At 03:15 PM 4/19/2004, you wrote:

>
>My group has run games in both the Dragonlance and Thomas Covenant settings.
> Both converted surprisingly well and were alot of fun.
>
>Stephen

The Thomas Covenant setting sounds interesting. You wouldn't by chance
have anything from that you would be willing/able to share would you?


Jason Winter
Alarian@direcway.com

I'm running a campaign set in the Ancient World at the time of the Trojan
War/Akhenaten heresy.
I have pretty much developed the whole thing myself, although I've found the
GURPS sourcebooks for Low-Tech, Egypt and Greece to be very helpful.
Don Hawthorne

----- Original Message -----
From: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:50 AM
Subject: [DQN-list] Digest Number 295


>
> There is 1 message in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. Game worlds by other publishers
> From: "David Chappell" <kaith_athanes@yahoo.com>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:12:06 -0000
> From: "David Chappell" <kaith_athanes@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Game worlds by other publishers
>
> I'm currently running a DragonQuest campaign set in the World of
> Greyhawk. I am curious if anyone else uses settings intended for
> other systems in their DQ games?
>
> -David
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

One campaign I ran was set in the world of Myth: The fallen Lords. It
was originally a computer game, but was also released as a source book
for GURPS.

John C.

On Apr 19, 2004, at 6:12 AM, David Chappell wrote:

> I'm currently running a DragonQuest campaign set in the World of
> Greyhawk. I am curious if anyone else uses settings intended for
> other systems in their DQ games?
>
> -David
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> • To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/
>  
> • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> dqn-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
> • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Jason Winter <Alarian@d...> wrote:

>
> I run in the Shadow World setting, and I have since it came out

many years ago.

I believe I am familiar with that one. I played in a Rolemaster
campaign many, many years ago that was set in a place called Culthea
or perhaps Kulthea.. I remember the map said Shadow World, though.

> At 05:12 AM 4/19/2004, you wrote:
> >I'm currently running a DragonQuest campaign set in the World of
> >Greyhawk. I am curious if anyone else uses settings intended for
> >other systems in their DQ games?
> >
> >-David
>
>
>
>
> Jason Winter
> Alarian@d...

Jason,

Unfortunately, I was only a player at the time and didn't help convert it to DQ. I'm still in touch with the guy that did it though. I'll contact him and see what he still has. If I can get it off of him, I'll post it. I'd also like to see what he had done, its been many years.

Stephen

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

-----Original Message-----
From: David Chappell [mailto:kaith_athanes@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 3:12 AM
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DQN-list] Game worlds by other publishers

I'm currently running a DragonQuest campaign set in the World of
Greyhawk. I am curious if anyone else uses settings intended for
other systems in their DQ games?

-David

I was cleaning out my closet, came across my old copy of DragonQuest,
reminisced, did a Google search, and found this group. Who knew that
folks are still playing DQ?

Anyone in the DC metro area running campaigns?

Richard.

Richard,

Yes, there are still some of us lurking out there. You should take a look at the files sections. There has been a lot of great new material created for DQ. There are some great websites out there too. Its good to see another long-time player find this group. Feel free to share any house-rules, etc. you may have from your experiences.

Stephen

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

rmcnyc

> I was cleaning out my closet, came across my old copy
> of DragonQuest, reminisced, did a Google search, and
> found this group. Who knew that folks are still
> playing DQ?

I was surprised to realize all of the rules were online as well as all the
other stuff out other on the web. If you have one of the original copies of
DQ, as I do, without all the extra colleges and the like of later editions go
to here...
http://www.fantasist.net/dragonquest.shtml
... and you can download all of the rules in adobe acrobat files, pdf format,
as well as the Arcane Wisdom rules which give you the rules for creating new
spells/magic items and a bunch of other stuff.

> Anyone in the DC metro area running campaigns?

Don't know about running a campaign, but I'm in the DC metro area, Arlington
to be more precise.



Stephen

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

From: Heads Up Now

To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 17:12

Subject: RE: [DQN-list] who knew?

rmcnyc

> I was cleaning out my closet, came across my old copy
> of DragonQuest, reminisced, did a Google search, and
> found this group.  Who knew that folks are still
> playing DQ?
      I was surprised to realize all of the rules were online as well as all the
other stuff out other on the web.  If you have one of the original copies of
DQ, as I do, without all the extra colleges and the like of later editions go
to here...
      http://www.fantasist.net/dragonquest.shtml
      ... and you can download all of the rules in adobe acrobat files, pdf format,
as well as the Arcane Wisdom rules which give you the rules for creating new
spells/magic items and a bunch of other stuff.

> Anyone in the DC metro area running campaigns?
      Don't know about running a campaign, but I'm in the DC metro area, Arlington
to be more precise.



Stephen

I just recently got curious in exactly the same fashion
I am positively flabberghasted at the level of online activity for
DragonQuest... it really did seem marginal when I first encountered back
in early eighties, at the time it seemed like a offshoot
of RuneQuest albeit with a name I had empathy with and nicely styled
schools of magic... (and without the dorky sense of humor -- whats up
with Ducks as a sentient species, eck )

I have a fondness for many of RuneQuests most current rules and one
thought I have is bringing the "World of DQ" into RQ, Or perhaps take it
the other direction and integrate a few RQ rules ideas back into DQ...
Im not overly fond of tracking experience points for instance and RQ has
some simple work arounds I like.

Scott Knowles wrote:

> I have also just recently re-found DQ. I played it for years until I
> moved away from my group.
>
> Anyone have a PBEM going?
>
> Scott
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Heads Up Now <mailto:HeadsUpNow@worldnet.att.net>
> *To:* dqn-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 26, 2004 17:12
> *Subject:* RE: [DQN-list] who knew?
>
> rmcnyc
>
> > I was cleaning out my closet, came across my old copy
> > of DragonQuest, reminisced, did a Google search, and
> > found this group. Who knew that folks are still
> > playing DQ?
> I was surprised to realize all of the rules were online as
> well as all the
> other stuff out other on the web. If you have one of the original
> copies of
> DQ, as I do, without all the extra colleges and the like of later
> editions go
> to here...
> http://www.fantasist.net/dragonquest.shtml
> ... and you can download all of the rules in adobe acrobat
> files, pdf format,
> as well as the Arcane Wisdom rules which give you the rules for
> creating new
> spells/magic items and a bunch of other stuff.
>
> > Anyone in the DC metro area running campaigns?
> Don't know about running a campaign, but I'm in the DC metro
> area, Arlington
> to be more precise.
>
>
>
> Stephen
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> dqn-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:dqn-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

--
Lance Dyas

Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying

-- Lance Dyas
Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center
http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds

--- lance dyas <lancelot@inetnebr.com> wrote:

> schools of magic... (and without the dorky sense of
> humor -- whats up
> with Ducks as a sentient species, eck )

What, as opposed to 3' tall furry-footed burrowers? :)

> I have a fondness for many of RuneQuests most
> current rules and one
> thought I have is bringing the "World of DQ" into
> RQ, Or perhaps take it
> the other direction and integrate a few RQ rules
> ideas back into DQ...
> Im not overly fond of tracking experience points for
> instance and RQ has
> some simple work arounds I like.

My old GM liked a lot of the RQ rules too, and
imported a fair number of the ideas from RQ into DQ.
In particular, he ran us through Snakepipe Hollow and
Duck Tower (if I remember right) as modules. The
modules are fairly easy to convert. Some of that may
have to do with the fact many RQ modules were written
by Paul Jacquay, who also wrote the DQ module The
Enchanted Woods. Omaq was incorporating a lot of the
law/chaos stuff into our campaign world (frickin'
broo...), and one of the players in his more recent
campaigns has been doing a DQ version of shamanism.
Omaq was always saying how easy it was to convert
stuff between the two systems. If he's reading the
list right now, he'd be the guy to talk to (Omaq, this
is your cue to jump in if you're reading...), but I
could probably answer a few if he's not (he's in the
middle of a move right now).

Mort






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

Lance,

I'm unfamiliar with RQ. How was character advancement handled, if xp weren't used? I've never been wild about DQ's xp system.

Stephen

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

hollywood314@juno.com writes:

>
> Lance,
>
> I'm unfamiliar with RQ. How was character advancement
> handled, if xp weren't used? I've never been wild about DQ's
> xp system.

RQ works like all basic roleplaying games from Chaosium. Skills
are rated with percentile values. When you use a skill
"meaningfully" and successfully during play, the referee can let
you have an "experience check" for the skill. After the
adventure, or at an appropriate point in the adventure, the
referee can allow people to verify their experience checks.

You look at your checked skill's value and you try to roll MORE
than the skill's value on D100. If you do so, then you roll
another die and add that many pips to the skill's value. In this
way, you can see that as you "know more" it becomes harder to
improve.

The various BRP games have the progression move at different
paces by varying the number of pips you add (in some games it's
only one pip, in others, like Call of Cthulhu, it's a D10).

RQ also supported rules for training and learning new skills as
well as the "learn by doing" mechanic described here, as well as
rules for improving attribute values.

I think one possible improvement that could be made to the BRP
skill mechanism is to start out the improvement rate at a high
value (by rolling D8 or D10), and then slowly step down the rate
as the skill value increased; something like this:

Original Skill Value Improvement Die
-------------------- ---------------
00 - 25 D10
26 - 50 D8
51 - 75 D6
76 - 90 D4
91 - 99 D2

This would help one of BRP's key problems: skills progress too
slowly at the low end, and become too powerful at the high end.

BRP games really play well where the skill ratings range from
about 30 percent through to 70 percent. At the top and bottom
ends, the game tends to suffer a bit...

I've seen other percentile based games that try to address this
problem a bit, but in many cases the added complexity detracts
too much from playability to be useful (games that spring
immediately to mind are Greg Porter's early designs like
TimeLords, the Charette/Hume games like Aftermath, and Chivalry
and Sorcery's latest edition).

--
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."

Also there is this bit from Character Generation.

"Special Abilities:

4. A halfling may dispose of jewelry into large, semiactive volcanoes, without anyone thinking the worse of him."

JohnR

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Wiles [mailto:mortdemuerte@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 6:04 PM
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] who knew?

--- lance dyas <lancelot@inetnebr.com> wrote:

> schools of magic... (and without the dorky sense of
> humor -- whats up
> with Ducks as a sentient species, eck )

What, as opposed to 3' tall furry-footed burrowers? :)

I like the sound of the system. I definitely think it could be converted to DQ, but I see two initial problems with converting that would have to be addressed.
1. In DQ, it is possible to have a skill with a base chance over 100%. Setting the minimum percentage for advancement at 1% seems like the obvious solution. But, if you did that, a skill with 99% BC and 130% BC would have an equal chance of advancement(1%). I'm not sure how I like that.
2. Powerful Magic would be too quick to obtain. For instance, instant death spells and the like would be too easy to advance.

I think if a solid format could be developed, the RQ advancement system might be a nice addition to DQ.

Stephen

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Remember that a lot of tasks in DQ are rated for difficulty my multiplying
the base attribute by a fraction before factoring in the skill level.
And if they aren't the GM can always make them so. Plus, the percentage
chance of success over 100% is necessary for calculating Critical Successes.
A successful skill roll which is 15% of the base chance can have double
effect, one which is 5% can have triple the effect. Useful if the task you
are attempting at greater than 100% success chance is, say, preparing a
healing poition or trying to lay some sort of trap .
Don Hawthorne

----- Original Message -----
From: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 1:13 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Digest Number 300


>
> There is 1 message in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. Re: who knew?
> From: hollywood314@juno.com
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:14:12 GMT
> From: hollywood314@juno.com
> Subject: Re: who knew?
>
>
> I like the sound of the system. I definitely think it could be converted
to DQ, but I see two initial problems with converting that would have to be
addressed.
> 1. In DQ, it is possible to have a skill with a base chance over 100%.
Setting the minimum percentage for advancement at 1% seems like the obvious
solution. But, if you did that, a skill with 99% BC and 130% BC would have
an equal chance of advancement(1%). I'm not sure how I like that.
> 2. Powerful Magic would be too quick to obtain. For instance, instant
death spells and the like would be too easy to advance.
>
> I think if a solid format could be developed, the RQ advancement system
might be a nice addition to DQ.
>
> Stephen
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

Ahem halflings are barely distinguishable from 3 foot tall humans,
and are not particularly humorous.... if they were rabbit people
with large overbites and fuzzy tails and long ears and floppy feet
then mayhaps quirky humor comparable to ducks could be seen.

RuneQuest also had Jack O Lantern headed monsters... and
sentient pig like beings who herded non sentient humanoids...


John Rauchert wrote:

> Also there is this bit from Character Generation.
>
> "Special Abilities:
>
> 4. A halfling may dispose of jewelry into large, semiactive volcanoes,
> without anyone thinking the worse of him."
>
> JohnR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Wiles [mailto:mortdemuerte@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 6:04 PM
> To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] who knew?
>
> --- lance dyas <lancelot@inetnebr.com> wrote:
>
> > schools of magic... (and without the dorky sense of
> > humor -- whats up
> > with Ducks as a sentient species, eck )
>
> What, as opposed to 3' tall furry-footed burrowers? :)
>

--
Lance Dyas

Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying

-- Lance Dyas
Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center
http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds

A non mage gets magic resistance as compensation for not being a mage
about 5% more than a mage of the same kind as the school he is resisting..
and this applies vs any school of magic

The "Warrior Alternative" suggests perhaps rightly that is is not enough
what do people think. Does WA go too far or not Far enough


-- Lance Dyas
Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center
http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds

hollywood314@juno.com wrote:

>
> I like the sound of the system. I definitely think it could be
> converted to DQ, but I see two initial problems with converting that
> would have to be addressed.

I'm looking at a copy of the Playtest version of RQ IV so there are a
few differences ... The problem I see might be that RQ skills are
sometimes less general then DQ skills.

> 1. In DQ, it is possible to have a skill with a base chance over 100%.

Base Chance? over 100 are you talking walking ;-)

The total skill can go over 100% in RQ... the minimum percentage chance
of advancement is equal to your talent in that category of activity

> Setting the minimum percentage for advancement at 1% seems like the
> obvious solution.

> But, if you did that, a skill with 99% BC and 130% BC would have an
> equal chance of advancement(1%). I'm not sure how I like that.

You can only advance above 100% in runquest if your "talent" with that
skill category is above the median.... the chance to advance is 100% -
current skill (not counting attribute bonuses) but your attributes
define a minimum.

> 2. Powerful Magic would be too quick to obtain.

huh I think you are reacting to some older rules that are fixed.

> For instance, instant death spells and the like would be too easy to
> advance.

The Old RQ allowed an advancement check after the adventure for every
skill you made a success in... but some of the newer rules patch that
and we can regulate to suit DQ needs.

For those who dont know, the amount of RQ advancement when you succeed
at an advancement check in a single burst (like DQ ranks) is based on a
die roll but I was thinking of changing it for differing difficulty
skills instead more DQish.

trivial 6%
very easy 5%
easy 4%
normal 3%
hard 2%
very 1%

Rune Quest Advancement system as follows

Inspiration Based Skil Gain : (my terminology)
After an adventure that lasted atleast 1 week game world time the
character may be given up to 5 experience based tests which may be
applied to according to the choice of the player limited to the skills
they have earned check marks in. ( A check mark is generally gained

----------------------RQIV
QUOTE----------------------------------------------------------------
Training Based Experience :

Increasing an easy skill by 1D6 takes current skill / 20 days of
training by a competent teacher.
Increasing a medium skill by 1D6 takes current skill / 10 days of
training by a competent teacher.
Increasing a hard skill by 1D6 takes skill / 5 days of training by a
competent teacher.

Example
Thus, an adventurer with 72% Scan skill would have to spend 72/10 = 7
days training to increase the skill by 1D6.

Optional rule—subtract skill category bonus from skill before
calculating time required. This avoids penalizing adventurers with high
skill category bonuses.
Example
Thus, if the adventurer in the above example had a 9% Perception bonus,
he would only have to spend 63/10 = 6 days training (72 - 9 = 63).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was thinking perhaps
Double training times if you are only advancing a skill from a book.
Treble training times on any skill which your are attempting to train
without a teacher

I do actually consider the RuneQuest Advancement above to sound a little
fast. But it might just need a little play testing etc.


Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying

-- Lance Dyas
Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center
http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds

Viktor Haag wrote:

> hollywood314@juno.com writes:
> >
> > Lance,
> >
> > I'm unfamiliar with RQ. How was character advancement
> > handled, if xp weren't used? I've never been wild about DQ's
> > xp system.
>
> RQ also supported rules for training and learning new skills as
> well as the "learn by doing" mechanic described here, as well as
> rules for improving attribute values.
>
> I think one possible improvement that could be made to the BRP
> skill mechanism is to start out the improvement rate at a high
> value (by rolling D8 or D10), and then slowly step down the rate
> as the skill value increased; something like this:
>
> Original Skill Value Improvement Die
> -------------------- ---------------
> 00 - 25 D10
> 26 - 50 D8
> 51 - 75 D6
> 76 - 90 D4
> 91 - 99 D2
>
> This would help one of BRP's key problems: skills progress too
> slowly at the low end, and become too powerful at the high end.

How about this...it doesnt require a chart make the improvement be
amount of success divided by 10
Further we could combine this with my idea of skill difficulty Easy
Skills may be treated as lower by
as much 20% less than they are for skill gain rolls and conversely
difficult skills may be treated as
higher by as much as 20% for skill gain rolls

Tying the roll to the results is just plain cool.. Ive done similar
things with weapon damage ... this
would work nicely.

--
Lance Dyas

Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying

-- Lance Dyas
Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center
http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds

Donald Hawthorne wrote:

> Remember that a lot of tasks in DQ are rated for difficulty my multiplying
> the base attribute by a fraction before factoring in the skill level.

Difficult of a application of a skill to a particular task is different
In my oppinion than the difficulty of advancing
in the skill.... I've made a more elaborate post that hasnt gotten
through that explains RQ advancements but cant
seem to get through

> And if they aren't the GM can always make them so. Plus, the percentage
> chance of success over 100% is necessary for calculating Critical
> Successes.

yes and quite doable with a roll based advancement... another email I
have sent but isnt gettng through mentions
that the minimum chance of an advance is based on the characters talent
at the skill area...

> A successful skill roll which is 15% of the base chance can have double
> effect, one which is 5% can have triple the effect.

Yup nearly identical to runequest mechanics...

> Useful if the task you
> are attempting at greater than 100% success chance is, say, preparing a
> healing poition or trying to lay some sort of trap .
> Don Hawthorne

RuneQuest considers the various activities within a DragonQuest Skill
as separate skills so advances them independently...

--
Lance Dyas

Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying

-- Lance Dyas
Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center
http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds

hollywood314@juno.com wrote...

> I like the sound of the system. I definitely think it could be
> converted to DQ, but I see two initial problems with converting
> that would have to be addressed.

Only two? <Grin>

> 1. In DQ, it is possible to have a skill with a base chance over
> 100%. Setting the minimum percentage for advancement at 1% seems
> like the obvious solution. But, if you did that, a skill with 99%
> BC and 130% BC would have an equal chance of advancement(1%). I'm
> not sure how I like that.
> 2. Powerful Magic would be too quick to obtain. For instance,
> instant death spells and the like would be too easy to advance.

These are technical/mechanics problems and they are valid, but they don't get
to the real problem IME. In most games that I've played which used this system
the reward for the players is to use as many skills as possible so as to get to
make an XP roll. Thus you can have weird situations like players snatching up
a rope, in the middle of desert, and using it to justify a later XP roll. Or
one of my favorite examples of this was after the characters suffered a
shipwreck and washing up on a desert island, they promptly sat down and started
doing knitting, playing the loot and otherwise "practicing" their non-combat
skills.
IME this sort of form of advancement mechanic is just too prone to abuse.

> I think if a solid format could be developed, the RQ advancement
> system might be a nice addition to DQ.

Actually as I remember it, I ended up modifying the system that was in SPI's
other role-playing game, Universe - the science fiction one. I that one you
just put a check mark next to the skill the first time you used it in a scene,
battle whatever. So over time you just naturally progressed without having to
worry about XP and the like.
As I remember it I modified the system so you could get a check mark every
time you had a practice session for non-combat type skills. I had a situation
where books, FoEx, were worth a set amount for advancement if you read them for
knowledge and magic type skills. The whole point was to give the players
incentive to think of what their characters were doing in the down time between
sessions.
It's been some time since I did this, no doubt I have the papers for it packed
away somewhere - I hope! But I had some bits in it so it didn't become a
shortcut but reflected the actual character. FoEx the player might want the
character to spend every waking minute between play sessions practicing with
weapons and magic, but if the character was the bar hopping type then the
player had to spend time on that character's inclination. The player would
roll to see how faithful the character was to the player's plan, not planning
time for the character to bar hop would make the roll that much harder to make
and if the player failed ::chuckle:: the character reverted to type and spent
all their time between sessions carousing!
OC it's been a Long Time since I last gamed with DQ, but I found that making
the players think about what the characters were doing between sessions really
enhanced the game.



Stephen

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, lance dyas <lancelot@i...> wrote:

> A non mage gets magic resistance as compensation for not being a

mage

> about 5% more than a mage of the same kind as the school he is

resisting..

> and this applies vs any school of magic
>
> The "Warrior Alternative" suggests perhaps rightly that is is not

enough

> what do people think. Does WA go too far or not Far enough
>
>
> -- Lance Dyas
> Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center
> http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds

Honestly, most of the balance problems associated with non-adepts
are because of house rules (or ignoring of book rules) that boost
the power of adepts. I've seen a wide variety of rules around the
net that allow adepts to use fatigue to boost their cast chances. If
you take that away and actually follow the rule that requires a
spell to be attempted on adventure before it can be raised, and the
rule that limits the ability to being raised once per session, then
they are very well balanced with non-adepts.

The bonus to magic resistance is not the only compensation a non-
adept gets. Being able to lower his MA to 5 frees up a lot of points
and gives the non-adept better statistics than an adept. The non-
adept also doesn't have to worry about cold iron grounding out his
ability to cast, so he can wear metal armor and use normal weapons
with no problems.

I played a non-adept in a long running campaign where the other five
members were all adepts. I never found it to be a problem. I was
just as deeply involved in the roleplaying as any of them and I
never felt useless or overshadowed on the tactical display, either.
Most of them had more devestating combat abilities than I did, but
mine were more reliable. I do not mean just that my strike chance
was higher than their cast chances. While they spent oodles of
experience raising spells, I raised endurance. With high endurance
and heavy armor, I was rarely stunned and taken out of the fight.
The mind mage in the group was, of course, immune to stun, but I had
a better weapon and better stats, so I could both deal out and
withstand more damage than he could. And this was in a game where we
had rules for using extra fatigue to boost cast chances and no
requirement that a spell be used before being trained up and no
limit of only raising an ability one rank per game. So it took me a
little longer to make adventurer, and a little longer to make hero,
but not a lot longer. And I never noticed that the extra time at
lower experience hurt me that much. I still held my own in the party.

This was a very long answer, I realize, but yes, I think they can be
balanced. I think as the rules stand, they are balanced. At least in
terms of how useful the character is to the group.

-David

In my experience, it went too far.

>A non mage gets magic resistance as compensation for not being a mage
>about 5% more than a mage of the same kind as the school he is resisting..
>and this applies vs any school of magic
>
>The "Warrior Alternative" suggests perhaps rightly that is is not enough
>what do people think. Does WA go too far or not Far enough

--


"If you haven't got your health, at least you have something to talk about."

"They say that everything happens for a reason. I am just tired of
that reason being to make me unhappy or embarrassed."

"You can't make a baby in a month using nine women, but it sounds
like it would be fun to try!"

"Does it ever occur to women that maybe it is their butts that make
their pants look big?"

I've never felt that non-adepts needed additional compensation. David did a good job of summing up my exact thoughts on the issue, so I don't need to add anything more.

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

as a fan of the RQ skill advancement system I too played about with
incorporating it into DQ, but as most of the skills were formulae
based on stats and rank I figured it was too much work. I came up
with this compromise:

If they get a special effects roll on the use of a skill/magic they
can rise in rank without training. They still have to pay the normal
ep cost and take the time to improve

a special result is as follows:-

Fumble/Backfire - ie you learn by your mistakes and makes the player
feel not too bad about it screwing up
Double Effect/Endurance hit, for skills at rank less than 3 only - a
happy accident you can remember and use later, but once you are good
at a skill you can no longer improve this way
Tripple effect/GI at all ranks - ie you tried something new and it worked

David

David,

I like your idea incorporating grievious/critical injury results into character advancement. The more I thought about it, the less I thought the RQ system would be adaptable. The RQ system would not work especially well for advancing professional skills or attributes. Thus, you would still need xp to raise those.

How about a twist on David's version? What if you get a "pip" in skill when you roll a special result. An effect that is x2 gets one pip. An effect that is x3 gets two pips. One pip equals 10% xp modifier. At the end of an adventure, during character advancement, a player adds up their pips in a skill to recieve an xp modifier in that skill. i.e. a character rolls three x2 crits with his battle axe during a game. Thus, the character woudl have 3 pips in battle axe. The three pips would add up to a 30% xp reduction in raising his rank in battle axe. Pips are only usable for one skill level and must be immediately used after a game. Pips do not carry over to subsequent adventures.

That is just a quick idea I came up with. It makes for a nice reward system for players.

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

This just rewards people who roll the dice well, and encourage people to roll lots more in the chance of getting a crit? I always quite liked the DQ xp system but thats just me

JohnD

-----Original Message-----
From: hollywood314@juno.com [mailto:hollywood314@juno.com]
Sent: 04 May 2004 15:59
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Re: RuneQuestian Skill gain.



David,

I like your idea incorporating grievious/critical injury results into character advancement. The more I thought about it, the less I thought the RQ system would be adaptable. The RQ system would not work especially well for advancing professional skills or attributes. Thus, you would still need xp to raise those.

How about a twist on David's version? What if you get a "pip" in skill when you roll a special result. An effect that is x2 gets one pip. An effect that is x3 gets two pips. One pip equals 10% xp modifier. At the end of an adventure, during character advancement, a player adds up their pips in a skill to recieve an xp modifier in that skill. i.e. a character rolls three x2 crits with his battle axe during a game. Thus, the character woudl have 3 pips in battle axe. The three pips would add up to a 30% xp reduction in raising his rank in battle axe. Pips are only usable for one skill level and must be immediately used after a game. Pips do not carry over to subsequent adventures.

That is just a quick idea I came up with. It makes for a nice reward system for players.

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!




Yahoo! Groups Links







*********************************************************************
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 messages from or to the
BGS. . http://www.bgs.ac.uk
*********************************************************************

Davis, John R wrote:

> This just rewards people who roll the dice well,

The premise of the RQ roll for advancement ...may take some groking...
I think of the roll based advancement
as inspirational bursts... hard to predict and independent of a
time/training based advancement

> and encourage people to roll lots more in the chance of getting a crit?

that doesnt do much for me either.... but I always figured it was the
GM's job to decide when a roll is required... and if the
player character does actually do more challenging things inorder to get
skill advancement isnt that "realistic"

> I always quite liked the DQ xp system but thats just me
>
> JohnD
> .

I'm not much into bookkeeping and having players make 5 advancement
checks in spells or weapons... or half that many
in professional skills once a month, could be the kind of mechanic that
would work.

-- Lance Dyas
Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center
http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds

I'll pipe in here from my lurking as someone who has played a lot of DQ
and a lot of RuneQuest.

The RQ "experience" mechanic works pretty well to simulate the fact that
as skills increase, it becomes harder to increase them further (of
course DQ does this by increasing the XP costs). In the long haul, the
"luck" evens out. I've never seen games where one character advanced
more rapidly in general than others.

A weird artifact of the RQ method is players trying to get checks in
multiple skills by, say, switching to a different weapon until they
succeed with it, then swapping again, etc. Of course the downside for
them is that they aren't fighting with their best weapon skills all the
time, so it's kinda self-limiting.

The actual mechanics in RQ say that a character must spend some time "in
reflection" to make experience checks, and there's a mechanic for
spending time training skills to advance without experience checks. And
I quite like the lack of XP as an abstract representation of learning.

Precisely how you'd modify the system to work with the DQ rank system
(RQ is simply percentiles, with no ranks or skill levels) I'm not sure,
but maybe a system of needing multiple checks depending on rank to improve?

However, while I enjoy RQ, I don't think there's anything really wrong
with the DQ method, other than some (to me) baffling costs and rank
limits. This is a really minor quibble, though, and I think I personally
would just stick to it.

Nice idea, though, and best of luck with it.

Eric H.

lance dyas wrote:

> Davis, John R wrote:
>
>
>>This just rewards people who roll the dice well,
>
>
> The premise of the RQ roll for advancement ...may take some groking...
> I think of the roll based advancement
> as inspirational bursts... hard to predict and independent of a
> time/training based advancement
>
>
>>and encourage people to roll lots more in the chance of getting a crit?
>
>
> that doesnt do much for me either.... but I always figured it was the
> GM's job to decide when a roll is required... and if the
> player character does actually do more challenging things inorder to get
> skill advancement isnt that "realistic"
>
>
>>I always quite liked the DQ xp system but thats just me
>>
>>JohnD
>>.
>
>
> I'm not much into bookkeeping and having players make 5 advancement
> checks in spells or weapons... or half that many
> in professional skills once a month, could be the kind of mechanic that
> would work.
>
> -- Lance Dyas
> Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center
> http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have to agree with Eric here.

>I'll pipe in here from my lurking as someone who has played a lot of DQ
>and a lot of RuneQuest.
>
>The RQ "experience" mechanic works pretty well to simulate the fact that
>as skills increase, it becomes harder to increase them further (of
>course DQ does this by increasing the XP costs). In the long haul, the
>"luck" evens out. I've never seen games where one character advanced
>more rapidly in general than others.
>
>A weird artifact of the RQ method is players trying to get checks in
>multiple skills by, say, switching to a different weapon until they
>succeed with it, then swapping again, etc. Of course the downside for
>them is that they aren't fighting with their best weapon skills all the
>time, so it's kinda self-limiting.
>
>The actual mechanics in RQ say that a character must spend some time "in
>reflection" to make experience checks, and there's a mechanic for
>spending time training skills to advance without experience checks. And
>I quite like the lack of XP as an abstract representation of learning.
>
>Precisely how you'd modify the system to work with the DQ rank system
>(RQ is simply percentiles, with no ranks or skill levels) I'm not sure,
>but maybe a system of needing multiple checks depending on rank to improve?
>
>However, while I enjoy RQ, I don't think there's anything really wrong
>with the DQ method, other than some (to me) baffling costs and rank
>limits. This is a really minor quibble, though, and I think I personally
>would just stick to it.
>
>Nice idea, though, and best of luck with it.
>
>Eric H.
>
>lance dyas wrote:
>
>> Davis, John R wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This just rewards people who roll the dice well,
>>
>>
>> The premise of the RQ roll for advancement ...may take some groking...
>> I think of the roll based advancement
>> as inspirational bursts... hard to predict and independent of a
>> time/training based advancement
>>
>>
>>>and encourage people to roll lots more in the chance of getting a crit?
>>
>>
>> that doesnt do much for me either.... but I always figured it was the
>> GM's job to decide when a roll is required... and if the
>> player character does actually do more challenging things inorder to get
>> skill advancement isnt that "realistic"
>>
>>
>>>I always quite liked the DQ xp system but thats just me
>>>
>>>JohnD
>>>.
>>
>>
>> I'm not much into bookkeeping and having players make 5 advancement
>> checks in spells or weapons... or half that many
>> in professional skills once a month, could be the kind of mechanic that
>> would work.
>>
>> -- Lance Dyas
>> Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center
>> http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--


"If you haven't got your health, at least you have something to talk about."

"They say that everything happens for a reason. I am just tired of
that reason being to make me unhappy or embarrassed."

"You can't make a baby in a month using nine women, but it sounds
like it would be fun to try!"

"Does it ever occur to women that maybe it is their butts that make
their pants look big?"

10% for a pip seems pretty juicy to me, and does seem to reward die
rolling rather than roleplay. I'd use something lower, maybe 2% or
so. But having a small bonus for successful use of an ability further
encourages use, improvement and mastery. I'm personally in favor of
small bonuses that allow each character to be a bit more personalized
and differentiated.

What about giving a bonus to the amount of time needed to train,
rather than to XPs? If each successful endurance hit was worth a
number of days equal to weapon Rank (and perhaps each grievous injury
equal to twice that) there could be advancement in a shorter period of
time (and a mechanic that makes sense). There would need to be a
modifier for magic, since it takes so much less time.

Perhaps the two should be combined, and an Experience Point cost
reduction bonus is used for magic, while a time requirement reduction
bonus is used for weapons and skills.

A lot of this depends on the character of the campaign you are trying
to run. If the GM feels there is a need to encourage or hasten
character advancement, then some of these ideas may be useful. In a
campaign with a lot of downtime between adventures, the training time
bonus would seem to have little effect.

I've contemplated an entirely time based system for character
advancement, which would get rid of XPs entirely. I've never worked
it up completely, but the current discussion is making me think about
those ideas again.

--Rodger

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, hollywood314@j... wrote:

> How about a twist on David's version? What if you get a "pip" in
skill when you roll a special result. An effect that is x2 gets one
pip. An effect that is x3 gets two pips. One pip equals 10% xp
modifier. At the end of an adventure, during character advancement, a
player adds up their pips in a skill to recieve an xp modifier in that
skill. i.e. a character rolls three x2 crits with his battle axe
during a game. Thus, the character woudl have 3 pips in battle axe.
The three pips would add up to a 30% xp reduction in raising his rank
in battle axe. Pips are only usable for one skill level and must be
immediately used after a game. Pips do not carry over to subsequent
adventures.
>
> That is just a quick idea I came up with. It makes for a nice
reward system for players.
>

Money in DragonQuest
-- Rodger Thorm

The sizes of coins in the DragonQuest economy are out of scale. This
is one area where the game's designers seem to have slipped on their
research. It makes the math easy to round the weight of everything to
the nearest ounce, but it is wildly out of scale with history and
practicality.

The weights of these coins are disproportionately heavy. Part of the
benefit of coins is that they are small and easily transportable. A
silver penny weighing a full ounce (more than the weight of five US
quarters) is really heavy. A sword that costs 80sp requires a
five-pound bag of silver to buy.

And a copper farthing at 4 ounces is ludicrous. (More likely it's a
typo, and was meant to be 1/4 oz. When we discovered that while
working out some financial matters in my campaign, we started
referring to the CF as the 'biscuit.' That would weigh more than my
cell phone does.) There's no way an average peasant is going to lug a
few of those around, just to pay for his lunch or a tankard of ale.

Therefore, for my campaign, I am instituting the following standards
for coinage:

Gold Shilling 1/4oz 7.1g
Silver Penny 1/6oz 4.7g
Copper Farthing 1/8oz 3.5g

There may be various coins in circulation. There are probably both
cut and minted half-pennies (1/12oz) as well as double-pennies
(1/3oz), but the makeup of coins has never really been an important
factor in play. And base reference weights are all that is needed in
most cases. This makes it more reasonable to have a silver coin based
economy (which is more historically accurate).

For reference and comparison, here is some information I found on
ancient Roman coinage (looking at the silver denarius as a close
approximation of the silver penny). Also, for comparison, I have
included information on current US coinage. Canadian coinage is close
enough in size to US coinage to serve as an example, too.

Roman Coinage
Gold Aureus 7.75g
Silver Denarius 4.5g
Silver Quinarius 2.25g
Silver Sestertius 1.125g
Brass Sestertius (2.5g)

1 aureus was equal to 25 denarii in value. The quinarius was worth
half of a denarius. The sestertius was worth a quarter denarius.

US (and Canadian) Coinage
Quarter 5.675g
Dime 2.25g
Nickel 5g
Penny 2.5g

And remember that 28.35g = 1oz

A very interesting site (Historical Coinage Cheatsheet) for some
additional reference information:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/history/coin.html

After years of playing D&D, I stumbled on a collection of ancient coins housed in the University of Calgary Nickel Arts Museum. http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~nickle/julioclaud.html

The Nickle Coin Collection is one of the most important collections in Canada. It was donated to The University of Calgary in 1980 by Carl O. Nickle, and has since been enlarged through subsequent gifts by The Nickle Family Foundation and others.

The collection now consists of over 16,000 items, primarily ancient Greek, Roman and Byzantine coins.

I was surprised how small some of the coins actually were.

JohnR

I agree, 10% is a bit juicy. I was just throwing an idea out there. 2% would be much more realistic. As for a reduction in training time, would a percentage system work for that also? Its been awhile since I've played, so I can't remember what the training times are like. But, what if each crit for a weapon was worth a 5% reduction in training time. Would that be enough to make an impact on training time? Or, would it be better to stick with Rodger's suggestion where a crit equals a set number of days?

I've read a few posts where it has been stated that players have abused skill use advancement systems. To me, that is the fault of the specific GM and not the system. If a skill role is not relevant or necessary to the situation at hand, the GM should not allow it.

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Id like to see what you've worked up.

]rthorm wrote:

>
> I've contemplated an entirely time based system for character
> advancement, which would get rid of XPs entirely.

At some level we could just use time to generate DQ experience points no?
And only require experience points for advancement. (Why ? see below)

> I've never worked
> it up completely, but the current discussion is making me think about
> those ideas again.
>
> --Rodger

This for me is quite an optimal idea...but then there are bursts of what
I call inspired learning.. not linked to
time which I want to simulate as well. Perhaps inspiration could be a
fully player allocateable xp resource... Ie GM awarded
experience points. At some level the above can be very minimally
different that the base rules. Or did I miss something?

--
Lance Dyas

Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying

-- Lance Dyas
Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center
http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Gabriel Martinez <gmartinez@m...>
wrote:

> Hi everyone:
>
> In the section "How Experience is used" Said:
> "The horsemanship and stealth abilities are considered to be at

rank 0 for

> all characters when they begin. They may be improved immediately

by the

> expenditure of Experience Points, provided it was used on the

previous

> adventura."
>
> The questions are:
>
> The characters must use days or weeks to rankthis abilities beyond

rank 0?

>
> Is the same with add skills like swimming and climbing?
>
> I coudn't find an answer in any DQ version.
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Gabriel.

They may be improved _immediately_ by the expenditure of Experience
points. This means that they do not require training time. Or at
least this is the way my groups have always interpreted it.

-David

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Gabriel Martinez <gmartinez@m...>
wrote:

> Hi everyone:
> 
> In the section "How

Experience is used" Said:

> "The horsemanship and stealth abilities are

considered to be at
rank 0 for

> all characters when they begin. They

may be improved immediately
by the

> expenditure of Experience Points,

provided it was used on the
previous

> adventura."
>
>

The questions are:

> 
> The characters must use days or weeks

to rankthis abilities beyond
rank 0?

> 
> Is the same with

add skills like swimming and climbing?

> 
> I coudn't find an

answer in any DQ version.

> 
> Thanks for your

help.

> 
> Gabriel.

They may be improved _immediately_ by the expenditure of Experience
points. This means that they do not require training time. Or at
least this is the way my groups have always interpreted it.

-David

Yes, I think that is the intent of the rule. Maybe someone has a
house rule they use that says otherwise, but those abilities can be
improved immediately.

--Rodger

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Gabriel Martinez <gmartinez@m...> wrote:
> So, it mean in your group, nobody expend time (just Experience
points) to
> rank it?
>
> PS: Someone else use it in the same way?

> > In the section "How Experience is used" Said:
> > "The horsemanship and stealth abilities are considered to be at
> rank 0 for
> > all characters when they begin. They may be improved immediately
> by the
> > expenditure of Experience Points, provided it was used on the
> previous
> > adventura."

Yes, I think that is the intent of the rule.  Maybe someone has a
house rule they use that says otherwise, but those abilities can be
improved immediately.

  --Rodger


--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Gabriel Martinez <gmartinez@m...> wrote:

> So, it mean in your group, nobody expend

time (just Experience
points) to

> rank it?
> 
> PS:

Someone else use it in the same way?

> > In the section "How

Experience is used" Said:

> > "The horsemanship and stealth abilities

are considered to be at

> rank 0 for
> > all characters when

they begin. They may be improved immediately

> by the
> >

expenditure of Experience Points, provided it was used on the

>

previous

> > adventura."

--- Gabriel Martinez <gmartinez@medioambiente.gov.ar>
wrote:

> Well, in fact we spend weeks X Rank plus XP to rank
> Abilities and days plus
> XP forTalents.

For all other skills and spells, those are correct.
It seems that the rule for Stealth and Horsemanship
are different, however, requiring no time expenditure.
I'm glad this game up, because we missed that rule in
my groups.

Steven Wiles




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

Yes we have always played that attribbutes (PS, EN, PC, etc) and the
skills horsemanship and stealth can be immediately increaesded.

On May 7, 2004, at 3:10 PM, Steven Wiles wrote:

> --- Gabriel Martinez <gmartinez@medioambiente.gov.ar>
> wrote:
> > Well, in fact we spend weeks X Rank plus XP to rank
> > Abilities and  days plus
> > XP forTalents.
>
> For all other skills and spells, those are correct.
> It seems that the rule for Stealth and Horsemanship
> are different, however, requiring no time expenditure.
> I'm glad this game up, because we missed that rule in
> my groups.
>
> Steven Wiles
>
>
>      
>            
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs 
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <image.tiff>
> <image.tiff>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> • To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/
>  
> • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> dqn-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
> • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>

On 5 May 2004 at 18:53, rthorm wrote:

> Money in DragonQuest
> -- Rodger Thorm
>

[snip]

> For reference and comparison, here is some information I found on
> ancient Roman coinage (looking at the silver denarius as a close
> approximation of the silver penny). Also, for comparison, I have
> included information on current US coinage. Canadian coinage is close
> enough in size to US coinage to serve as an example, too.
>
> Roman Coinage
> Gold Aureus 7.75g
> Silver Denarius 4.5g
> Silver Quinarius 2.25g
> Silver Sestertius 1.125g
> Brass Sestertius (2.5g)
>
> 1 aureus was equal to 25 denarii in value. The quinarius was worth
> half of a denarius. The sestertius was worth a quarter denarius.
>
> US (and Canadian) Coinage
> Quarter 5.675g
> Dime 2.25g
> Nickel 5g
> Penny 2.5g
>
> And remember that 28.35g = 1oz
>

You should include the historical US Coinage, not just the modern
ones. After all, the current US 1 cent is copper plated zinc.

Gold Eagle ($10) 16.718
Gold dollar 1.67g

Silver dollar 26.96g
Dime (early silver until 1838) 2.7g
Half dime (silver, before our modern nickel) 1.35g

Large cents 1792-1796 13.48g
Large cents 1796-1857 10.89g
Half Cent 1793-1799 6.74
Half Cent 1800-1857 5.44

The interesting thing to note is that the weight of coins, historically, falls
off within the metal type (gold, silver, copper), not strictly by
denomintion. Two half cents weight about the same as a large cent;
twenty half dimes weigh about the same as a silver dollar; ten gold
dollars weight about the same as an Eagle.

Also, the value of the metal has a great impact as well.
A silver dollar weighs over sixteen times the gold coin of the same
denomination. Copper even more so.

So, while I agree that a copper farthing seems to weigh to much, it is
somewhat in line with the above. When my character reached hero, he
mostly lugged around only truesilver guieneas. :)

Very interesting topic. The great thing about a game world is that your
money system was valid and worked in your game world.

> A very interesting site (Historical Coinage Cheatsheet) for some
> additional reference information:
> http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/history/coin.html
>

To be complete (and I'm surprised no one asked about this before), I
ought to include the Truesilver Guinea on the list as well:

Truesilver Guinea 1/2oz 14.2g
Gold Shilling 1/4oz 7.1g
Silver Penny 1/6oz 4.7g
Copper Farthing 1/8oz 3.5g

The TsG is still twice as heavy as the GS, which I think was probably
the original intent as well.

Rather than put together some kind of manifesto to explain what I am
proposing to do, I'm just going to start it. The best way to explain
this is by example. Having done a bit with money in DQ recently, I
have produced a first draft for a rewritten rule 81 Money Matters. It
can certainly use some further work, but it is a beginning.

Some months back, I talked about a new canon for DragonQuest.
Reception to this proposal was mixed, perhaps rightly so. Rather than
try to force a consensus, I am going to concentrate my energies on
creating a new and improved version of DragonQuest.

A better metaphor for what I want to do is found in the Linux
community. If SPI's Second Edition DragonQuest is UNIX; I'm proposing
to create DQ's Linux.

SPI's kernel is the basis (the starting point) for what I am doing,
but my ultimate aim is to create a free and open set of game rules
that are based on DragonQuest, but completely rewritten in order to
create a rule system document that is entirely free of copyright
questions. It is my intention that these rules will ultimately be
released under a Creative Commons license.

I am not a copyright lawyer. But I think all of us have become at
least somewhat acquainted with contemporary intellectual property law
as we have struggled to understand the ownership and rights issues
concerning DragonQuest. It is my understanding that game rules cannot
be copyrighted, only the expression of those rules can be copyrighted.

To keep this project legally clean with respect to the original
DragonQuest, I am proposing to rewrite all of the rules of Second
Edition. The concepts and workings of the game will be the same. It
will be compatible and interoperable with original DQ. But it will be
a new version, and free to be revised and improved by anyone.

I prefer to think of this as another flavor of DQ, just as Linux has
different flavors (RedHat, Mandrake, Debian, etc.), rather than as a
break with the DragonQuest community. There will probably be forkings
and schisms within this project as well. But I hope that this will
put us on the path to new opportunities with DragonQuest.

I suppose this ended up being a bit of a new manifesto, after all.
But this demonstrates the basic concept of rewriting the existing
ruleset to create a new and open version of the game.

I'm going to post these rules over in the DQ-rules
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/) group. I am starting with a
preliminary draft for rule 81 Money Matters.

I look forward to your comments.

--Rodger Thorm

PS On a more personal note, I have second son as of Monday.
Otherwise, this might have been posted a little bit sooner.

rthorm wrote...

> Rather than put together some kind of manifesto to explain what I am
> proposing to do, I'm just going to start it. The best way to explain
> this is by example. Having done a bit with money in DQ recently, I
> have produced a first draft for a rewritten rule 81 Money Matters. It
> can certainly use some further work, but it is a beginning.

Post it so we can all take a look at it then. :)

> Some months back, I talked about a new canon for DragonQuest.
> Reception to this proposal was mixed, perhaps rightly so. Rather than
> try to force a consensus, I am going to concentrate my energies on
> creating a new and improved version of DragonQuest.

There are also some IP issues involved and I doubt any of us have pockets deep
enough to match Hasbro in that venue. So long as we're flying under their
radar and not trying to challenge them, as the legal owners of DQ, then they're
quite content to ignore us.

> A better metaphor for what I want to do is found in the Linux
> community. If SPI's Second Edition DragonQuest is UNIX; I'm proposing
> to create DQ's Linux.
>
> SPI's kernel is the basis (the starting point) for what I am doing,
> but my ultimate aim is to create a free and open set of game rules
> that are based on DragonQuest, but completely rewritten in order to
> create a rule system document that is entirely free of copyright
> questions. It is my intention that these rules will ultimately be
> released under a Creative Commons license.

Now this is an idea I find quite interesting! And to be fair I wouldn't mind
seeing something like this do to D&D what Linux is in the process of doing to
Windows.

> I am not a copyright lawyer. But I think all of us have become at
> least somewhat acquainted with contemporary intellectual property law
> as we have struggled to understand the ownership and rights issues
> concerning DragonQuest. It is my understanding that game rules cannot
> be copyrighted, only the expression of those rules can be copyrighted.

I believe there were some trademarks and other forms of IP associated with DQ
that come into play here as well. As I remember what little I know on the
subject the exact wording and format of presentation would have to be different
as well. There's a list that lawyers use when making comparisons for this sort
of thing as I recall.

> To keep this project legally clean with respect to the original
> DragonQuest, I am proposing to rewrite all of the rules of Second
> Edition. The concepts and workings of the game will be the same. It
> will be compatible and interoperable with original DQ. But it will be
> a new version, and free to be revised and improved by anyone.
>
> I prefer to think of this as another flavor of DQ, just as Linux has
> different flavors (RedHat, Mandrake, Debian, etc.), rather than as a
> break with the DragonQuest community. There will probably be forkings
> and schisms within this project as well. But I hope that this will
> put us on the path to new opportunities with DragonQuest.

Might make better, cleaner, sense to write a core set of mechanics that allow
later development/customization. FoEx in magic don't write the specific
spells, create the mechanics for creating new ones and how they're
used/resolved. THEN, using those rules, "duplicate" the Colleges in the Book.
Thus providing both the appropriate colleges and an example of how build new
ones if someone wants to. AnEx don't put specific skills in the core mechanics
but how skills are defined and resolved, then define/build the skills from the
book so that people can add new ones.

> I suppose this ended up being a bit of a new manifesto, after all.
> But this demonstrates the basic concept of rewriting the existing
> ruleset to create a new and open version of the game.

As I said above I like the idea, and getting something as good as DQ out from
under Hasbro's legal control certainly has great appeal. An open source
community would also bring in a lot more people with fresh, new, original ideas
and the like. Do this right and it could well end up becoming something quite
interesting indeed. I'm committed to the novel I'm writing now, but where I
can I'll be happy to help.

> I'm going to post these rules over in the DQ-rules
> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/) group. I am starting
> with a preliminary draft for rule 81 Money Matters.

Well I didn't know this list existed until I read this. Learn something new
everyday. :)

> I look forward to your comments.

Well, there are a few of mine above.

> PS On a more personal note, I have second son as of Monday.
> Otherwise, this might have been posted a little bit sooner.

If I didn't have these miserable alergies I would have posted my reply
yesterday. :)



Stephen

Hello, Rodger!

>Some months back, I talked about a new canon for DragonQuest.
>Reception to this proposal was mixed, perhaps rightly so. Rather than
>try to force a consensus, I am going to concentrate my energies on
>creating a new and improved version of DragonQuest.
>
>

This sounds like a very good idea to me. :-)

>A better metaphor for what I want to do is found in the Linux
>community. If SPI's Second Edition DragonQuest is UNIX; I'm proposing
>to create DQ's Linux.
>
>SPI's kernel is the basis (the starting point) for what I am doing,
>but my ultimate aim is to create a free and open set of game rules
>that are based on DragonQuest, but completely rewritten in order to
>create a rule system document that is entirely free of copyright
>questions. It is my intention that these rules will ultimately be
>released under a Creative Commons license.
>
>

You can count me in on this effort.

>I am not a copyright lawyer. But I think all of us have become at
>least somewhat acquainted with contemporary intellectual property law
>as we have struggled to understand the ownership and rights issues
>concerning DragonQuest. It is my understanding that game rules cannot
>be copyrighted, only the expression of those rules can be copyrighted.
>
>

Afaik, this is true. If it were not, it would be impossible for there to
be al these game companies other than TSR making all those myriad
supplements to the D20 system. And if some really thorny issues arise, I
know one American lawyer on the Stardestroyer.net discussion forums who
would probably be willing to help on simple questions. I'm on good terms
with him, so it shouldn't be a problem and as long as a question is
formulated specifiaclly and exactly instead of in generalities, finding
an answer is relatively easy. It's the broad questions that takea lot of
time.

>To keep this project legally clean with respect to the original
>DragonQuest, I am proposing to rewrite all of the rules of Second
>Edition. The concepts and workings of the game will be the same. It
>will be compatible and interoperable with original DQ. But it will be
>a new version, and free to be revised and improved by anyone.
>
>

Sounds good. We don't even need to reformulate most of the mechanics,
for the potentially most troublesome parts only a cosmetic change will
be enough to make al the needed difference (e.g. Magical Aptitude -->
Magical Attunement etc) and for many of the other basic stuff the terms
are so generic that they appear the same across the board in all games.

>I prefer to think of this as another flavor of DQ, just as Linux has
>different flavors (RedHat, Mandrake, Debian, etc.), rather than as a
>break with the DragonQuest community. There will probably be forkings
>and schisms within this project as well. But I hope that this will
>put us on the path to new opportunities with DragonQuest.
>
>

Quite probably, just look at the differences in approach to certain
things that came apparent in the CWT discussions regarding certain
things like Repulse etc. As long as there is a basic modular core that
can support the attachment of customized extensions, it will be quite
workable. People will just plug their house rules in just like they've
done so far.

>I suppose this ended up being a bit of a new manifesto, after all.
>But this demonstrates the basic concept of rewriting the existing
>ruleset to create a new and open version of the game.
>
>

Well, I'm all for it, and since code reuse is a basic part of any
programming, especially open source programming, we might as well take
that principle to use here and integrate some of the stuff that is
already done. You have my permission to take whatever parts of the CWT
you see fit to get this thing started, and same goes for the optional
Aspects that I posted earlier. I'll also note that I'm currently
unemployed, and therefore have spare time enough to devote to stuff like
this if you want commentary and/or help.

>I'm going to post these rules over in the DQ-rules
>(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/) group. I am starting with a
>preliminary draft for rule 81 Money Matters.
>
>I look forward to your comments.
>
> --Rodger Thorm
>
>PS On a more personal note, I have second son as of Monday.
>Otherwise, this might have been posted a little bit sooner.
>
>

Congratulations, Rodger! :-D
So you could really use an assistant in this DQ-Lin project of yours, as
you'll be a little short on time, no?

Edi

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

rthorm wrote:

>Rather than put together some kind of manifesto to explain what I am
>proposing to do, I'm just going to start it. The best way to explain
>this is by example. Having done a bit with money in DQ recently, I
>have produced a first draft for a rewritten rule 81 Money Matters. It
>can certainly use some further work, but it is a beginning.
>
>Some months back, I talked about a new canon for DragonQuest.
>Reception to this proposal was mixed, perhaps rightly so. Rather than
>try to force a consensus, I am going to concentrate my energies on
>creating a new and improved version of DragonQuest.
>
>A better metaphor for what I want to do is found in the Linux
>community. If SPI's Second Edition DragonQuest is UNIX; I'm proposing
>to create DQ's Linux.
>
>SPI's kernel is the basis (the starting point) for what I am doing,
>but my ultimate aim is to create a free and open set of game rules
>that are based on DragonQuest, but completely rewritten in order to
>create a rule system document that is entirely free of copyright
>questions. It is my intention that these rules will ultimately be
>released under a Creative Commons license.
>
>I am not a copyright lawyer. But I think all of us have become at
>least somewhat acquainted with contemporary intellectual property law
>as we have struggled to understand the ownership and rights issues
>concerning DragonQuest. It is my understanding that game rules cannot
>be copyrighted, only the expression of those rules can be copyrighted.
>
>To keep this project legally clean with respect to the original
>DragonQuest, I am proposing to rewrite all of the rules of Second
>Edition. The concepts and workings of the game will be the same. It
>will be compatible and interoperable with original DQ. But it will be
>a new version, and free to be revised and improved by anyone.
>
>I prefer to think of this as another flavor of DQ, just as Linux has
>different flavors (RedHat, Mandrake, Debian, etc.), rather than as a
>break with the DragonQuest community. There will probably be forkings
>and schisms within this project as well. But I hope that this will
>put us on the path to new opportunities with DragonQuest.
>
>I suppose this ended up being a bit of a new manifesto, after all.
>But this demonstrates the basic concept of rewriting the existing
>ruleset to create a new and open version of the game.
>
>I'm going to post these rules over in the DQ-rules
>(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/) group. I am starting with a
>preliminary draft for rule 81 Money Matters.
>
>I look forward to your comments.
>
> --Rodger Thorm
>
>PS On a more personal note, I have second son as of Monday.
>Otherwise, this might have been posted a little bit sooner.
>
>
>