We could try this system:-
>
> For example
> 100.-149. Additional rules for Character Generation including new
> races
> 150.-199. Additional rules for Combat
> 200.-249. Additional rules for Magic
> 250.-299. Additional Magic Colleges
> 300.-349. Additional rules for Skills
> 350.-399. Additional Skills
> 400.-449. Additional Monsters
> 450.-499. Additional rules for Adventure
> 500.-549. Religion
> 550.- onwards things I haven't thought of
>
> The ranges will have to be tweaked but it should work
>
> David

The existing structure (basic rules of whichever edition, plus Arcane
Wisdom) uses rules numbered to just short of 100. Since Arcane Wisdom
was a supplement to the 2nd edition only (3rd edition instead
attempted to incorporate AW), I think the base from which to start
should be the 2nd edition. The debate over SPI/hardcover versus
Bantam/softcover version is still open, but they are close enough to
one another that we can address that issue separately and later on.

OPTION 1 - Straight numbering of new rules.
On one hand, there is a case to be made for letting things be numbered
sequentially as they are added. This would be following the direction
of Arcane Wisdom in relationship to the original rules. I continued
this when I laid out Poor Brendan's Almanac; I started at 100
(skipping a couple from the end of AW just to start at a round number)
and just numbered from there.

In this system, there is no categorization. This would work well if
there were going to be a series of supplements to the game, similar to
AW and PBA as supplemental books to the basic DQ ruleset. This, I
strongly suspect, would be the way that Arcane Wisdom and other future
supplements from SPI would have been produced.

The downside to this approach include having a very scattered set of
rules. As the number of books increases, the rules become more and
more scattered. While this format was the only viable alternative for
SPI at the time, since this is a web-based project, there is not
nearly the same need to have everything in volume-release format.

OPTION 2 - A classified numbering system.
A numbering system such as David has proposed allows similar rules to
be found in the same section. As more rules for a particular section
are added, they are just appended to their section, rather than being
added elsewhere later on. However, this repeats the some of the same
problems as Option 1, only at a slightly finer grain.

Unfortunately, this will still lead to some organizational confusion.
The rules for the original 12 magical colleges are in order by branch
(Thaumaturgies, Elementals, Entities), and the skills are listed in
alphabetical order. If we add new skills, and then add some others,
and then add some more, they are likely to fall out of alphabetical
order. Alphabetical order isn't necessarily the best way to organize
the rules, but it is another tool that helps you quickly find
'Military Scientist' when you are looking it up.

OPTION 3 - A library numbering system.
Ideally, I think a numbering system like a Dewey or LoC library
organizational system, where new items can be inserted in their proper
place no matter when they are introduced, would be ideal. The
difficulty with this would be in organizing the system at the outset.

I know that there are some library-minded people in our group who may
have suggestions about how something like this might be organized. It
may not be as difficult as I am imagining. But it might ultimately be
the best way to organize our work so that it remains flexible and
adaptable.

This is also the best way to integrate the existing ruleset in with
the modifications, and would ultimately be the most user-friendly
appraoch to take.

Option 3.5 - A hybrid system.
For now, David's system would work (as proposed, or with alterations),
for purposes of beginning this project. As the rules are developed, a
system for organizing the rules is also worked out, with a specific
target for adoption and transfer of rules from the 'hundreds' system
to an indexing system. It could also prove useful to see how the new
rules are lining up to help in figuring out what the order of the
indexing system should be like.

--Rodger Thorm

> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@e...>
> wrote:

> >
> > For example
> > 100.-149. Additional rules for Character Generation including new
> > races
> > 150.-199. Additional rules for Combat
> > 200.-249. Additional rules for Magic
> > 250.-299. Additional Magic Colleges
> > 300.-349. Additional rules for Skills
> > 350.-399. Additional Skills
> > 400.-449. Additional Monsters
> > 450.-499. Additional rules for Adventure
> > 500.-549. Religion
> > 550.- onwards things I haven't thought of
> >
> > The ranges will have to be tweaked but it should work
> >
> > David

Hullo, folks,

Got an interesting question for you all...

Let's say that I have a set of skills, called Secondary Skills,
that I want to use for both minor skills and for complementing major
skills. How would you go about setting up the way the complementary
skill affects the main skill?

For example, I have a character with Ranger skill at Rank 2. He
receives an ability under the skill called Tracking, which is at [PC +
(Rank x 6)]%, if the quarry attempted to hide their tracks. Now let's
have a chaacter who wants a skill called Tracking, but doesn't want the
baggage that goes along with the Ranger skill. Let's say I give him
the Secondary skill of Tracking at a Base Chance of [PC + (Rank x 2)]%
for the sake of argument, and I charge the character a reasonable
amount of XPs to acquire the Secondary skill up to Rank 2. Assume
they both have PCs of 10, for the sake of the argument... The
character with Rank 2 Ranger has a BC of 22% of using the skill if the
quarry has tried to hide their tracks, and the non-Ranger (let's say
bounty hunter type) has a BC of 14% chance of doing the same thing, but
might have an extra penalty thrown in on top of that.

However, what happens if our Rank 2 Ranger likes the idea of
being a bit better tracker, and decides to take the Secondary skill of
Tracking? How would you give him the bonus here? One way to do
this, would be to add the percentage from the formula to secondary
Tracking skill to his Tracking sklill percentage under Ranger. Thus,
assuming the Rank 2 Ranger with a PC of 10 took Rank 2 Tracking, his BC
would become 22+14=36%. Another solution might be to add a Tracking
skill (Rank x variable)% to the Ranger tracking ability. Say, x2. So
the Ranger would have a 22+4=26% chance of using his Ranger tracking
ability.

Any thoughts on other ways to handle this kind of situation for a
complementary skill? Look forward to some other thoughts on this...

.....Purranoia is the fear that your cats are plotting against you.

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

I use a skill system where you can get ranks in my game, but the skill
itself is based on PS, MD and EN. I'll throw in the write-up as well just
for interest.

Swimming
Skill Type: Outdoor
Modifying Stats: PS, MD, EN
Base EXP Multiple: 300
Tool/Penalty: None
Bonus Equipment: None
Bonus for maneuvering in water.

Encumbrance A swimmers effective rank is reduced by 1 if clothing is worn
and by 1 (plus 2 times agility penalty) if armour is worn. This applies to
TMR and combat, but not to holding your breath.

Non-Swimmers - Characters with no levels in swimming do not know how to
swim and will lose 1 point of Fatigue cumulative every round (1 point the
first round, 2 points the second round, 3 the third, etc.). When the
character runs out of Fatigue, they start losing Endurance though the
number of points lost start at 1 again. For example, a non-swimmer with a
20 End and 22 Fat will be down to 21 FAT after the first round, 19 FAT
after the second, then 16, 12, 7, 1, 0 over the next five rounds. Then
they will lose 1 END the next round, putting them at 19 END. The next
round they are at 17 END, then 14, 10, 5, -1, -8, -16 over the next six
rounds. The following round, they will drown. Thus, it takes a total of 16
rounds for the non-swimmer to drown.

Surface TMR - A Swimmer has a base TMR of 4 in the water (2 for gnomes and
1 for dwarves). TMR increases by 1 per 3 ranks (round up). TMR can be
doubled by spending 1 FAT per round.

Subsurface TMR - TMR is halved when swimming below the surface.

Holding your Breath A swimmer can hold their breath for 15 + (WP x 3) + (2
x rank) seconds without preparation, or 30 + (WP x 3) + (3 x rank) with
preparation.

Staying Afloat A swimmer can keep himself afloat for (END + Rank) hours
before they begin to lose Fatigue. Thereafter, they lose 1 point of
Fatigue, cumulative every (END + Rank) minutes (1 point after X minutes, 2
more points after another X minutes, 3 more points after another X minutes,
etc.). When the swimmer runs out of Fatigue, they will begin to lose END,
but will start again at 1. Staying afloat does not allow for any
movement. The character stays afloat in one location.

Endurance Swimming A swimmer can swim at base TMR for a number of rounds
equal to (END + Rank) before beginning to lose 1 point of Fatigue per
round. The swimmer can burn Endurance if he runs out of Fatigue. Fatigue
lost is this fashion recovers at 1 point per minutes once the swimmer can
rest (by resting on a solid surface). Endurance lost recovers at the
normal rate of recovery for Endurance.

The Effect of Turbulent Seas Turbulent seas should reduce the effective
rank of a swimmer. For example, swimming in the ocean on a relatively calm
day, but where there is still a gentle swell, might reduce the effective
rank of a swimmer by one so that someone with only one rank in swimming
will drown.

The Effects of Swimming Skill on Bottom AdventuresOn some occasions, the
adventurers may undertake adventures on the bottom of the sea, protected by
such spells as water breathing and free action. In such cases, swimming
skill might still be useful for determining subsurface swimming
speed. Free action magic will allow the character to fight normally while
standing on the bottom, regardless of whether they have swimming skill. If
the character is below the surface, but not standing on the bottom, then
free action will allow them to use the swimming skill normally for
determining combat effectiveness (i.e., a rank 6 swimmer can fight at half
SC and damage, etc.).

The Effects of Water Pressure (how deep can you go) - A character can
safely withstand the pressure of depths down to (END x 3) feet. Beyond
this, the character suffers 1 Fatigue damage per round per END feet beyond
their safedepth. For example, a character with a 20 END could safely
withstand depths down to 60 feet. Between 61 and 80 feet, they suffer 1
FAT damage per round.. Between 81 and 100 feet, they suffer 2 FAT damage
per round, etc. When Fatigue runs out, they begin taking END damage.

Rank 6 The swimmer can fight in melee while swimming on the
surface. Effective Strike Chance is equal to half normal Strike
Chance. Damage is half normal damage for all weapons (roll damage
normally but then cut the total in half). This applies to many other
action skills as well. For example, a Swimmer with Rope Mastery skill can
throw a lasso and perform other Rope Mastery abilities, but their effective
bonus is halved.

Rank 8 An endurance swimmer can "rest" in the water to recover Fatigue lost
due to Endurance Swimming. Fatigue is recovered at a rate of one point per
two minutes of rest. The endurance swimmer can recover all Fatigue except
1 per 30 minutes spent in the water. Thus, a rank 8 swimmer who has been
swimming for four hours, can recover all but 8 Fatigue. If Endurance was
burned, it cannot be recovered in this fashion.

Rank 10 A swimmers melee ability improves. Strike Chance is equal to
three quarters normal Strike Chance. Damage is reduced by 3 points, or
half damage, whichever is more (roll damage normally and then deduct 3
points or cut in half).

Rank 12 Similar to the Rank 8 ability except that the endurance swimmer
can recover all Fatigue except 1 per hour spent in the water.

Rank 15 The swimmer can fight equally effectively on shore as they can
while swimming on the surface. In addition, the swimmer can fight at half
Strike Chance and damage below the surface.


At 05:28 AM 9/16/2003, you wrote:

>
>Any thought on this on DQ. Not really interested in a skill rank system in
>it just a base number for an adventurer who can swim. Cant decide whether it
>should be MD, AG, PS based with a bit of FAT / EN thrown in!!!
>
>Maybe a way to tie in to the floatation spell?
>
>Scenario Im working on is a dispute between the colleges of air and water so
>may be some sea / swimming invloved..
>
>ta
>
>JohnD
>
>
>*********************************************************************
>This e-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, are
>confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee.
>If this message was not addressed to you, you have received
>it in error and any copying, distribution or other use of any
>part of it is strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions presented
>are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent
>those of the British Geological Survey. The security of e-mail
>communication cannot be guaranteed and the BGS accepts
>no liability for claims arising as a result of the use of this medium
>to transmit from or to the BGS. The BGS cannot accept any
>responsibility for viruses, so please scan all attachments.
>http://www.bgs.ac.uk
>*********************************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Jason Winter
Alarian@direcway.com
http://www.darkrealms.com/~alarian/

Interesting topic John,

    For example, I have a character with Ranger skill at Rank 2.  He
receives an ability under the skill called Tracking, which is at [PC +
(Rank x 6)]%, if the quarry attempted to hide their tracks.  Now let's
have a chaacter who wants a skill called Tracking, but doesn't want the
baggage that goes along with the Ranger skill.  Let's say I give him
the Secondary skill of Tracking at a Base Chance of [PC + (Rank x 2)]%
for the sake of argument, and I charge the character a reasonable
amount of XPs to acquire the Secondary skill up to Rank 2.   Assume
they both have PCs of 10, for the sake of the argument...  The
character with Rank 2 Ranger has a BC of 22% of using the skill if the
quarry has tried to hide their tracks, and the non-Ranger (let's say
bounty hunter type) has a BC of 14% chance of doing the same thing, but
might have an extra penalty thrown in on top of that.

       However, what happens if our Rank 2 Ranger likes the idea of
being a bit better tracker, and decides to take the Secondary skill of
Tracking?   How would you give him the bonus here?   One way to do
this, would be to add the percentage from the formula to secondary
Tracking skill to his Tracking sklill percentage under Ranger.  Thus,
assuming the Rank 2 Ranger with a PC of 10 took Rank 2 Tracking, his BC
would become 22+14=36%.   Another solution might be to add a Tracking
skill (Rank x variable)% to the Ranger tracking ability.   Say, x2.  So
the Ranger would have a 22+4=26% chance of using his Ranger tracking
ability.  

     Any thoughts on other ways to handle this kind of situation for a
complementary skill?  Look forward to some other thoughts on this...

My first impression on this is that the skills would be the same and the Ranger would get no additional bonus by learning the Tracker skill. He already has the ability to learn that and the extra skill of tracker would not teach him anything he does not already know or could not lean by going up in rank in the Ranger skill.

Now, while typing this it occurred to me that you want use this to allow the Ranger to be able to increase in one specific skill while leaving the other at lower ranks, that might work, but just treat the skill the same as if the Rank 2 Ranger was a Rank (insert Tracking Rank here) Ranger for that specific skill only. So a Rank 2 Ranger knows Tracking at Rank 2, if he is a Rank 2 Tracker as well he would still know Tracking at Rank 2. This would mean it would add no benefit until his Tracker rank is higher than his Ranger rank.

John {aka:Axl}

Hi, people!
Talking about allowing only 1 level increase between adventures; with skills,
for example thief, if you pick a lock, you can advance in climbing and picking
pockets. Did you enforced the use of each particular spell to increase rank
with it, or only the type of magic (talent, general spells, general rituals,
special spells, special rituals)? If so, how could you rank the special ritual
of necromantic conj. "Becoming Undead"? You can only become undead once.
Greetings... Arturo

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com

Hi, people!
Talking about allowing only 1 level increase between adventures; with skills,
for example thief, if you pick a lock, you can advance in climbing and picking
pockets. Did you enforced the use of each particular spell to increase rank
with it, or only the type of magic (talent, general spells, general rituals,
special spells, special rituals)? If so, how could you rank the special ritual
of necromantic conj. "Becoming Undead"? You can only become undead once.
Greetings...           Arturo

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com


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

--- Arturo Algueiro Melo <aleam00@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi, people!
> Talking about allowing only 1 level increase between
> adventures; with skills,
> for example thief, if you pick a lock, you can
> advance in climbing and picking
> pockets. Did you enforced the use of each particular
> spell to increase rank
> with it, or only the type of magic (talent, general
> spells, general rituals,
> special spells, special rituals)? If so, how could
> you rank the special ritual
> of necromantic conj. "Becoming Undead"? You can only
> become undead once.
> Greetings... Arturo

A most excellent question. You give the example of
the Ritual of Becoming Undead, which is the ritual
that first got me thinking about this as well. I've
noticed a similar problem respecting the Ritual of
Remove Curse in the Adventure section at the back of
the book. Trying that ritual at lower Ranks is more
likely to make a curse worse than it is to remove it.

Having given it some thought, I think that Rituals
should probably be an exception to the
used-during-campaign rule. I rationalize that
decision as follows. In principle, the idea of a
ritual is something that you wouldn't ordinarily do
during a campaign (out on the battlefield, as it
were), but rather during the lulls between campaigns.
Rituals are supposed to be difficult operations that
require time, quiet meditation, and sometimes
expensive materials to complete. I realize that in
practice some rituals are used during campaigns quite
often, which is why I say "in principle". So, I could
see relaxing the rule on this matter. In fact, in the
campaigns I've been in/run, we usually said that if
you used a ritual during the between-campaign lull,
that was the one use you needed for ranking.

Some college's rituals are simpler and have more of a
in-adventure usage, so I'd definitely say this should
be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. As an
afterthought, I might also say that if you prepared a
spell as a ritual, that would -not- count as a usage
towards ranking the spell.

Mort

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

--- Arturo Algueiro Melo <aleam00@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi, people!
> Talking about

allowing only 1 level increase between

> adventures; with skills,
>

for example thief, if you pick a lock, you can

> advance in climbing and

picking

> pockets. Did you enforced the use of each particular
>

spell to increase rank

> with it, or only the type of magic (talent,

general

> spells, general rituals,
> special spells, special

rituals)? If so, how could

> you rank the special ritual
> of

necromantic conj. "Becoming Undead"? You can only

> become undead

once.

>

Greetings...           Arturo

A most excellent question.  You give the example of
the Ritual of Becoming Undead, which is the ritual
that first got me thinking about this as well.  I've
noticed a similar problem respecting the Ritual of
Remove Curse in the Adventure section at the back of
the book.  Trying that ritual at lower Ranks is more
likely to make a curse worse than it is to remove it.

Having given it some thought, I think that Rituals
should probably be an exception to the
used-during-campaign rule.  I rationalize that
decision as follows.  In principle, the idea of a
ritual is something that you wouldn't ordinarily do
during a campaign (out on the battlefield, as it
were), but rather during the lulls between campaigns.
Rituals are supposed to be difficult operations that
require time, quiet meditation, and sometimes
expensive materials to complete.  I realize that in
practice some rituals are used during campaigns quite
often, which is why I say "in principle".  So, I could
see relaxing the rule on this matter.  In fact, in the
campaigns I've been in/run, we usually said that if
you used a ritual during the between-campaign lull,
that was the one use you needed for ranking.

Some college's rituals are simpler and have more of a
in-adventure usage, so I'd definitely say this should
be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.  As an
afterthought, I might also say that if you prepared a
spell as a ritual, that would -not- count as a usage
towards ranking the spell.

Mort

__________________________________
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Two options, just off the top of my head,

Since the player already has the skill of tracking (via the Ranger skill)
that means that he can't take the Secondary Skill of Tracking, as it's
assumed to be subsumed in the Ranger skill.

or

He can take both, but he only gets to use one or the other for any check
(probably whichever is the highest at the time.)


Stephen Lister


"John M. Kahane" <jkahane@comnet.ca> wrote on 17/09/2003 04:23:32:

> Hullo, folks,
>
> Got an interesting question for you all...
>
> Let's say that I have a set of skills, called Secondary Skills,
> that I want to use for both minor skills and for complementing major
> skills. How would you go about setting up the way the complementary
> skill affects the main skill?
>

<snipped for brevity and bandwidth>

>
> Any thoughts on other ways to handle this kind of situation for a
> complementary skill? Look forward to some other thoughts on this...
>

--- "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@comnet.ca> wrote:

> Let's say that I have a set of skills, called
> Secondary Skills,
> that I want to use for both minor skills and for
> complementing major
> skills. How would you go about setting up the way
> the complementary
> skill affects the main skill?

I would have to agree with those who've already
responded. If the character wants to have both the
main and complementary skills, I'd say he uses the
better of the two checks.

Mort

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

...and after the first full week of teaching duties,
he replied...

--- "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@comnet.ca> wrote:

>
> >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.

Oh, it was most certainly excessive. It was also
serious munchkin play. Note the part where I
mentioned this was his group in -high school-. `:>
We always took the rules about weekly living costs
seriously, and its amazing how quickly one's vast
riches can dry up with that in force. It definitely
keeps the characters from getting to comfortable on
the Guild sofas.

> > 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. :)

Most of our opponents during those early days were
humans (Reavers, to be exact). I should say I
misstated things a bit when I said it was being
surprised that we got tired of. It would be truer to
say that always losing Initiative in combat got
tiresome. There's a lot to be said for always winning
Initiative when you're still Mercs. :)

> >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.

For early-career characters, I would say that the
weekly-costs rules take care of this, too. There's no
more pressing obligation than the rumbling of a belly
when money runs out. Although it was very annoying at
the time, I have to say in retrospect that our GM's
tight-fisted monetary awards during our early careers
kept our party from taking too much vacation time. :D

Mort

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

--- "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@comnet.ca> wrote:

> 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.

We didn't see Alchemists in my old group too often
either. I don't know about other groups, but I think
it was largely a factor of the production costs for
things being a little too high. I think the cost for
making potions were ludicrously high, but that may
have also been a factor of our campaign economies.
Hmm... question to the group: How often have people
had their characters make or buy Alchemist's potions
(at costs as listed in the Alchemist skill), what were
the circumstances, and what level/how wealthy were the
characters at the time?

Anyway, the stuff we started incorporating into the
Alchemist skill for our group came from a positively
neolithic RPG supplement called "The Compleat
Alchemist", published by (the now-defunct?) Bard's
Games. The supplement itself is based on a D&D
conception of the Alchemist as a class with 12 levels.
However, the material in the supplement is extremely
well-researched and all based on the ideas of
historical alchemy (taken to extremes, of course...).
I did a little bit of library research on alchemy
myself at one point, and was surprised at how much
research they must've done for this book. Its also
one of the more charming features of DQ, too. :) We've
tried incorporating some of the levels as Ranks, with
considerable reworking, but it could use a lot more
playtesting before I can say it's worked or even a
workable fusion.

If any of you are intested in supplementing your
Alchemy skill, I would definitely recommend this book
as a fertile source of inspiration. The idea for
having an Alchemist's Script in our game came directly
from it, to give credit where credit is due. There's
also some good stuff in there for supplementing the
Mechanician skill (another somewhat sketchy skill).
That is, if you can find it anymore. I think TSR
must've bought it at some point, cause I remember once
seeing a version of it they published on the shelves.
I'd post our scan of it, but WotC probably owns the
rights now, and I ain't touching that.

> >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).

Alchemy and astrology were, historically speaking, two
deeply intertwined philosophies. As far as them
having their own individual languages, it would be
fair to say that they used the same "alphabets", at
least. Sort of the way modern chemists and
astronomers share the common language of mathematics
in their writings.

Mort

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:28:57 +0100, "Davis, John R" <jrda@bgs.ac.uk> wrote:

>Any thought on this on DQ. Not really interested in a skill rank system in
>it just a base number for an adventurer who can swim. Cant decide whether it
>should be MD, AG, PS based with a bit of FAT / EN thrown in!!!

I use a Ranked system -- better swimmers swim better (and faster). It
should be largely AG-based, since swimming involves maneuvering your whole
body. PS & EN help. Being out of FT hurts.

I can't remember if I came up with the following on my own, or if I stole it
from someone else -- if someone recognises it as "their" system, feel free
to claim credit!

Swimming.

Most characters will begin with this Ability at Rank 0. Some, however,
particularly those who have little to no regular contact with large bodies
of water, will be unranked.

The Base Chance for an individual to swim is [PS + EN + (AG x Rank)]%.
Individuals without even Rank 0 will have their chance halved, rounding
down. The Swim percentage is modified further by subtracting (10 x AG
modifier), where the AG modifier is the penalty for wearing armour and
carrying encumbrance.

Other applicable modifiers include +10 to –50 for surface conditions — +10
for absolute calm, -50 for a raging storm; –10 if the character has 0 FT;
+10 if the character is naked or nearly so.

The dice should be rolled every Pulse while in combat, or every 10 minutes
otherwise. A character merely treading water need not make a Swim roll.
For FT expenditure, swimming counts as "strenuous" activity for most land
beings, and "hard" for amphibians.

A normal success roll allows normal movement and actions (or as normal as
circumstances permit). A special success or better allows the character to
increase his Swimming TMR by 20%. A failure that does not exceed the
success chance by more than the character’s modified AG indicates the
character must concentrate on treading water. A roll greater than this
indicates the character may begin drowning; see the appropriate rules in the
World chapter.

A character’s swimming TMR, if not specifically provided, is (normal TMR +
Rank)/3. Simply walking on the bottom does not require a swim roll, and the
TMR in such cases is (normal TMR)/3.

Rank: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
XP Cost 0, 125, 250, 375, 500, 625, 750, 875, 1000, 1125, 1250


----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"It's an intriguing mix of genocide and modern dance."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:23:32 -0400, "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@comnet.ca>
wrote:

> Let's say that I have a set of skills, called Secondary Skills,
>that I want to use for both minor skills and for complementing major
>skills. How would you go about setting up the way the complementary
>skill affects the main skill?

If I understand you correctly, I have a similar system, where I have a
separate "Climbing" skill available to non-Thieves.

As far as % chance goes, they don't modify each other if a character has
both. Whichever calculation gives the higher chance is used. At the same
Rank, this will always be Thief.

Having high Rank in Climbing can make learning Thief cheaper, though: a 10%
discount. (There's no reason for someone who already knows Thief to learn
Climbing separately at all, so no need to apply a discount.)

> Any thoughts on other ways to handle this kind of situation for a
>complementary skill? Look forward to some other thoughts on this...

I would use the same system as above in your Ranger/Tracking example. The
best trackers are Rangers; other people can learn it, but Rangers do it
best. A Ranger would not need to learn Tracking separately.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"It's an intriguing mix of genocide and modern dance."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 14:50:38 -0500 (CDT), Arturo Algueiro Melo
<aleam00@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Talking about allowing only 1 level increase between adventures; with skills,
>for example thief, if you pick a lock, you can advance in climbing and picking
>pockets. Did you enforced the use of each particular spell to increase rank
>with it, or only the type of magic (talent, general spells, general rituals,
>special spells, special rituals)? If so, how could you rank the special ritual
>of necromantic conj. "Becoming Undead"? You can only become undead once.

The Ritual can fail, in which case the character is merely (probably?) dead,
not undead. If he is brought back to life he can try again, potentially a
little wiser for his troubles!

Granted, this is not something you're going to see much of, but then, it's
not a ritual that will be used a lot, either! In the case of "one-shot
wonders" like this, if the concept of "increasing Rank" really bothers you,
just change the text of the ritual so that is has NO rank, no Experience
Multiplier, etc.

Exceptions such as these are unusual enough that you can deal with them on a
case-by-case basis, IMO.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"It's an intriguing mix of genocide and modern dance."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:42:02 -0700 (PDT), Steven Wiles
<mortdemuerte@yahoo.com> wrote:

>A most excellent question. You give the example of
>the Ritual of Becoming Undead, which is the ritual
>that first got me thinking about this as well. I've
>noticed a similar problem respecting the Ritual of
>Remove Curse in the Adventure section at the back of
>the book. Trying that ritual at lower Ranks is more
>likely to make a curse worse than it is to remove it.

Yes, which is why in my game I heavily modified it. I improved the Base
Chance to begin with, and also made it available to Namers (and their Naming
bonuses). That makes the ritual actually practical to attempt it.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"It's an intriguing mix of genocide and modern dance."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

gmartinez@medioambiente.gov.ar wrote:

> Following Arturo's line, Call Master Spell (G-14) from Black Magic, for example.
>
> To upgrade a rank in this spell, you must "disturb" a God to rank it. And
> what excuse you'll give him "...sorry Goddy, but I need to rank this spell
> for a better occasion..."
>
> I don't know much about Gods, but I know they are not patience.
>

Well, how about the Necromancy College Ritual of Becoming Undead? You're supposed to gain rank exactly *how*, without becoming an undead the first time? I'm quite sure there are other similar ones too. Also, Rune Mages must go through an awful lot of Runewands before they're any good at making them...

Edi

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

Renumbering can cause confusion that is for sure. Perhaps for clarity, the
below idea can be used a little more descriptively.
For example: a clarification to rule 12.3 is 12.3.DQPA.1 and so on.
This will also allow for anyone to insert house or campaign rules into their
copy.
For example a Thieves' World campaign rule clarification could be 12.3.TW.1
or even 12.3.DQPA.1.TW.1 and so on.
Differing versions could be documented this way. A third edition rule that
is to be used could be 12.3.3RD.1
Yes, there are more characters per rule ID, but there is also much more
clarity and flexibility.

The only issue with this is deciding which version to use as the base line.
Thoughts about the number scheme???

----- Original Message -----
From: "rthorm" <dqn@earthlink.net>
To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:50 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Indexing Additional DQ Material


> I've given this topic a new subject line in order to help get more
> people's attention to it and comments about it. The original item is
> included at the bottom of this message.
>
> David proposed a numbering system that would allow for the
> organization of additional DragonQuest material. I'll weigh in with
> my own specific comments in a separate message. But some sort of
> unified structure is essential to produce a coordinated work of any kind.
>
> --RT
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@e...>
> wrote:
> > > It would be nice, for example, to have a consistent format for
> > numbering and organizing various contributions and additions. That's
> > just one of many reasons that I see for this to be a more formally
> > organized project.
> >
> >
> > OK to get more practical things started and get away from the rather
> > tedious discussion about whether we can call it a canon
> >
> > How about this for a consistent numbering system
> >
> > Interpretations/clarifications of the existing rules drop down one
> > level, eg a clarification of rule [12.3] becomes [12.3.1] and so on.
> >
> > The original rules (including AW) go up to about 97., additional
> > rules would go above this. We could try this system:-
> >
> > For example
> > 100.-149. Additional rules for Character Generation including new
> > races
> > 150.-199. Additional rules for Combat
> > 200.-249. Additional rules for Magic
> > 250.-299. Additional Magic Colleges
> > 300.-349. Additional rules for Skills
> > 350.-399. Additional Skills
> > 400.-449. Additional Monsters
> > 450.-499. Additional rules for Adventure
> > 500.-549. Religion
> > 550.- onwards things I haven't thought of
> >
> > The ranges will have to be tweaked but it should work
> >
> > David
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

>
> OPTION 1 - Straight numbering of new rules.
> On one hand, there is a case to be made for letting things be

numbered

> sequentially as they are added. This would be following the

direction

> of Arcane Wisdom in relationship to the original rules. I continued
> this when I laid out Poor Brendan's Almanac; I started at 100
> (skipping a couple from the end of AW just to start at a round

number)

> and just numbered from there.
>
> In this system, there is no categorization. This would work well if
> there were going to be a series of supplements to the game, similar

to

> AW and PBA as supplemental books to the basic DQ ruleset. This, I
> strongly suspect, would be the way that Arcane Wisdom and other

future

> supplements from SPI would have been produced.
>
> The downside to this approach include having a very scattered set of
> rules. As the number of books increases, the rules become more and
> more scattered. While this format was the only viable alternative

for

> SPI at the time, since this is a web-based project, there is not
> nearly the same need to have everything in volume-release format.

I think this is a recipie for confusion

> OPTION 2 - A classified numbering system.
> A numbering system such as David has proposed allows similar rules

to

> be found in the same section. As more rules for a particular

section

> are added, they are just appended to their section, rather than

being

> added elsewhere later on. However, this repeats the some of the

same

> problems as Option 1, only at a slightly finer grain.
>
> Unfortunately, this will still lead to some organizational

confusion.

> The rules for the original 12 magical colleges are in order by

branch

> (Thaumaturgies, Elementals, Entities), and the skills are listed in
> alphabetical order. If we add new skills, and then add some others,
> and then add some more, they are likely to fall out of alphabetical
> order. Alphabetical order isn't necessarily the best way to

organize

> the rules, but it is another tool that helps you quickly find
> 'Military Scientist' when you are looking it up.

A good point

> OPTION 3 - A library numbering system.
> Ideally, I think a numbering system like a Dewey or LoC library
> organizational system, where new items can be inserted in their

proper

> place no matter when they are introduced, would be ideal. The
> difficulty with this would be in organizing the system at the

outset.

>
> I know that there are some library-minded people in our group who

may

> have suggestions about how something like this might be organized.

It

> may not be as difficult as I am imagining. But it might ultimately

be

> the best way to organize our work so that it remains flexible and
> adaptable.
>
> This is also the best way to integrate the existing ruleset in with
> the modifications, and would ultimately be the most user-friendly
> appraoch to take.

Hmm neat system, it sounds complicated though

> Option 3.5 - A hybrid system.
> For now, David's system would work (as proposed, or with

alterations),

> for purposes of beginning this project. As the rules are

developed, a

> system for organizing the rules is also worked out, with a specific
> target for adoption and transfer of rules from the 'hundreds' system
> to an indexing system. It could also prove useful to see how the

new

> rules are lining up to help in figuring out what the order of the
> indexing system should be like.
>
> --Rodger Thorm

Not a bad idea

I think somewhere along the line someone is going to have to keep
track of the numbers and hand them out so we don't get duplicate
numbers. This removes the problem with the complicated numbering
system as only one person has to understand it :--).

If we were to go with the hybrid system we could change the numbering
system once the rules had been play-tested and become reasonably
firm. This would let every one know that it could be referenced with
reasonable certainty.

As for the change in numbers as long as we were all consistent it
shouldn't be too difficult. I use [xxx.xx] format both in the
heading of the rule and when I cross reference it within the body of
another rule. So if I need a re-number I can just search for the
number within square brackets and replace it with the new number
automatically (sorry if I'm teaching you to suck eggs). I once
didn't do this and found all my experience multiple 100s became
experience multiple 105 – doh!

David

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Deven Atkinson" <deven@b...> wrote:

> Renumbering can cause confusion that is for sure. Perhaps for

clarity, the

> below idea can be used a little more descriptively.
> For example: a clarification to rule 12.3 is 12.3.DQPA.1 and so on.
> This will also allow for anyone to insert house or campaign rules

into their

> copy.
> For example a Thieves' World campaign rule clarification could be

12.3.TW.1

> or even 12.3.DQPA.1.TW.1 and so on.
> Differing versions could be documented this way. A third edition

rule that

> is to be used could be 12.3.3RD.1
> Yes, there are more characters per rule ID, but there is also much

more

> clarity and flexibility.

Yes I like that idea. So my house rules would be 12.3.DB.1 (or
something like that. We could make DQPA consensus rule something
short and simple like A (for association) so it would be 12.3.A.1

David

I think that NNN.NNN.LLL.NNN would be as many integers as Id like to see (N
= number)(L=Letter). When writing Scientifically it is bad too have too go
to a 5th sub-set. Also if you use a letter identifier as the 3 integer set
(my LLL) it gives you 26*26*26 combinations of letters so even if everyone
in the board contributed (and then some...) you have plenty of letters
combinations left!!! If you began all the formally published DQ material
with a D then that makes that easier to know you are souricng something that
was once 'canon' I guess.

For example

I could be JRD!! , DQF for 1st edition, DQB 2nd ed bantam, DQH 2nd hardcopy,
DQT for third edition, DHK anything specific from house of Kurin, etc.
Prizes for DEW, DPO, DBA, DFA, ad infinitum...

JohnD

-----Original Message-----
From: dbarrass_2000 [mailto:david.barrass@ed.ac.uk]
Sent: 17 September 2003 10:32
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Indexing Additional DQ Material

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Deven Atkinson" <deven@b...> wrote:
> Renumbering can cause confusion that is for sure. Perhaps for
clarity, the
> below idea can be used a little more descriptively.
> For example: a clarification to rule 12.3 is 12.3.DQPA.1 and so on.
> This will also allow for anyone to insert house or campaign rules
into their
> copy.
> For example a Thieves' World campaign rule clarification could be
12.3.TW.1
> or even 12.3.DQPA.1.TW.1 and so on.
> Differing versions could be documented this way. A third edition
rule that
> is to be used could be 12.3.3RD.1
> Yes, there are more characters per rule ID, but there is also much
more
> clarity and flexibility.

Yes I like that idea. So my house rules would be 12.3.DB.1 (or
something like that. We could make DQPA consensus rule something
short and simple like A (for association) so it would be 12.3.A.1

David






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



*********************************************************************
This e-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, are
confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee.
If this message was not addressed to you, you have received
it in error and any copying, distribution or other use of any
part of it is strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions presented
are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent
those of the British Geological Survey. The security of e-mail
communication cannot be guaranteed and the BGS accepts
no liability for claims arising as a result of the use of this medium
to transmit from or to the BGS. The BGS cannot accept any
responsibility for viruses, so please scan all attachments.
http://www.bgs.ac.uk
*********************************************************************

Deven Atkinson wrote:

> Renumbering can cause confusion that is for sure. Perhaps for
> clarity, the below idea can be used a little more descriptively.
> For example: a clarification to rule 12.3 is 12.3.DQPA.1 and so on.
> This will also allow for anyone to insert house or campaign rules into
> their copy.
> For example a Thieves' World campaign rule clarification could be
> 12.3.TW.1 or even 12.3.DQPA.1.TW.1 and so on.
> Differing versions could be documented this way. A third edition
> rule that is to be used could be 12.3.3RD.1
> Yes, there are more characters per rule ID, but there is also much more
> clarity and flexibility.
>
> The only issue with this is deciding which version to use as the base line.
> Thoughts about the number scheme???

I do believe you just solved the most immediate and vexing problem. This is by far the most elegant solution I can think of, and I would certainly support adapting it. I suppose we should use the 2nd Edition for baseline, but whether SPI or Bantam editions, I leave that up for those who know what the differences are, I've only got the SPI version.

Edi

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

Davis, John R wrote:

> I think that NNN.NNN.LLL.NNN would be as many integers as Id like
> to see (N = number)(L=Letter). When writing Scientifically it is bad too have
> too go to a 5th sub-set. Also if you use a letter identifier as the 3
> integer set (my LLL) it gives you 26*26*26 combinations of letters so even if
> everyone in the board contributed (and then some...) you have plenty of letters
> combinations left!!! If you began all the formally published DQ material
> with a D then that makes that easier to know you are souricng something that
> was once 'canon' I guess.
>
> For example
>
> I could be JRD!! , DQF for 1st edition, DQB 2nd ed bantam, DQH 2nd hardcopy,
> DQT for third edition, DHK anything specific from house of Kurin, etc.
> Prizes for DEW, DPO, DBA, DFA, ad infinitum...
>
> JohnD

I like this, and my identifier would be my acronym too, as Edi is just three letters. Let's see what everyone else says...

Edi

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

Hullo, JohnD,

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 09:00:13 +0100, Davis, John R wrote:

>Hi Johns and Others

<stuff snipped>

>Another John, also recently returned to DQ...personally I blame
>global warming

Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket! :)

Seriously, though, I find it interresting how many Johns there
are on the mailing list, and how many of us are newly returned. I
think there are five Johns, in alphabetical order: John Carcutt, John
Corey, John R. Davis, John M. Kahane, and John Rauchert. Did I miss
any of us? :)

As for the return to DRAGONQUEST, I find that when it comes right
down to it, I may find another fantasy rpg that appeals to me for a
short period of time, but it always disappoints me in the end. The
only rpg that didn't do that was the English version of AGONE, but the
gaming group had other problems with that system, so...

On the other hand, been thinking of running DQ set against the
world of AGONE. Hmm... :)

.....If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities. (Voltaire)

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

Hullo, Viktor,

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 10:41:33 -0400, Viktor Haag wrote:

> > 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.
>
>As far as I know there is NO indication WHO's words James
>permitted to offend him. I did NOT mean to imply that it was
>Deven, and in hind-sight, I can see that I should have been more
>clear on that point.

I understood that you never meant to imply that it was Deven's
post(s) that were responsible for James's decision, and should have
made that clear in the part of the message above. I do wish that
things had turned out differently...

>Unless James responds to the list, there's no real way of
>knowning who it was he took offense to.

...but as you say, this is the situation. Perhaps he'll change
his mind when he calms down a bit, or perhaps he won't. Either way,
his site and the material on it is a loss for the DRAGONQUEST
community. :(

Either way, 'nuff said on the subject.

.....Those who rest long on their laurels seldom get off them.

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

Hullo, JohnD,

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 11:28:57 +0100, Davis, John R wrote:

>Any thought on this on DQ. Not really interested in a skill rank
>system in it just a base number for an adventurer who can swim.
>Cant decide whether it should be MD, AG, PS based with a bit
>of FAT / EN thrown in!!!

The two articles from Dragon Magazine (both of which are available
in the Files section of this mailing list) are a good place to start on
this. Personally, I would base the skill on PS, MD, AG, FT and EN
myself if I were coming up with something from scratch.

>Scenario Im working on is a dispute between the colleges of
>air and water so may be some sea / swimming invloved..

If nothing else, the scenario sounds interesting...

.....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

Hullo, JohnCorey,

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 07:34:35 -0400, John Corey wrote:

>The 20 adventures maybe a little high. Some of them are mine, but
>most are taken fro mthis site and other sources on the web.

Hmm, okay... Any chance of getting a listing of the various DQ
adventures/scenarios? Simply as a starting reference and all.

.....I did so! Or not! (Depending on whether or not I was supposed to.)

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

Hullo, JohnR,

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:54:58 -0000, John Rauchert wrote:

>Once I have finished with reviewing versions of Arcane Wisdom, I
>will be starting to do the same for the available electronic version
>based on the Bantam edition and the third ed, comparing it to my
>hard cover second ed. version.

Wow, I can see that you are determined to do this project, aren't
you? :)

>As I predicted things are going slow with Arcane Wisdom. I started
>with the College of Rune Magics. I have six "versions" of this
>college. I have compared three of the versions so far and found them
>to be identical in content, except for a few changes in spelling.

Six versions of Rune Magics?? Ye gods... So, just out of
curiosity, which are these six?

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

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

Hullo, JohnCarcutt,

In a message of Tuesday, 16 Sep 2003 14:41:18 -0400, you wrote:

Yeah, it is an interesting topic, isn't it? :)

>> For example, I have a character with Ranger skill at Rank 2. He

>>receives an ability under the skill called Tracking, which is at [PC +
>>(Rank x 6)]%, if the quarry attempted to hide their tracks. Now let's
>>have a chaacter who wants a skill called Tracking, but doesn't want the
>>baggage that goes along with the Ranger skill. Let's say I give him
>>the Secondary skill of Tracking at a Base Chance of [PC + (Rank x 2)]%
>>for the sake of argument, and I charge the character a reasonable
>>amount of XPs to acquire the Secondary skill up to Rank 2. Assume
>>they both have PCs of 10, for the sake of the argument... The
>>character with Rank 2 Ranger has a BC of 22% of using the skill if the
>>quarry has tried to hide their tracks, and the non-Ranger (let's say
>>bounty hunter type) has a BC of 14% chance of doing the same thing, but
>>might have an extra penalty thrown in on top of that.
>>
>> However, what happens if our Rank 2 Ranger likes the idea of
>>being a bit better tracker, and decides to take the Secondary skill of
>>Tracking? How would you give him the bonus here? One way to do
>>this, would be to add the percentage from the formula to secondary
>>Tracking skill to his Tracking sklill percentage under Ranger. Thus,
>>assuming the Rank 2 Ranger with a PC of 10 took Rank 2 Tracking, his BC
>>would become 22+14=36%. Another solution might be to add a Tracking
>>skill (Rank x variable)% to the Ranger tracking ability. Say, x2. So
>>the Ranger would have a 22+4=26% chance of using his Ranger tracking
>>ability.

>My first impression on this is that the skills would be the same
>and the Ranger would get no additional bonus by learning the
>Tracker skill. He already has the ability to learn that and the extra
>skill of tracker would not teach him anything he does not already
>know or could not lean by going up in rank in the Ranger skill.

Ah, but is it a matter of learning anything new from the Tracking ability that he doesn't already know? The key here is that the Ranger ability of tracking should always be superior to the straight minor skill of Tracking, but that a character with the Ranger skill should be able to gain *something* out of taking the Tracking minor skill, even if only an increase to his Ranger tracking of (Tracking Rank) or some such.

>Now, while typing this it occurred to me that you want use this
>to allow the Ranger to be able to increase in one specific skill
>while leaving the other at lower ranks, that might work, but just
> treat the skill the same as if the Rank 2 Ranger was a Rank
>(insert Tracking Rank here) Ranger for that specific skill only.
>So a Rank 2 Ranger knows Tracking at Rank 2, if he is a Rank
>2 Tracker as well he would still know Tracking at Rank 2. This
>would mean it would add no benefit until his Tracker rank is
>higher than his Ranger rank.

Hmm...and the fact that the minor skill of Tracking is significantly cheaper than the Ranger ability would make this beneficial. However, why not add the Rank% or (Rank x 2)% of the minor skill to the chance of using the Ranger tracking ability instead, or is this something on the mathematics end that I'm not getting?

....."The truth of the matter is that I don't like the idea of hitting an asteroid." 
 - Jemma Thompson, navigator

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