Hi JohnK
Arent JohnR and JohnC still around......


Point you raise below i think is excellent
"However, this comes down to something else as well. If the spells
in question come from opposed Elements, than they should not be
stackable; I might also rule that if they come from different Branches
of magic they might or might not be stackable, depending on how you view
the Branches in your game world".

so i may allow similar spells stack as long as they come from neither
opposing branches of magic or oppossing elements.
So in my previous case you could reap a beneift from a defensive Thaum,
Elemental and Arcane branch of magic? Or entity, elemental and arcane.
Cannot benefit from two elemental spells because any element either
opposses, dominants or is dominated by any other element.
Hmm i quite like this.
Branches and guilds are very important in our campaign world. There is also
an ethical/outlook split in our world too, so involves a great deal of
politicking and negotiation and friendly rivalry between all the guilds and
temple-colleges.

Am very surprised you have such a low adept ratio in your parties. Never had
less than 50% and 75% is the norm? As mentioned current group has 100%
adepts.

Others input on this most welcome?

JohnD

In my current face to face game 75% of the party are mages. I don't think
I've ever had below 50% and sometimes it has been 100%.

An annecdote from long ago - The fighters in one party wore shields on their
backs to protect them from the baby mages when the mages threw daggers or
shurikens in "support" of the fighters.

~Jeffery~

> Am very surprised you have such a low adept ratio in your parties. Never
> had
> less than 50% and 75% is the norm? As mentioned current group has 100%
> adepts.
>
> Others input on this most welcome?
>
> JohnD
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reminds me of a game where the party 'selected' (ordered) a player to
send her character on flanking maneuvers in every battle because she
always backfired.

I felt so sorry for her because it was never intentional and it
actually hurt the player's feelings. She was actually pretty good
tactically, knowing where to place the spells and how to maneuver for
good strikes and if not for her atrocious dice would have been the
ideal choice for combat leader.

On Feb 16, 2006, at 8:28 AM, Jeffery K. McGonagill wrote:

> In my current face to face game 75% of the party are mages. I
> don't think
> I've ever had below 50% and sometimes it has been 100%.
>
> An annecdote from long ago - The fighters in one party wore shields
> on their
> backs to protect them from the baby mages when the mages threw
> daggers or
> shurikens in "support" of the fighters.
>
> ~Jeffery~
>
>> Am very surprised you have such a low adept ratio in your parties.
>> Never
>> had
>> less than 50% and 75% is the norm? As mentioned current group has
>> 100%
>> adepts.
>>
>> Others input on this most welcome?
>>
>> JohnD
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Love is a full time job, with fringe benefits.

"Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to
make them all yourself."

Our games (albeit heavy on house rules) have 100%
Adept ratios. Eventually, even our Fighters become
Adepts. Our Players plan for this eventuality.

As for the stackability of spells, given that 2nd
edition rules seem to be the norm, any of you
considering this need to be aware that as your players
progress to higher exp levels, these stacked spells
will unbalance the game. Fighters, properly prepared
by his Adept friends with stacked defense spells will
be unhitable. Even Adepts, prepared with enough
stacked defense spells, can cast in the face of
Fighters with little worry of being hit. We have
played this out to the higher ends and it has always
made the Fighters useless. They never hit each other
and they have a hard time hitting other Adepts.

Don't allow spells with similar purposes to be
stacked. Through our play experience, we have
concluded that only allowing one spell that adds to
defense and one weapon spell are the best approaches
for sustainablity.

BTW, we also altered Ritual of Enchantments in our
campaigns. We felt that adding/subtracting (rank in
Ritual)% to everything (to a player's benefit) was
also a bit unbalancing, especially for the 125 EXP
multiple and 100sp cost.

Just my thoughts,

Mark

> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:34:30 +0000
> From: "davis john" <jrd123@hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: Spell Stacking Question + Number of
> adpets in a party
>
> Hi JohnK
> Arent JohnR and JohnC still around......
>
>
> Point you raise below i think is excellent
> "However, this comes down to something else as well.
> If the spells
> in question come from opposed Elements, than they
> should not be
> stackable; I might also rule that if they come from
> different Branches
> of magic they might or might not be stackable,
> depending on how you view
> the Branches in your game world".
>
> so i may allow similar spells stack as long as they
> come from neither
> opposing branches of magic or oppossing elements.
> So in my previous case you could reap a beneift from
> a defensive Thaum,
> Elemental and Arcane branch of magic? Or entity,
> elemental and arcane.
> Cannot benefit from two elemental spells because any
> element either
> opposses, dominants or is dominated by any other
> element.
> Hmm i quite like this.
> Branches and guilds are very important in our
> campaign world. There is also
> an ethical/outlook split in our world too, so
> involves a great deal of
> politicking and negotiation and friendly rivalry
> between all the guilds and
> temple-colleges.
>
> Am very surprised you have such a low adept ratio in
> your parties. Never had
> less than 50% and 75% is the norm? As mentioned
> current group has 100%
> adepts.
>
> Others input on this most welcome?
>
> JohnD

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Hmm one of our players is the oppsoite and always does bad tacttics and
backfires. Impossible to convince him that having a 27% to cast a spell does
not mean he should cast it every combat, espcelliay as he could roll 90+
whenever he could. He has cursed himself so mnay times on
backfire....although once he did backfire a healing spell for double affect
and healed himself very nicely.

John

>From: Martin Gallo <martimer@mindspring.com>
>Reply-To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Spell Stacking Question + Number of adpets in a
>party
>Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 09:17:09 -0600
>
>Reminds me of a game where the party 'selected' (ordered) a player to
>send her character on flanking maneuvers in every battle because she
>always backfired.
>
>I felt so sorry for her because it was never intentional and it
>actually hurt the player's feelings. She was actually pretty good
>tactically, knowing where to place the spells and how to maneuver for
>good strikes and if not for her atrocious dice would have been the
>ideal choice for combat leader.
>
>On Feb 16, 2006, at 8:28 AM, Jeffery K. McGonagill wrote:
>
> > In my current face to face game 75% of the party are mages. I
> > don't think
> > I've ever had below 50% and sometimes it has been 100%.
> >
> > An annecdote from long ago - The fighters in one party wore shields
> > on their
> > backs to protect them from the baby mages when the mages threw
> > daggers or
> > shurikens in "support" of the fighters.
> >
> > ~Jeffery~
> >
> >> Am very surprised you have such a low adept ratio in your parties.
> >> Never
> >> had
> >> less than 50% and 75% is the norm? As mentioned current group has
> >> 100%
> >> adepts.
> >>
> >> Others input on this most welcome?
> >>
> >> JohnD
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
>matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
>
>Love is a full time job, with fringe benefits.
>
>"Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to
>make them all yourself."
>

Hullo, folks,

... I thought that I would share one or two new flora with you.
These couple of herbs use the same format that accompanied the Herb Lore
from ARCANE WISDOM, and are ones that I wrote up for my own campaign
after doing some research on them. (Ah, the time I spent in libraries
in the 1980s and early 1990s. Enjoy! :)


GENTIAN
Availability: Uncommon
Habitat: Mountains
Potency Loss: Loses 1% of its potency upon being picked, and 1% per
week thereafter.
Description: Gentian is a blue-flowered plant with thorny shoots of
dark green and light blue tint. It must be handled rather carefully due
to its sharp, serrated leaves. The roots of the plant can be brewed
into a tea or other solution that will induce calmness and a state of
restful peace, while alleviating all forms of pain. The roots can be
distilled into a Potion of Sleep that will last for a period of 18 hours
and leaves the imbiber feeling relaxed and healthy. The blue flowers
can be used as a tincture or poultice that will cure 4 Damage points
caused by burns, and will reduce the chance of infection from burns by -25%.


OLEANDER
Availability: Uncommon
Habitat: Fields, Woods
Potency Loss: Loses 5% of its potency upon being picked, and 1% per day
thereafter.
Description: A small shrub with elliptical leathery, sharp leaves wit
symmetrical red and white flowers. The flowers can be distilled into a
Potion of Beauty that will increase the overall Physical Beauty of the
target by +10 for a periood of 12 hours, and give the imbiber an
automatic charm spell with a Base Chance of 45% (but no magical
resistance against it) that will act as a Spell of Charming (E&E G-1,
pg. 38). The flowers are worn during certan courting periods, such as
Midsummer and Springfest, by young women who wish to find a mate or
lover for the evening.

Copyright (c) 1986, 1988 John M. Kahane. All rights reserved.

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

Hullo, JohnD,

In a message of February 16th, 2006, you wrote,

> Arent JohnR and JohnC still around......

No idea, as I haven't seen them post something here since I
rejoined the mailing list. And I see that Rodger is absent as well. I
hope they are still present here on the list. :)

> Point you raise below i think is excellent

Glad to see that you approved. :)

>> However, this comes down to something else as well. If the spells
>> in question come from opposed Elements, than they should not be
>> stackable; I might also rule that if they come from different Branches
>> of magic they might or might not be stackable, depending on how you view
>> the Branches in your game world".
>
> so i may allow similar spells stack as long as they come from neither
> opposing branches of magic or oppossing elements.

This is how I tend to handle it, but to be honest, you have to be
careful with this, otherwise the characters will have horrendously high
defense on them at any given time. Of course, the value of enemy Namers
goes up proportionally. :)

> So in my previous case you could reap a beneift from a defensive Thaum,
> Elemental and Arcane branch of magic? Or entity, elemental and arcane.
> Cannot benefit from two elemental spells because any element either
> opposses, dominants or is dominated by any other element.

Yes, that would be the gist of it.

> Hmm i quite like this.

Me, too. I would add a few other limitations to this, depending on
the campaign I'm running and the gaem world that I've set things in.
Oh, and don't forget to take the character's Aspect into account.

> Am very surprised you have such a low adept ratio in your parties.

Never had

> less than 50% and 75% is the norm? As mentioned current group has 100%
> adepts.

To be honest, all the groups I've run have had between 3 and 6
players in them, and most of the players agreed that they needed a
balance of non-combat skills and abilities as much as magic. Also,
several of my players have a preference for not playing Mages and the
like that dates back to other systems, and while they all like the DQ
magic system, they just don't have the inclination to play a Mage. I
have had a couple of parties where there were 2 Mages among the six
characters, but this is not the norm for me. I suspect that his
something to do also with the fact that they don't see the Merchant
character as a Mage, and so forth, too. :)

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

Hullo, folks,

I wazs wondering something...

Has anyone done up any new talents, spells, and/or rituals for the
Collges of Rune Magics, Shaping Magics, and Lesser Summoninggs that were
originally published in ARCANE WISDOM?

If so, I would appreciate the sharing of that material here. :)

And on that subject...

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

JohnC here! I just have not had a chance to get up to speed on all
these threads.

John

>
> Hi JohnK
> Arent JohnR and JohnC still around......
>
>

>From: Mark D <shadow_weaver13@yahoo.com>
>
>Our games (albeit heavy on house rules) have 100%
>Adept ratios.

Based on the comments on this group that I've read over the years, my group
was perhaps the most "by the book" bunch to ever play the game. We never
had more than 50% play Adepts, and the usual ratio was probably closer to
1-in-3.

-Cameron

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, John M Kahane <jkahane@...> wrote:

>
> ... And I see that Rodger is absent as well. I
> hope they are still present here on the list. :)

Not absent, I'm still here. I'm just being relatively quiet and
keeping busy with IRL stuff.

----

In slightly related news, I've just added a new folder and three new
files of "Astolfo's Journals," descriptions of adventures written as
memoirs of the character, over in the dqnewsletter group
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqnewsletter/files/Stories/).

Anyone else who wants to contribute their stories can send them to me
as well, and I'll be happy to add them to the files.

-- Rodger

etc to fight

> more powerful creatures with more hit points and more
> treasureto gain levels to gain hitpoints, more
> powerful weapons, armour, etc to fight more powerful
> creatures with more hit points and more treasure...
> AHK! I was caught in a loop... good thing 1000 level
> one goblins can not hurt me.. *shakes his head wildely
> to clear the nightmare*
>
> *smile*

My campaign has switched to D20. I think your assesment is pretty
good. My major complaint about it is that it feels like I am playing
Star Fleet Battles. Nothing wrong with SFB, but it is not a
role-playing game. The rules are so precise and convoluted that it
just becomes a tactical exercise. The rest of my group (aside from
Rodger) seems to like it better this.

The problem is trying to find people who are less-munchkin like. I
really enjoy the guys in this group, so I don't mind too much. But i
do miss DQ

JohnC

>
> > Arent JohnR and JohnC still around......
>

JohnC right here!

Hullok Jeffery,

In a message of February 16th, 2006, you wrote,

> In my current face to face game 75% of the party are mages. I don't think
> I've ever had below 50% and sometimes it has been 100%.

*sigh* I wish I had run a campaign or two where most of the
player characters were playing Mages. Mind you, I can't see such a
party being balanced in all the other skill areas for a long time, but...

> An annecdote from long ago - The fighters in one party wore shields on their
> backs to protect them from the baby mages when the mages threw daggers or
> shurikens in "support" of the fighters.

<g> That's just tacky, to be honest. Effective, but tacky. :)
Makes me also wonder about how the player characters dealt with
encumbrance and the like in that game. I think Encumbrance in the
DRAGONQUEST system is the most under-appreciated element of the game,
even if it can cause some mathematical nightmares for some players.

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

Hullo, folks,

Well, I see there's been no feedback on the two new herbs I posted
up to the list. Oh, well, guess there's no interest in seeing any more
of these, or perhaps some new gems and rocks...

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

Hullo, folks,

I've been thinking recently about re-launching my set of
DRAGONQUEST web pages, and was wondering (with the sheer number o fpages
out there for the game) whether anyone thinks it would be worthwhile to
do so.

Comments, thoughts? :)

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

Hullo, JohnD,

In a message of February 16th, 2006, you wrote,

> Hmm one of our players is the oppsoite and always does bad tacttics and
> backfires. Impossible to convince him that having a 27% to cast a spell does
> not mean he should cast it every combat, espcelliay as he could roll 90+
> whenever he could. He has cursed himself so mnay times on
> backfire....although once he did backfire a healing spell for double affect
> and healed himself very nicely.

This is one of the keys to playing Adepts at the lower end of the
Rank system - backfire chances are much higher. I have to wonder at
some of the Colleges with their more offensive spells, as to how often
new Adepts kill themselves or some of their fellow party members on a
backfire.

Back when I first started with the game in 1979/1980, had a couple
of players playing Mages with really bad backfires - one on the Dragon
Flames spell, and the other with a Necromancy spell. No one in that
group ever played a Fire Adept again. Pity, really. <evil g>

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

Hullo, JohnC,

Gosh, it felt good to type that, since I've always liked this
mailing list with all the Johns on it! Confuses everyone else at times,
methinks! :)

In a message of February 16th, 2006, you wrote,

> JohnC here! I just have not had a chance to get up to speed on all
> these threads.

Yeah, I know the feeling at times on some of the mailing lists I'm
on. :)

So, what game are you playing/running these days?

And where's that DRAGONQUEST Adventures website that you've been
promising for so long? <evil g>

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

Hullo, Cameron,

In a message of February 16th, 2006, you wrote,

>>Our games (albeit heavy on house rules) have 100%
>>Adept ratios.
>
> Based on the comments on this group that I've read over the years, my group
> was perhaps the most "by the book" bunch to ever play the game.

I'm actually curious as to what you mean here by "by the book"...
Do you mean adhering strictly to the DQ Rules books and the like and
no House Rules, or something else?

> We never had more than 50% play Adepts, and the usual ratio was
>probably closer to 1-in-3.

Yeah, I can see this... in my case it's usually 1-in-3 or 1-in-5.

This raises another point of course... The implication here of
having so many Mages in the party relative to non-Adepts seems to
reflect on the sheer amount of magic and number of Adepts in the game
world in question. So the question becomes:

How prevalent is Magic in the campaigns that folks run?

For myself, magic is not all that common in Alusia, and Shaping
Mages are extremely rare and difficult to find (there are something like
3 of these on the continent, all told). Heck, I've even had parties
that didn't have Adepts in them at all.

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

Hullo, Rodger,

In a message of February 17th, 2006, you wrote,

>> ... And I see that Rodger is absent as well. I hope they are still
>>present here on the list. :)
>
> Not absent, I'm still here. I'm just being relatively quiet and
> keeping busy with IRL stuff.

Glad to hear it. :) To be honest, you've been one of the driving
forces for the DQ community over the years and all, and it would be a
shame to lose you here.

So, any revisions for Brendan's Almanac? :)

> In slightly related news, I've just added a new folder and three new
> files of "Astolfo's Journals," descriptions of adventures written as
> memoirs of the character, over in the dqnewsletter group
> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqnewsletter/files/Stories/).
>
> Anyone else who wants to contribute their stories can send them to me
> as well, and I'll be happy to add them to the files.

*sigh* I knew that I had forgotten to re-sign up with one of the
mailing lists here at Yahoo! Oh, well, that's the next step... :)

On a side note, one of the things I wish I could do is assemble all
the additional DQ material that I use in my campaign into a Brendan's
Almanac-style piece. Poroblem is that I don't have the ability to
create Acrobat documents, and that's the only format I could see it
in...but I suspect it would be huge with the extra Skills, Colleges,
beasties, and so forth... *sigh*

Anyway, good to see you're still here. :)

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

Hullo, Rodger,

Well, I tried to find the DQ Newsletter mailing list,
and...can't. When I search for the group, nothing comes up. Any
chance of getting you to sign me up for the list or some such?

JohnK

The fighters were always MA 5, never Elves so they could up strength to
carry the load.

~Jeffery~

>> An annecdote from long ago - The fighters in one party wore shields on
>> their
>> backs to protect them from the baby mages when the mages threw daggers or
>> shurikens in "support" of the fighters.
>
> <g> That's just tacky, to be honest. Effective, but tacky. :)
> Makes me also wonder about how the player characters dealt with
> encumbrance and the like in that game. I think Encumbrance in the
> DRAGONQUEST system is the most under-appreciated element of the game,
> even if it can cause some mathematical nightmares for some players.
>
> --
> JohnK
> e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
> web: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

From: John M Kahane

To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 8:24 AM

Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Old hands at DQ

       Hullo, Rodger,

In a message of February 17th, 2006, you wrote,

>> ...  And I see that Rodger is absent as well.  I hope they are still
>>present here on the list. :)
>
> Not absent, I'm still here.  I'm just being relatively quiet and
> keeping busy with IRL stuff.

I've had two different players Whitefire themselves into a pile of ash.
Hasn't stopped anyone from playing Celestial Mages.

There is an unspoken agreement in our group; PC's don't use instant death
spells, neither will the NPC's.

Group requirement for Fire Mages, learn Protection From Magical Fires; I've
modified the spell so that Fire Mages cannot be rendered useless.

~Jeffery~

>> Hmm one of our players is the oppsoite and always does bad tacttics and
>> backfires. Impossible to convince him that having a 27% to cast a spell
>> does
>> not mean he should cast it every combat, espcelliay as he could roll 90+
>> whenever he could. He has cursed himself so mnay times on
>> backfire....although once he did backfire a healing spell for double
>> affect
>> and healed himself very nicely.
>
> This is one of the keys to playing Adepts at the lower end of the
> Rank system - backfire chances are much higher. I have to wonder at
> some of the Colleges with their more offensive spells, as to how often
> new Adepts kill themselves or some of their fellow party members on a
> backfire.
>
> Back when I first started with the game in 1979/1980, had a couple
> of players playing Mages with really bad backfires - one on the Dragon
> Flames spell, and the other with a Necromancy spell. No one in that
> group ever played a Fire Adept again. Pity, really. <evil g>
>
> --
> JohnK
> e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
> web: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Until I see it, I really couldn't say.

~Jeffery~

>
> I've been thinking recently about re-launching my set of
> DRAGONQUEST web pages, and was wondering (with the sheer number o fpages
> out there for the game) whether anyone thinks it would be worthwhile to
> do so.
>
> Comments, thoughts? :)
>
> --
> JohnK
> e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
> web: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

From: John Rauchert

To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2006 8:51 AM

Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Old hands at DQ

 

I am working on one project with regards to the archiving of the DQ lists and I will let you know if I ever get it done.

 

JohnR

> See my first test results at:
>
> http://johnrauchert.brinkster.net/dq/archive/discussions/dq-rules/threads.html

Nicely done!

Paul

we missed celebrating its 6th birthday (as first post was 2000, feb 10th)

looks good

>From: Paul Ferraro <pferraro@greenepa.net>
>Reply-To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Old hands at DQ
>Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:27:45 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
>
>
> > See my first test results at:
> >
> >
>http://johnrauchert.brinkster.net/dq/archive/discussions/dq-rules/threads.html
>
>Nicely done!
>
>Paul
>
>

Magic was not common but over the 150 years there has been a renaissance
where it is becoming quite common, though the average citizen is still leary
of magic (long world history where magic is concerned). There is one
University, which teaches all Mundane and Magical skills; other than that
there is a guild system. There is approximately 1 mage per 1,000 population
in cities in my campaign.

~Jeffery~

> Yeah, I can see this... in my case it's usually 1-in-3 or 1-in-5.
>
> This raises another point of course... The implication here of
> having so many Mages in the party relative to non-Adepts seems to
> reflect on the sheer amount of magic and number of Adepts in the game
> world in question. So the question becomes:
>
> How prevalent is Magic in the campaigns that folks run?
>
> For myself, magic is not all that common in Alusia, and Shaping
> Mages are extremely rare and difficult to find (there are something like
> 3 of these on the continent, all told). Heck, I've even had parties
> that didn't have Adepts in them at all.
>
> --
> JohnK
> e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
> web: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Normally magic is 'rare' but in the current campaign it is 'uncommon'. As
mentioned previous the party is 100% adepts and even NPC parties from other
guilds/temples they interact it id say where 60-75% adepts.
NPC's whether potential allies or adversaries are just more interesting if
they are also adepts.

I think JohnK said shapers were rare in his world. I agree in that of all
the years that i have played dragonquest the one in the current party is the
first PC shaper ive ever known.

Which begs a new question. What is the most popular PC college in your
campaigns/opinion

Id say by far and away IME/IMO it is the necromancer.

JohnD

>From: "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net>
>Reply-To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Adepts in Party, and Magic in the World (Was: Re:
>RE: Spell Stacking Question + Number of)
>Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:42:14 -0800
>
>Magic was not common but over the 150 years there has been a renaissance
>where it is becoming quite common, though the average citizen is still
>leary
>of magic (long world history where magic is concerned). There is one
>University, which teaches all Mundane and Magical skills; other than that
>there is a guild system. There is approximately 1 mage per 1,000
>population
>in cities in my campaign.
>
>~Jeffery~
>
> > Yeah, I can see this... in my case it's usually 1-in-3 or 1-in-5.
> >
> > This raises another point of course... The implication here of
> > having so many Mages in the party relative to non-Adepts seems to
> > reflect on the sheer amount of magic and number of Adepts in the game
> > world in question. So the question becomes:
> >
> > How prevalent is Magic in the campaigns that folks run?
> >
> > For myself, magic is not all that common in Alusia, and Shaping
> > Mages are extremely rare and difficult to find (there are something like
> > 3 of these on the continent, all told). Heck, I've even had parties
> > that didn't have Adepts in them at all.
> >
> > --
> > JohnK
> > e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
> > web: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Now im not being naughty but id like to ask what are the failings in the DQ
system as a rules set / game.

To start mine are:

1. The evasion rules. Ok in 2nd edition it dont seem quite so bad but in
1st edition it always seemed to be to a flaw to attack and you may as well
just evade.

2. Doing justice to an NPC in terms of stats just seems hard work. Even
with an excel character generator it seems a lot of work to fully flesh out
all facets and its not an easy game to wing. I often find I am spending more
time writing a scenario than it takes to play.

3. Combat can be a nightmare, in the last adventure the 4 party members
were combatting 7 gargoyles (one of which was a necromancer) around a spire
(and 2 party members could aslo fly) and the combat area was up to 150ft
spread. Even with minis etc it nearly finished me
off.

4. The monsters are a tad light in light in detail, which i guess is also
point 2 above.

5. the races are very light in detail

In order not to get flamed I will add

the XP system is just the best
the magic system ditto
the idea of stat requirements for weapons and BC is good too

JohnD

Tough call. Elementals are popular in my campaign. Necromancers, not so
much. In fact there have been only four PC Necromancers since I started
playing DQ. One was a Life-Aspected drunk.

I've had players who favored certain colleges. One favored Black Magics
(went through a lot of them); another favored Greater Summoners.

~Jeffery~

> Which begs a new question. What is the most popular PC college in your
> campaigns/opinion
>
> Id say by far and away IME/IMO it is the necromancer.

I'm being naughty in replying to emails instead of finishing a turn of my
online WWII game.

> Now im not being naughty but id like to ask what are the failings in the
> DQ
> system as a rules set / game.
>
> To start mine are:
>
> 1. The evasion rules. Ok in 2nd edition it dont seem quite so bad but in
> 1st edition it always seemed to be to a flaw to attack and you may as well
> just evade.

Not so much in my campaign. Few PCs utilize evasion, though there is
currently a Halfling that is a bit of a nightmare, though my houserule of "A
01 is a 01" led to his being rendered unconscious by a Dire Wolf.

> 2. Doing justice to an NPC in terms of stats just seems hard work. Even
> with an excel character generator it seems a lot of work to fully flesh
> out
> all facets and its not an easy game to wing. I often find I am spending
> more
> time writing a scenario than it takes to play.

I generally wing it. Though I've been working on an Excel character
generator. I use to have a decent computer program that did a good job, but
it is in an old language that doesn't function on even older generation
computers.

I rarely write up a scenario. I come up with the basic plot and wing it,
otherwise I spend a lot of time developing that the players short circuit
one way or another. Or has an old GM of mine put it, "You plan for options
A, B, and C and the players choose option . . . Z."

> 3. Combat can be a nightmare, in the last adventure the 4 party members
> were combatting 7 gargoyles (one of which was a necromancer) around a
> spire
> (and 2 party members could aslo fly) and the combat area was up to 150ft
> spread. Even with minis etc it nearly finished me
> off.

I have a player who doesn't like minis, though I may have to resort to them
because of the aforementioned Halfling who has an artifact of Quickness and
the player needs a more visual representation so he has a more clear idea of
his options. I describe the situation, the players tell me what they want
to do, and I tell them if they can.

> 4. The monsters are a tad light in light in detail, which i guess is also
> point 2 above.

I guess I'm not understanding your point, but then it appears that I'm a
more off-the-cuff player which can lead to things like 84' at the shoulder
elephants (Animal Growth triple effected). I've let the players know that
they shouldn't expect it to happen again.

> 5. the races are very light in detail

Just allows the GM to fill in details for their particular campaign. In my
campagin Orcs are a lot like Klingons and fight amongst themselves alot.
Every 10-15 years they "frenzy" because of population pressure, operating in
bands rather than organized armies and thus subject to defeat in detail.

Of no particular relation, I just flashbacked on a time that a D&D munchkin
type was bragging on what his group could do and saying they would defeat
our group of DQ characters with ease. When I offered to take him up on his
challenge with a neutral GM, he declined.

~Jeffery~

> In order not to get flamed I will add
>
> the XP system is just the best
> the magic system ditto
> the idea of stat requirements for weapons and BC is good too
>
> JohnD
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

1) I think the biggest weakness from a practical playing point of view
is the amount of maths that has to be done. For example the to hit roll
SC- defence, most of the time with a good roll you can say that hits,
but when it's borderline, an Endurance or GI you have to do some quick
mental maths.

Similarly the skill/magic success values are not something you can
calculate on the fly. does anyone have any strategies to get round
this? For the to hit I make defence a roll, so the PC says "I hit!"
(without having to do any maths), then I say "he made his defence, you
don't". For combat and magic I make it 5% bonus per rank

2) Also the rules could be better laid out and more reader friendly,
I'm fed up thnking I saw a rule about that where was it?

3) The absence of a religious system

David

JRR_Talking asked what the weaknesses of DQ were, this is what I think
is good

The basic stats, they're well thought out

The feel of the magic system, it's genuinely creepy at times

The lethality of combat

The modularity, things can be added or removed

No new supplements that a munchkin can buy and tell you you're doing
it wrong

Most of all; you guys, a friendly group with no flaming, excellent

I guess it has more things I like than I don't

David

> Which begs a new question. What is the most popular PC college in your
> campaigns/opinion
>
> Id say by far and away IME/IMO it is the necromancer.

Well in our campaign (The NZ one) we have collected as much info as we could
on all the characters and got the following results.

Air 29 6%
Bardic 3 1%
Binder 6 1%
Celestial 45 10%
E&E 8 2%
E&E 29 6%
Earth 37 8%
Fire 26 6%
Ice 7 2%
Illusion 15 3%
L.Summoner 1 0%
Mind 48 11%
Namer 33 7%
Necromancy 23 5%
Non-Mage 85 19%
Other 4 1%
Rune 9 2%
Water 8 2%
Witchcraft 27 6%

That doesn't show at all how long they were played but does show the trends
creationwise.

Mandos
/s

Bardic? Binder? (is that the same as Shaping Magics?) Ice (Air?) Other?
Witchcraft?

~Jeffery~

>
>> Which begs a new question. What is the most popular PC college in your
>> campaigns/opinion
>>
>> Id say by far and away IME/IMO it is the necromancer.
>
> Well in our campaign (The NZ one) we have collected as much info as we
> could
> on all the characters and got the following results.
>
> Air 29 6%
> Bardic 3 1%
> Binder 6 1%
> Celestial 45 10%
> E&E 8 2%
> E&E 29 6%
> Earth 37 8%
> Fire 26 6%
> Ice 7 2%
> Illusion 15 3%
> L.Summoner 1 0%
> Mind 48 11%
> Namer 33 7%
> Necromancy 23 5%
> Non-Mage 85 19%
> Other 4 1%
> Rune 9 2%
> Water 8 2%
> Witchcraft 27 6%
>
> That doesn't show at all how long they were played but does show the
> trends
> creationwise.
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>From: John M Kahane <jkahane@comnet.ca>
>
>In a message of February 16th, 2006, [Cameron] wrote,
> >
> > Based on the comments on this group that I've read over the years, my
>group
> > was perhaps the most "by the book" bunch to ever play the game.
>
> I'm actually curious as to what you mean here by "by the book"...
> Do you mean adhering strictly to the DQ Rules books and the like and
>no House Rules, or something else?

I mean strictly adhering to the rules as written. No house rules. (I'm
sure we had one or two, but I honestly can't recall what they were. For the
most part, we followed the published rules to the letter.)

> This raises another point of course... The implication here of
>having so many Mages in the party relative to non-Adepts seems to
>reflect on the sheer amount of magic and number of Adepts in the game
>world in question. So the question becomes:
>
> How prevalent is Magic in the campaigns that folks run?

Our DQ campaigns were the lowest-magic fantasy RPGs I've ever participated
in. Adepts were even rarer among NPCs than PCs, and since we had no real
rules for permanent magic items, they almost didn't exist. (There, that was
one "house rule" we had. My PC actually had a magic claymore that added 10%
to his Strike Chance and could loose a Bolt of Fire once/day. No one else
in that campaign had a permanent magic weapon until we ran Starsilver Trek.)

> For myself, magic is not all that common in Alusia, and Shaping
>Mages are extremely rare and difficult to find (there are something like
>3 of these on the continent, all told). Heck, I've even had parties
>that didn't have Adepts in them at all.

Shaping Magics were just legendary for us, since we had no access to Arcane
Wisdom back then.

-Cameron

>From: "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>
>
>3) The absence of a religious system

I think we had an interesting discussion about this the last time Klug
dropped by. For me, the absence of any religious system was a huge PLUS.

I agree with you that the lethality of the combat system was great, though.
In our group, fighting was always the avenue of last resort, which really
encouraged good role-playing. I can count on my thumbs the number of times
a player "got bored with all the talking" and started a melee for no good
reason (something that happens all too often in other RPGs).

-Cameron

>From: "davis john" <jrd123@hotmail.com>
>
>1. The evasion rules. Ok in 2nd edition it dont seem quite so bad but in
>1st edition it always seemed to be to a flaw to attack and you may as well
>just evade.

I have no experience with 1st edition, but the evasion rules were something
we always LOVED about 2nd edition. There was some part about getting
knocked off-balance that never really made much sense to me, but it was an
extremely effective tactic at high Rank. I remember having great fun going
back-to-back with my brother's PC and holding off virtual armies of mooks as
we shouted desperately for "the cavalry" to arrive.

>3. Combat can be a nightmare, in the last adventure the 4 party members
>were combatting 7 gargoyles (one of which was a necromancer) around a spire
>(and 2 party members could aslo fly) and the combat area was up to 150ft
>spread. Even with minis etc it nearly finished me off.

I agree, and yet combat was always the most exhilirating part of the game,
too.

>5. the races are very light in detail

Yeah, I never really saw that as any kind of flaw. But then, I'm kind of
averse to having my rules set come pre-flavored. Just give me the "crunch,"
and I'll add the "fluff" myself.

>In order not to get flamed I will add
>
>the XP system is just the best

Really? Wow. I'm stunned to read that, because I would say the XP rules
are one area that really needed a complete overhaul.

I *love* the idea of earning XP based not on killing monsters and/or taking
their stuff, or "overcoming challenges" (as the current incarnation of D&D
would phrase it), but rather on succeeding or failing at some other goal,
but DQ's rules for XP awards are so vague as to amount, essentially, to just
"give out whatever you feel like giving out, Mr. GM." Add in the rules for
gaining XP by practicing your skills (whatever that means), and you have
(IMO) a barely workable mess.

THEN there was the whole "race to get 8 skills to Rank 4 as soon as
possible--no, it doesn't matter *which* 8 skills, just get them to Rank 4
ASAP!" thing, which encouraged the taking of totally lame-ass (but extremely
cheap) skills and discouraged the use of certain other, cool but
rules-mechanically inferior weapons...

I could go on and on, but I won't. Suffice it to say that if I were ever
going to run a DQ campaign again, I'd take a long, hard look at the XP
system before doing so. But I'm glad *you* like it! ;-)

>the idea of stat requirements for weapons and BC is good too

I always liked that a lot, too.

-Cameron

Hullo, folks,

One of the things I've been considering putting up on my set of
web pages for DQ, assuming anyone wants to see them on-line again of
course :), is a set of Errata.

Has anyone done this sort of thing for the DQ game, working off
the SPI version of the game?

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

Hullo, Jeffery,

In a message of February 18th, 2006, you wrote,

> The fighters were always MA 5, never Elves so they could up strength to
> carry the load.

See, one of the things that I loved in ARCANE WISDOM was the fact
that Shapers could create items so that they could only be used by
beings with a certain Magical Aptitude or higher. Still have the game
stats for the sentient broadsword that can only be used by a fighter
type with an MA of 8 or more... :)

Not to mention the Godswords out of Fred Saberhagen's series. :)

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

Hullo, JohnR,

In a message of February 18th, 2006, you wrote,

> Like Rodger, I have been distracted by other things lately. Bought
>a Condo in last July, got married in last September (she role plays
>too!) but I do lurk here and manage the list in the background when
>needed.

Congratulations on getting married! :)

Yes, real life does tend to get in the way of gaming, regardless of
what one's plans might be. Glad to see that you still lurk here, though. :)

> The only RPGing I am doing at the moment is running a Call of Cthulhu
>campaign every other week and playing in a Black Company campaign as
>an occassional character.

I've always liked CALL OF CTHULHU as a game, and to be honest, have
run and played in some memorable games of that. These days, I stick
with DRAGONQUEST and the Dickensian sf feel rpg called a/state.

> I am working on one project with regards to the archiving of the DQ
>lists and I will let you know if I ever get it done.

Ooh, excellent... perhaps the old Townhall lists, which were quite
extensive? :)

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

Hullo, Jeffery,

In a message of February 18th, 2006, you wrote,

> Until I see it, I really couldn't say.

Not really a matter of content, although I do have a bunch of FAQs
to post up to the website, among other things. The real question is
whether anyone feels there is a need for another website, even if mine
was one of the earlier ones in 1997.

However, since no one else has commented on this...

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

Hullo, Jeffery,

In a message of February 18th, 2006, you wrote,

> Magic was not common but over the 150 years there has been a renaissance
> where it is becoming quite common, though the average citizen is still leary
> of magic (long world history where magic is concerned). There is one
> University, which teaches all Mundane and Magical skills; other than that
> there is a guild system. There is approximately 1 mage per 1,000 population
> in cities in my campaign.

I rather like the way you've handled this, and to be honest, it
fits nicely in with the feel of the Renaissance-style game. Out of
curiosity, what's the population sizes of cities in the campaign?

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

John,

My thought is this...
The web is an exercise in supply and demand. Supply creates its
own demand. If you put them up, people will come to look at them.

Just my two copper farthings,
Jim

--- Original Message ---
From: John M Kahane <jkahane@comnet.ca>
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] DQ Website Relaunch Thoughts?

> Hullo, Jeffery,
>
>In a message of February 18th, 2006, you wrote,
>
>> Until I see it, I really couldn't say.
>
> Not really a matter of content, although I do have a bunch

of FAQs

>to post up to the website, among other things. The real

question is

>whether anyone feels there is a need for another website, even

if mine

>was one of the earlier ones in 1997.
>
> However, since no one else has commented on this...
>
>--
> JohnK
> e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
> web: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane

--
"Being right means never having to say your sorry"
- Vernor Vinge

"Being right too soon is socially unacceptable."
- Robert A. Heinlein

Hullo, JohnR,

>See my first test results at:
>
>http://johnrauchert.brinkster.net/dq/archive/discussions/dq-rules/threads.html

Oh, very nice. :)

So, any chance of seeing the old Townhall material this way? :)

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

Hullo, Jeffery,

In a message of February 18th, 2006, you wrote,

> I've had two different players Whitefire themselves into a pile of ash.
> Hasn't stopped anyone from playing Celestial Mages.

I rather like Celestial Mages myself; one of my players has played
one long-term in the campaign I run on Friday nghts. However, the
character is no retired and teaching at one of the colleges, so...

> There is an unspoken agreement in our group; PC's don't use instant death
> spells, neither will the NPC's.

<g>

> Group requirement for Fire Mages, learn Protection From Magical Fires; I've
> modified the spell so that Fire Mages cannot be rendered useless.

Hmm, I don't like setting conditions like that, to be honest,
since it takes away some of the sparks (no pun intended) of playing a
Fire Adept. Mind you, wouldn't mind seeing the modified version of the
spell...

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

Hullo, JohnD,

In a message of February 18th, 2006, you wrote,

> I think JohnK said shapers were rare in his world. I agree in that of all
> the years that i have played dragonquest the one in the current party is the
> first PC shaper ive ever known.

Oh, I didn't mean among player characters, JohnD. I meant in the
game world as a whole. I've only had one Shaper player character, and
he accounted for 50% of the Shapers in the world.

> Which begs a new question. What is the most popular PC college in your
> campaigns/opinion
>
> Id say by far and away IME/IMO it is the necromancer.

Hmm, in my campaigns, the two favourite Colleges have been
Ensorcelments and Enchantments and Lesser Summonings.

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

Hullo, JohnD,

In a message of February 18th, 2006, you wrote,

> Now im not being naughty but id like to ask what are the failings in the DQ
> system as a rules set / game.
>
> To start mine are:
>
> 1. The evasion rules. Ok in 2nd edition it dont seem quite so bad but in
> 1st edition it always seemed to be to a flaw to attack and you may as well
> just evade.

Hmm, I don't think I agree with this. The Evasion rules for the
2nd Edition were something that my gamers and I loved in those early
days of DRAGONQUEST, to be honest, and they still hold up well even
after all this time. The defensive bonus afforded to those who Evade is
something that is very valuable in combat when your young characters are
starting out, and can be tremendously helpful as the character grows
skill-wise, especially when being attacked by groups of nasty NPCs. And
the Riposte rules are lovely. :)

> 2. Doing justice to an NPC in terms of stats just seems hard work. Even
> with an excel character generator it seems a lot of work to fully flesh out
> all facets and its not an easy game to wing. I often find I am spending more
> time writing a scenario than it takes to play.

Now see, I've never created characters on computer and spreadsheets
and all that. The little NPC record that was done for the game, in an
issue of Ares Magazine originally, was simply marvellous and unless I
need to do a full character sheet for the major villain, these NPC
sheets allow me to create them in no more than 10 minutes tops. Just
gotta know thy system. <g>

> 3. Combat can be a nightmare, in the last adventure the 4 party members
> were combatting 7 gargoyles (one of which was a necromancer) around a spire
> (and 2 party members could aslo fly) and the combat area was up to 150ft
> spread. Even with minis etc it nearly finished me off.

If I have a problem with the Combat system in DRAGONQUEST, it is
likely with the whole business of using combat grids and miniatures to
run it. Can take quite a while, but the players in my gaming groups
like the "visual" nature of it the most. Mind you, large numbers of
opponents taking on large parties can be...time consuming. Tht said,
the lethality of DQ combat is osmething the players have been spoiled
with over the years, and they treat combat as a last resort. If they
have to fight, however, they try to make it last as few combat puless as
possible. :)

> 4. The monsters are a tad light in light in detail, which i guess is also
> point 2 above.

I don't consider them to be all that light in detail at all, but
this is a function partially of the world that is created around them.
Something that each DQ GM has to deal with.

> 5. the races are very light in detail

Races tend to be world-specific for the most part, and the amount
of detail in the Races for DRAGONQUEST reflects that rather well I
think. Flesh 'em out for your own world, I always say. :)

For me, the biggest weakness in the DRAGONQUEST rpg was always the
lack of a game world setting that went with it. While I know that
Alusia was meant to be the continent, the incompleteness of the world
was always a flaw, although I have got my own game world going in that
regard. Been running this game for a long time... *sigh*

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