1. Yep, we use the stun rule. We use the most forgiving one though, 4 x
Willpower + remaing Fatigue and we give a chance to recover in the same turn
the Stun was inflicted, even if the figure (character or NPC) has already
acted.
2. My players hated the Backfire rule and hated mages until the umpteenth
time I sat them down, held their hands, and walked them through the
Investment Rituals system. Now they all have staffs, rings, necklaces,
belts, and what-have-you with invested spells, or treasure items that allow
more
than one type of spell to be invested in an item. Runestones and enchanted
gems/coins are also big favorites.
2a. I'm running a campaign where I did away with the Backfire Table
completely... sort of. There is a sect of monsters who actually USE the
Backfire Table as their attacks. The players NEVER roll for backfire, but
they cannot cast any spells which they have not invested in a single item.
They can invest a number of the same or different General Knowledge spells
up to their their level, and Special Knowledge spells up to half their
level. However, they can't cast any spell they haven't invested, and once
the spells invested in their item are used up, they're gone until
re-invested. Within the context of the campaign and its flavor, this is
working fine, and it's really helping the players learn and appreciate the
investment system and its huge success bonuses for when we go back to
atraditional campaign once this one is concluded.
5. Welcome! :-)
14. Nope. Sorry! :-(
----- Original Message -----
From: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:55 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Digest Number 344
There are 19 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
2. The Backfire Table - Evil & Cruel or Exciting & Challenging
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
3. Re: The Backfire Table - Evil & Cruel or Exciting & Challenging
From: "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>
4. Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
From: "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>
5. Re: New to the group...
From: "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>
6. Re: The Backfire Table - Evil & Cruel or Exciting & Challenging
From: dq@johncorey.com
7. Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
From: Arturo Algueiro Melo <aleam00@yahoo.com>
8. Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
9. Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
10. Re: Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
From: Jason Honhera <albavar@yahoo.com>
11. Re: Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
From: dq@johncorey.com
12. Re: New to the group...
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
13. Re: Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
From: Phil Wright <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
14. Frontiers of Alusia - Anyone have a scanned version of the map?
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
15. RE: Frontiers of Alusia - Anyone have a scanned version of the map?
From: John Rauchert <john.rauchert@sait.ca>
16. RE: The Backfire Table - Evil & Cruel or Exciting & Challenging
From: "Mandos Mitchinson" <mandos@allowed.to>
17. RE: Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
From: "Mandos Mitchinson" <mandos@allowed.to>
18. Re: Frontiers of Alusia - Anyone have a scanned version of the map?
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
19. Re: New to the group...
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:41:34 -0000
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Russ Jones <russjon@e...> wrote:
> I find that the stun rule encouraging the use of heavier
> armor gives non-mage characters considerably more value
> to a party than they might otherwise have.
This seems to be a common theme among the posts in this list. That
non-mage characters are merely support characters or provide limited
value to a party.
Never would have expected that given all the limitations and
liabilities for using magic in combat.
However I can definitely agree that with a stun rule in effect anyone
who could wear heavier armor would be likely to do so.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:48:18 -0000
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
Subject: The Backfire Table - Evil & Cruel or Exciting & Challenging
Since Cameron brought it up I thought I would stir up some more trouble.
A mage of less than Hero level, more likely than not, is going to get
one or more backfires during the course of a gaming session. In many
cases the result of the backfire table can, for all intents and
purposes, remove the poor mage from play.
I don't know how many times we would have some poor shmuck mage
backfire only a few minutes into a gaming session and then have the
party spend hours trying to find a healer so that they could continue
on the adventure with a functioning mage.
Because of that mages were usually discouraged from using spells
except when absolutely necessary. At least until their cast chances
were sufficiently high enough to avoid backfires.
So how do others feel about the backfire table? Is it too harsh?
Should it have been weighted more towards fatigue penalties and minor
disabling effects lasting hours? Is it just right? Is it not harsh
enough?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:34:26 -0000
From: "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: The Backfire Table - Evil & Cruel or Exciting & Challenging
--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "darkislephil" <darkislephil@y...> wrote:
>
> Since Cameron brought it up I thought I would stir up some more trouble.
>
> A mage of less than Hero level, more likely than not, is going to get
> one or more backfires during the course of a gaming session. In many
> cases the result of the backfire table can, for all intents and
> purposes, remove the poor mage from play.
>
> I don't know how many times we would have some poor shmuck mage
> backfire only a few minutes into a gaming session and then have the
> party spend hours trying to find a healer so that they could continue
> on the adventure with a functioning mage.
>
> Because of that mages were usually discouraged from using spells
> except when absolutely necessary. At least until their cast chances
> were sufficiently high enough to avoid backfires.
>
> So how do others feel about the backfire table? Is it too harsh?
> Should it have been weighted more towards fatigue penalties and minor
> disabling effects lasting hours? Is it just right? Is it not harsh
> enough?
I really like the backfire table as a GM, many an adveture has got
started trying to "fix" a mage
David
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:49:09 -0000
From: "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
I use the stun rule variably. In combat I don't use it for
experienced characters. I don't think its realistic, the adrenaline
and edorphines keep you going. There are tails of pilots in the
second world war landing thier planes safely then dropping dead of
their wounds (and what about berserkers). If the choise is dealing
with the pain or dying then evolution lets you deal with the pain.
Its different in suprise situations or inexperienced players, then it
really hurts 'cos you're not prepared for it and you might not notice
the band of orcs shooting you, but even here an experienced
character's physiology would probaly make them react differently eg
run away, get under cover, get angry etc
I feel a rule mod comming on to formalise whatI do .... OK
Either added to a "Warrior Skill" or a new skill "avoiding stun" roll
under rank on a D10 when hit to avoid becomming stunned - a roll of 10
always stunned. Chance halved if suprised
How about mages: can't use this skill or MA is subtacted from chance
in some way as mages are more in tune with the world....?
Any other ideas?
David
--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "darkislephil" <darkislephil@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "D. Cameron King" <monarchy2000@h...>
> wrote:
>
> > We always used it, per the rules (2nd edition--though
> > it's worth mentioning that the rule is different
> > in the two different 2nd edition rulebooks, and I
> > can't recall which one we followed).
>
> I just double-checked my Bantam 2nd vs the TSR 3rd and I see that in
> the 3rd the recovery roll was increased to 3xWill. I inclined to
> think that this is a one of the good changes in the 3rd edition.
>
> > It *is* one of the nastiest combat rules, but it's also one of
> > the few reasons to care much about your WP score.
>
> To me this was one of the best arguments for using it because, as you
> say, WP just isn't that important to most characters otherwise.
>
> > And we liked the effect that "fear of being stunned" had on
> > us in combat.
>
> In general we didn't need any additional reasons to avoid combat. DQ
> combat is already deadly to PCs. :)
>
> > Frankly, I've always felt that one of the best things about DQ is
> > that--exhilirating as combat is--there is considerable motivation to
> avoid
> > unnecessary violence (because even a little bad luck can result in
> > disastrous consequences). It definitely enhances the "realism," IMO.
>
> I hear you and I agree that one of the best elements of DQ is that
> unlike many level based RPGs the always present threat of death in any
> combat adds an edge to it that is missing in those other games. It
> just always seemed that the stun rule pushed it past exhilirating and
> dangerous right in to frustrating. The PCs are the heros. This is
> high-fantasy, swords and sorcery. They are supposed to be able to
> take on multiple minions of evil and come away the victors even if a
> little battered and bloody. But when the PCs are all stunned with
> their weapons laying on the ground in the first couple rounds of
> combat they don't feel so heroic. And it will happen all too often
> because the minions will always outnumber the good guys.
>
> One more thing. In our campaigns almost no characters wore any armor
> above leather and no magic armor. The weight of the heavier armors,
> which caused agility & fatigue loss, combined with the normal armor
> agility loss tended to discourage the wearing of higher protection
> armors. So in our campaigns avg hits with many weapons were enough to
> stun the PCs who being PCs never make their recovery rolls.
>
> In any case not trying to make any converts so much as explore my own
> thoughts and those of others on the issue. The stun rule is just one
> of the few parts of DQ I have never been "comfortable" with so it
> seemed a good choice to start some discussion.
>
> I am inclined to give it another try using the 3rd editions 3xWill+Fat
> rule.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:54:27 -0000
From: "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: New to the group...
Welcome. You certainly seem to have done wonders to this group
How do your arcane wisdom copies compare with the ones we have access
to on the web, is there anything missing?
David
--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "darkislephil" <darkislephil@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Howdy everyone. Just stumbled across this group while randomly
> googling the net for DragonQuest info.
>
> Like many I have been playing DQ since its initial release. Though I
> have owned and still do own almost every RPG that was ever released DQ
> is the one I come back to for fantasy gaming.
>
> Over the years I have used the Alusia campaign setting as well as
> adapting Harn and even TSRs Red Steel setting for use with DQ. I was
> fortunate enough to weasel a couple early versions of Arcane Wisdom
> from certain ex-SPI empoyees in the years following SPI's demise which
> did a lot to enhance our DQ games. It was great though to see the
> archives of old Ares & Dragon columns in PDF form as well as the PDF
> Arcane Wisdom that is floating around out there.
>
> Anyway just wanted to say hey to everyone and I'll follow up this post
> with a couple others to see if we can get some discussion going.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Phil
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:25:53 -0500 (EST)
From: dq@johncorey.com
Subject: Re: The Backfire Table - Evil & Cruel or Exciting & Challenging
The debate on this list that I recall as being the most heated (which for
this list is not too bad :->) was about the backfire table. I think my
problem is I have only been a player a few times. I am alomst exclusively
a GM. So I have no problem with the backfire table. At the same time, it
is hard to arguie that it is not harsh to players. When I think about it,
I like the frequencey, but struggle with the severity of some of the
results.
As someone else pointed out, it can be a great adventure seed.
JohnC
>
>
> Since Cameron brought it up I thought I would stir up some more trouble.
>
> A mage of less than Hero level, more likely than not, is going to get
> one or more backfires during the course of a gaming session. In many
> cases the result of the backfire table can, for all intents and
> purposes, remove the poor mage from play.
>
> I don't know how many times we would have some poor shmuck mage
> backfire only a few minutes into a gaming session and then have the
> party spend hours trying to find a healer so that they could continue
> on the adventure with a functioning mage.
>
> Because of that mages were usually discouraged from using spells
> except when absolutely necessary. At least until their cast chances
> were sufficiently high enough to avoid backfires.
>
> So how do others feel about the backfire table? Is it too harsh?
> Should it have been weighted more towards fatigue penalties and minor
> disabling effects lasting hours? Is it just right? Is it not harsh
> enough?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:42:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Arturo Algueiro Melo <aleam00@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
Hi, people!...
My humble contribution to the subject.
As our group decided to take the most favourable rules
towards the players, we use 3xWP+FT remaining to recover
from stun, and defense halved. We thought that zero defense
plus stun modifier to hit (+15 or +20) was too much.
Only incapacitated subjects have defense = 0.
Of course, NPC also have the same rule, and usually have
more WP than the PC's, so they recover sooner.
Best regards... Arturo
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:52:26 -0000
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
The way you describe it is more in line with how I see it. The heroes
of the story don't get stunned in the middle of a melee though they
might collapse from their wounds later. A caveat to that is sometimes
for the story to move forward the hero is stunned and captured but in
that case it serves the storyline and isn't just a random result.
I like the idea of stuns in combat but not really how it was
implemented. I am guessing that in many cases it is observed more in
principle than in practice.
To me the 3rd edition rule with 3xWill seems a more reasonably way to
go. It still gives importance to a stat that otherwise isn't very
important.
-Phil
--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@e...>
wrote:
>
> I use the stun rule variably. In combat I don't use it for
> experienced characters. I don't think its realistic, the adrenaline
> and edorphines keep you going. There are tails of pilots in the
> second world war landing thier planes safely then dropping dead of
> their wounds (and what about berserkers). If the choise is dealing
> with the pain or dying then evolution lets you deal with the pain.
>
> Its different in suprise situations or inexperienced players, then it
> really hurts 'cos you're not prepared for it and you might not notice
> the band of orcs shooting you, but even here an experienced
> character's physiology would probaly make them react differently eg
> run away, get under cover, get angry etc
>
> I feel a rule mod comming on to formalise whatI do .... OK
> Either added to a "Warrior Skill" or a new skill "avoiding stun" roll
> under rank on a D10 when hit to avoid becomming stunned - a roll of 10
> always stunned. Chance halved if suprised
> How about mages: can't use this skill or MA is subtacted from chance
> in some way as mages are more in tune with the world....?
> Any other ideas?
>
> David
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "darkislephil" <darkislephil@y...>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "D. Cameron King" <monarchy2000@h...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We always used it, per the rules (2nd edition--though
> > > it's worth mentioning that the rule is different
> > > in the two different 2nd edition rulebooks, and I
> > > can't recall which one we followed).
> >
> > I just double-checked my Bantam 2nd vs the TSR 3rd and I see that in
> > the 3rd the recovery roll was increased to 3xWill. I inclined to
> > think that this is a one of the good changes in the 3rd edition.
> >
> > > It *is* one of the nastiest combat rules, but it's also one of
> > > the few reasons to care much about your WP score.
> >
> > To me this was one of the best arguments for using it because, as you
> > say, WP just isn't that important to most characters otherwise.
> >
> > > And we liked the effect that "fear of being stunned" had on
> > > us in combat.
> >
> > In general we didn't need any additional reasons to avoid combat. DQ
> > combat is already deadly to PCs. :)
> >
> > > Frankly, I've always felt that one of the best things about DQ is
> > > that--exhilirating as combat is--there is considerable motivation to
> > avoid
> > > unnecessary violence (because even a little bad luck can result in
> > > disastrous consequences). It definitely enhances the "realism,"
IMO.
> >
> > I hear you and I agree that one of the best elements of DQ is that
> > unlike many level based RPGs the always present threat of death in any
> > combat adds an edge to it that is missing in those other games. It
> > just always seemed that the stun rule pushed it past exhilirating and
> > dangerous right in to frustrating. The PCs are the heros. This is
> > high-fantasy, swords and sorcery. They are supposed to be able to
> > take on multiple minions of evil and come away the victors even if a
> > little battered and bloody. But when the PCs are all stunned with
> > their weapons laying on the ground in the first couple rounds of
> > combat they don't feel so heroic. And it will happen all too often
> > because the minions will always outnumber the good guys.
> >
> > One more thing. In our campaigns almost no characters wore any armor
> > above leather and no magic armor. The weight of the heavier armors,
> > which caused agility & fatigue loss, combined with the normal armor
> > agility loss tended to discourage the wearing of higher protection
> > armors. So in our campaigns avg hits with many weapons were enough to
> > stun the PCs who being PCs never make their recovery rolls.
> >
> > In any case not trying to make any converts so much as explore my own
> > thoughts and those of others on the issue. The stun rule is just one
> > of the few parts of DQ I have never been "comfortable" with so it
> > seemed a good choice to start some discussion.
> >
> > I am inclined to give it another try using the 3rd editions 3xWill+Fat
> > rule.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:06:11 -0000
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Arturo Algueiro Melo <aleam00@y...>
wrote:
> As our group decided to take the most favourable rules
> towards the players, we use 3xWP+FT remaining to recover
> from stun, and defense halved. We thought that zero defense
> plus stun modifier to hit (+15 or +20) was too much.
> Only incapacitated subjects have defense = 0.
This is one of the issues that make me wonder if the supporters of the
rule don't observe it more in principle than in practice. Odds are
that anyone stunned during a melee isn't going to survive with the
2xWP+FT recovery roll.
I need to run a series of mock combats and see how the use of 3xWP+FT
changes the dynamic.
-Phil
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:13:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Jason Honhera <albavar@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
Forgive my forgetfulness, but my book has been packed away until we can get
a bigger place. I always remember how to get out of stun... but what are
the conditions in which you become stunned?
darkislephil <darkislephil@yahoo.com> wrote:
The way you describe it is more in line with how I see it. The heroes
of the story don't get stunned in the middle of a melee though they
might collapse from their wounds later. A caveat to that is sometimes
for the story to move forward the hero is stunned and captured but in
that case it serves the storyline and isn't just a random result.
I like the idea of stuns in combat but not really how it was
implemented. I am guessing that in many cases it is observed more in
principle than in practice.
To me the 3rd edition rule with 3xWill seems a more reasonably way to
go. It still gives importance to a stat that otherwise isn't very
important.
-Phil
--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@e...>
wrote:
>
> I use the stun rule variably. In combat I don't use it for
> experienced characters. I don't think its realistic, the adrenaline
> and edorphines keep you going. There are tails of pilots in the
> second world war landing thier planes safely then dropping dead of
> their wounds (and what about berserkers). If the choise is dealing
> with the pain or dying then evolution lets you deal with the pain.
>
> Its different in suprise situations or inexperienced players, then it
> really hurts 'cos you're not prepared for it and you might not notice
> the band of orcs shooting you, but even here an experienced
> character's physiology would probaly make them react differently eg
> run away, get under cover, get angry etc
>
> I feel a rule mod comming on to formalise whatI do .... OK
> Either added to a "Warrior Skill" or a new skill "avoiding stun" roll
> under rank on a D10 when hit to avoid becomming stunned - a roll of 10
> always stunned. Chance halved if suprised
> How about mages: can't use this skill or MA is subtacted from chance
> in some way as mages are more in tune with the world....?
> Any other ideas?
>
> David
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "darkislephil" <darkislephil@y...>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "D. Cameron King" <monarchy2000@h...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We always used it, per the rules (2nd edition--though
> > > it's worth mentioning that the rule is different
> > > in the two different 2nd edition rulebooks, and I
> > > can't recall which one we followed).
> >
> > I just double-checked my Bantam 2nd vs the TSR 3rd and I see that in
> > the 3rd the recovery roll was increased to 3xWill. I inclined to
> > think that this is a one of the good changes in the 3rd edition.
> >
> > > It *is* one of the nastiest combat rules, but it's also one of
> > > the few reasons to care much about your WP score.
> >
> > To me this was one of the best arguments for using it because, as you
> > say, WP just isn't that important to most characters otherwise.
> >
> > > And we liked the effect that "fear of being stunned" had on
> > > us in combat.
> >
> > In general we didn't need any additional reasons to avoid combat. DQ
> > combat is already deadly to PCs. :)
> >
> > > Frankly, I've always felt that one of the best things about DQ is
> > > that--exhilirating as combat is--there is considerable motivation to
> > avoid
> > > unnecessary violence (because even a little bad luck can result in
> > > disastrous consequences). It definitely enhances the "realism,"
IMO.
> >
> > I hear you and I agree that one of the best elements of DQ is that
> > unlike many level based RPGs the always present threat of death in any
> > combat adds an edge to it that is missing in those other games. It
> > just always seemed that the stun rule pushed it past exhilirating and
> > dangerous right in to frustrating. The PCs are the heros. This is
> > high-fantasy, swords and sorcery. They are supposed to be able to
> > take on multiple minions of evil and come away the victors even if a
> > little battered and bloody. But when the PCs are all stunned with
> > their weapons laying on the ground in the first couple rounds of
> > combat they don't feel so heroic. And it will happen all too often
> > because the minions will always outnumber the good guys.
> >
> > One more thing. In our campaigns almost no characters wore any armor
> > above leather and no magic armor. The weight of the heavier armors,
> > which caused agility & fatigue loss, combined with the normal armor
> > agility loss tended to discourage the wearing of higher protection
> > armors. So in our campaigns avg hits with many weapons were enough to
> > stun the PCs who being PCs never make their recovery rolls.
> >
> > In any case not trying to make any converts so much as explore my own
> > thoughts and those of others on the issue. The stun rule is just one
> > of the few parts of DQ I have never been "comfortable" with so it
> > seemed a good choice to start some discussion.
> >
> > I am inclined to give it another try using the 3rd editions 3xWill+Fat
> > rule.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
[This message contained attachments]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:40:27 -0500 (EST)
From: dq@johncorey.com
Subject: Re: Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
This is why I hide the dice roles! gotta be able to add some drama
>
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Arturo Algueiro Melo <aleam00@y...>
> wrote:
>> As our group decided to take the most favourable rules
>> towards the players, we use 3xWP+FT remaining to recover
>> from stun, and defense halved. We thought that zero defense
>> plus stun modifier to hit (+15 or +20) was too much.
>> Only incapacitated subjects have defense = 0.
>
> This is one of the issues that make me wonder if the supporters of the
> rule don't observe it more in principle than in practice. Odds are
> that anyone stunned during a melee isn't going to survive with the
> 2xWP+FT recovery roll.
>
> I need to run a series of mock combats and see how the use of 3xWP+FT
> changes the dynamic.
>
> -Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:42:19 -0000
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: New to the group...
Thanks David.
I'm going to have to go through and compare the AWs I have with the
PDF version.
One of them is a copy of the galley proofs from when SPI was going to
print it but never did. It was called Advanced Magic and had
different section numbers for the colleges and such. The other I have
is from a contact I had at TSR and I'm pretty sure it is the same as
the PDF floating around though I didn't have the pretty color cover
for it.
We recently moved and I saw them when I was boxing up the computer
room. Now I just have to figure out which of the umpteen boxes in the
garage they are in.
-Phil
--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@e...>
wrote:
>
> Welcome. You certainly seem to have done wonders to this group
>
> How do your arcane wisdom copies compare with the ones we have access
> to on the web, is there anything missing?
>
> David
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "darkislephil" <darkislephil@y...>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Howdy everyone. Just stumbled across this group while randomly
> > googling the net for DragonQuest info.
> >
> > Like many I have been playing DQ since its initial release. Though I
> > have owned and still do own almost every RPG that was ever released DQ
> > is the one I come back to for fantasy gaming.
> >
> > Over the years I have used the Alusia campaign setting as well as
> > adapting Harn and even TSRs Red Steel setting for use with DQ. I was
> > fortunate enough to weasel a couple early versions of Arcane Wisdom
> > from certain ex-SPI empoyees in the years following SPI's demise which
> > did a lot to enhance our DQ games. It was great though to see the
> > archives of old Ares & Dragon columns in PDF form as well as the PDF
> > Arcane Wisdom that is floating around out there.
> >
> > Anyway just wanted to say hey to everyone and I'll follow up this post
> > with a couple others to see if we can get some discussion going.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Phil
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:01:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Phil Wright <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
If you take effective damage greater than 1/3 your
original Endurance. So for a typical character around
6-8 pts of effective damage is needed. With good
armor, say 6 or higher, stuns are going to be fewer.
But with cloth or leather each hit you take has a good
chance of stunning.
--- Jason Honhera <albavar@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Forgive my forgetfulness, but my book has been
> packed away until we can get a bigger place. I
> always remember how to get out of stun... but what
> are the conditions in which you become stunned?
>
> darkislephil <darkislephil@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The way you describe it is more in line with how I
> see it. The heroes
> of the story don't get stunned in the middle of a
> melee though they
> might collapse from their wounds later. A caveat to
> that is sometimes
> for the story to move forward the hero is stunned
> and captured but in
> that case it serves the storyline and isn't just a
> random result.
>
> I like the idea of stuns in combat but not really
> how it was
> implemented. I am guessing that in many cases it is
> observed more in
> principle than in practice.
>
> To me the 3rd edition rule with 3xWill seems a more
> reasonably way to
> go. It still gives importance to a stat that
> otherwise isn't very
> important.
>
> -Phil
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "dbarrass_2000"
> <david.barrass@e...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I use the stun rule variably. In combat I don't
> use it for
> > experienced characters. I don't think its
> realistic, the adrenaline
> > and edorphines keep you going. There are tails of
> pilots in the
> > second world war landing thier planes safely then
> dropping dead of
> > their wounds (and what about berserkers). If the
> choise is dealing
> > with the pain or dying then evolution lets you
> deal with the pain.
> >
> > Its different in suprise situations or
> inexperienced players, then it
> > really hurts 'cos you're not prepared for it and
> you might not notice
> > the band of orcs shooting you, but even here an
> experienced
> > character's physiology would probaly make them
> react differently eg
> > run away, get under cover, get angry etc
> >
> > I feel a rule mod comming on to formalise whatI do
> .... OK
> > Either added to a "Warrior Skill" or a new skill
> "avoiding stun" roll
> > under rank on a D10 when hit to avoid becomming
> stunned - a roll of 10
> > always stunned. Chance halved if suprised
> > How about mages: can't use this skill or MA is
> subtacted from chance
> > in some way as mages are more in tune with the
> world....?
> > Any other ideas?
> >
> > David
> >
> > --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "darkislephil"
> <darkislephil@y...>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "D. Cameron
> King" <monarchy2000@h...>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > We always used it, per the rules (2nd
> edition--though
> > > > it's worth mentioning that the rule is
> different
> > > > in the two different 2nd edition rulebooks,
> and I
> > > > can't recall which one we followed).
> > >
> > > I just double-checked my Bantam 2nd vs the TSR
> 3rd and I see that in
> > > the 3rd the recovery roll was increased to
> 3xWill. I inclined to
> > > think that this is a one of the good changes in
> the 3rd edition.
> > >
> > > > It *is* one of the nastiest combat rules, but
> it's also one of
> > > > the few reasons to care much about your WP
> score.
> > >
> > > To me this was one of the best arguments for
> using it because, as you
> > > say, WP just isn't that important to most
> characters otherwise.
> > >
> > > > And we liked the effect that "fear of being
> stunned" had on
> > > > us in combat.
> > >
> > > In general we didn't need any additional reasons
> to avoid combat. DQ
> > > combat is already deadly to PCs. :)
> > >
> > > > Frankly, I've always felt that one of the best
> things about DQ is
> > > > that--exhilirating as combat is--there is
> considerable motivation to
> > > avoid
> > > > unnecessary violence (because even a little
> bad luck can result in
> > > > disastrous consequences). It definitely
> enhances the "realism,"
> IMO.
> > >
> > > I hear you and I agree that one of the best
> elements of DQ is that
> > > unlike many level based RPGs the always present
> threat of death in any
> > > combat adds an edge to it that is missing in
> those other games. It
> > > just always seemed that the stun rule pushed it
> past exhilirating and
> > > dangerous right in to frustrating. The PCs are
> the heros. This is
> > > high-fantasy, swords and sorcery. They are
> supposed to be able to
> > > take on multiple minions of evil and come away
> the victors even if a
> > > little battered and bloody. But when the PCs
> are all stunned with
> > > their weapons laying on the ground in the first
> couple rounds of
> > > combat they don't feel so heroic. And it will
> happen all too often
> > > because the minions will always outnumber the
> good guys.
> > >
> > > One more thing. In our campaigns almost no
> characters wore any armor
> > > above leather and no magic armor. The weight of
> the heavier armors,
> > > which caused agility & fatigue loss, combined
> with the normal armor
> > > agility loss tended to discourage the wearing of
> higher protection
> > > armors. So in our campaigns avg hits with many
> weapons were enough to
> > > stun the PCs who being PCs never make their
> recovery rolls.
> > >
> > > In any case not trying to make any converts so
> much as explore my own
> > > thoughts and those of others on the issue. The
> stun rule is just one
> > > of the few parts of DQ I have never been
> "comfortable" with so it
> > > seemed a good choice to start some discussion.
> > >
> > > I am inclined to give it another try using the
> 3rd editions 3xWill+Fat
> > > rule.
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:41:20 -0000
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
Subject: Frontiers of Alusia - Anyone have a scanned version of the map?
I had my copy of the map laminated not long after getting it but that
makes it a bit problematic to scan. Anyone have a good scan of it?
-Phil
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:53:35 -0700
From: John Rauchert <john.rauchert@sait.ca>
Subject: RE: Frontiers of Alusia - Anyone have a scanned version of the map?
http://www.darkrealms.com/~alarian/DQ/Alusia/Alusiamap.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: darkislephil [mailto:darkislephil@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 1:41 PM
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DQN-list] Frontiers of Alusia - Anyone have a scanned version
of the map?
I had my copy of the map laminated not long after getting it but that
makes it a bit problematic to scan. Anyone have a good scan of it?
-Phil
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:26:58 +1300
From: "Mandos Mitchinson" <mandos@allowed.to>
Subject: RE: The Backfire Table - Evil & Cruel or Exciting & Challenging
> So how do others feel about the backfire table? Is it too harsh?
> Should it have been weighted more towards fatigue penalties and minor
> disabling effects lasting hours? Is it just right? Is it not harsh
> enough?
I personally use a varient written by some of the guys in the NZ group when
they were working on a different version of the magic system some years ago.
The basic split of Curses/damage/irritating effects are still there but all
the effects that actually stop you roleplaying (mute,deaf etc) have been
removed.
Although in our campaign the problem is more that most mid-high level
adventureres do not backfire anymore to the point where I offer an EP bounty
if people do to encourage the use of some of the more dangerous spells :-)
Mandos
/s
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 11:27:32 +1300
From: "Mandos Mitchinson" <mandos@allowed.to>
Subject: RE: Re: The Stun Rule - Do you use it?
> This is one of the issues that make me wonder if the supporters of the
> rule don't observe it more in principle than in practice. Odds are
> that anyone stunned during a melee isn't going to survive with the
> 2xWP+FT recovery roll.
>
> I need to run a series of mock combats and see how the use of 3xWP+FT
> changes the dynamic.
IN the NZ game we use the 2xWP+FT rules with no problem at all. We did add
in a free stun recovery at the end of the first pulse stunned to give an
extra chance for people, but most players realise the importance of the stat
when they are generating the character so Warriors and Fighter/Mages will
take a high willpower, you need it for Magic Resistance anyway.
Those who do take Low willpowers tend to rank it like crazy as soon as they
can so that they avoid spending their combats stunned.
Mandos
/s
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 22:49:33 -0000
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Frontiers of Alusia - Anyone have a scanned version of the map?
Thanks! Odd that Google didn't find it. I wonder if he has it
blocked in his robots.txt file.
--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, John Rauchert <john.rauchert@s...> wrote:
> http://www.darkrealms.com/~alarian/DQ/Alusia/Alusiamap.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: darkislephil [mailto:darkislephil@y...]
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 1:41 PM
> To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [DQN-list] Frontiers of Alusia - Anyone have a scanned version
> of the map?
>
>
>
> I had my copy of the map laminated not long after getting it but that
> makes it a bit problematic to scan. Anyone have a good scan of it?
>
> -Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:42:47 -0000
From: "darkislephil" <darkislephil@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: New to the group...
So I did manage to locate my old copies of Arcane Wisdom and did a
quick comparison with the PDF version.
As mentioned previously the old SPI version I have seems to primarily
differ in section numbering. The order of spells in the colleges is
often different and there is less descriptive text in places. No
additional or missing rules that I saw.
The second copy I have is largely the same as the PDF version. I
didn't see any obvious rules changes in my quick scan through it. The
PDF version is missing several of Truman's illustrations while my
version is missing the Jaquays illustration of the rag & string golem.
The layout in mine is quite a bit different but I suspect that is due
to the OCR capture/conversion process.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|