Heya Ian,

Most of what you say makes a lot of sense and I agree
with. Indeed, the entirety of your post is about the
relative poles of "System versus Freeform"

Now, I seriously hope that nobody here is suggesting
that a gaming environment should entirely be system
driven. Freeform decision making is inevitable and
really to even debate the point is paddling in the
shallows.

The real question is 'how much freeform decisions
versus system detail'.

Personally, I like systems to be simple and elegant in
design (meaning the same type of mechanic can be used
in a variety of contexts e.g., HeroQuest) and with
effects appropriate for the genre (e.g., Rifts can be
explicitly wildly powered and chaotic, whilst Dogs in
the Vineyard has mechanics which follow the plot
evolution of a western).

There are all sorts of freeform techniques that can be
raised, *all* of which really are impromtu system
designs - the question is what sort of system?

Is the decision being applied for genre-plausible
purposes (the simulationist model)? Is it being
applied for game balance and player opportunity (the
gamist model)? Is it being applied for plot and story
purposes (the narrativist model)? [1]

OK, assuming we've gotten this far then the next bone
of contention is "How Important Is System Anyway?", as
emphasised by your statement:

- - -

> You can have the most perfect game in the world but
> if you don't have
> the right players and GM, it will be crap every
> time, the reverse,
> however is not the case, you CAN have the worse game
> in the world and as
> long as the GM is imaginative, applies common sense
> and that the players
> give their buy-in the game WILL be okay at least.

- - -

Now I do take some issue with this whilst agreeing
with the general point. My answer is, in brief: If you
have the hypothetical perfect game but you you have
crap players and GM it will probably be *better* than
having a crap game.

Likewise if you have a crap system but good players
and a good GM the game will *not* be as good as good
players and a good GM with a good system.

Why is this the case? Because System Does Matter [2].
The best GM in the world when playing with a crap
system is going to have to make all sorts of impromptu
decisions to make the session work [3]. They will
*not* always make the right decision. They will *not*
always be consistent. They *will* be spend time and
mental energy on system decisions, flipping through
the rules to find the particular rule for situation x
etc, when they could be spending it on interesting
plot development, setting detail and so forth.

Likewise, reverse the case for crap players and a good
system. A crap RP group that plays a good system will
possibly *learn* good gaming techniques from the
experience - this is *not* the case for crap players
with a crap game.

The interesting result of all this is that the game
designer has a not-insignificant influence on how
games actually run. Which is why there are different
game systems out there - and yes, there *has* been
improvements in game design as well, even if some game
systems (e.g., Fantasy Imperium, Synibarr) really
haven't learned anything from them. It is certainly a
testament to DragonQuest's design features that some
twenty six years after its initial publication there
are still people playing it.

All the best,


Lev


1] If dear readers are unfamiliar with these terms
check out GNS theory check out the following:

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/


2] No really, system *is* important. Read this:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html

3] All of this assumes you don't have an omniscient
being as your GM. If you do, send me an email, I'd
like to meet said divinity ;-)

--- Ian Bouch <ianbouch@aapt.net.au> wrote:

> Merry Xmas all,
>
>
>
> I have read these threads and it has occurred to me
> that perhaps the
> main contention isn't so much the technical aspects
> but a preference in
> how a set of rules and the gaming environment is
> laid out. On one hand
> you have a school of thought that things are
> supposed to make sense and
> that game balance is to be maintained at all times
> and on the other you
> have people who don't mind playing a little wild and
> woolly, finding
> solutions for things as they crop up. I am most
> definitely of the latter
> although I can understand the frame of mind of the
> former.
>
>
>
> DQ was written in the '80's and forgotten about by
> publishers in the
> same decade, we are now living and playing some
> twenty years later, and
> man I hope we have made advances in gaming since
> then, but one of the
> reasons people still like DQ is because it does have
> inconsistencies and
> because it has a simple framework by which to adapt
> to your playing
> style, if they didn't they would have moved on to a
> more recent edition
> of another game by now. To tighten up this framework
> would squeeze the
> charm out of it. This part is simply an opinion of
> all published games
> that I have, if you don't like it, don't play it or
> change it to
> something that you do like. Don't debate the issues
> with people who
> obviously like how it is or have adopted their own
> variations of the
> system, you simply do not need to game with them and
> they with you.
>
>
>
> This game has not been editioned to death like some
> others, with the
> editions that were published carrying some errors
> all the way through to
> the TSR edition, again typical of its era. DQ is not
> likely to emerge
> again as an economically viable gaming product; most
> importantly those
> who have the license don't want to release it from
> their IP library and
> don't want to re-release it to the gaming public. As
> such arguments over
> published text and conventions are superfluous.
>
>
>
> I think Jeffrey has said exactly the right thing,
> and I am sure all game
> publishers and designers would tend to agree (as
> they are gamers too, or
> I should hope they are); the GM and the players
> decide what's right for
> them and go with it. If it doesn't make sense, but
> it would make for a
> fun game and your players will go for it, then go
> with it. I have used
> some very tenuous conventions in games that I have
> run and usually, as
> long as I have a decent story line, players will go
> for it. I have also
> ran some ultra realistic games (oh can I ever forget
> my Twilight 2000
> experience, I did not do a good job on that one,
> yuck) and I have had
> decent story lines but bored the hell out of players
> with garbage they
> didn't care about.
>
>
>
> A perfect example of rules not mattering is when I
> was heavily into
> Rifts, we had a gaming group that met monthly and
> boy did I look forward
> to those games, although I played other games in
> between, that was the
> one I would never miss, although it was 1.5 hours
> there and then 1.5
> hours back on public transport just to play in it.
> Palladium's rules are
> absolutely rubbish, there is no game balance at all
> and it is totally
> open to munchkinism, but because we had a great
> gaming group it worked.
> The house rules would often change from session to
> session and the
> characters' abilities would fluctuate in power as
> the house rules
> changed, but we enjoyed it. The GM trusted his
> players not to find a
> loophole and use them unreasonably and the players
> trusted the GM to
> tell a great story and to not kill their characters
> on a whim. We also
> played in environments that were not fully planned
> out and the GM had to
> wing it a lot, so there were always inconsistencies
> but we forgave them
> as we were both enjoying the game and trusted that
> the GM had his
> reasons for this.
>
>
>
> I personally prefer players who are there to have
> fun, players that add
> to the story rather than being a pain in the
> proverbial, players that
> have enough faith in their GM that he won't kill
> them on a whim or on a
> dubious call and most of all players that don't
> argue when a call goes
> against them, particularly if it doesn't matter in
> the overall scheme of
> things. This goes both ways though as the GM should
> have faith in the
> players also not to be jerks and not to look for
> ways to screw things
> up, and simply try not to make bad calls listening
> to what the players
> want and expect from the game and their characters
> (one of my favourite
> points to make concerning GM's is that they are
> there to entertain the
> players and if they don't derive fun from that then
> don't GM). I have
> played and GM'ed in probably I would say thousands
> of games (I started
> the year DQ came out) and have played with all
> variety of people, and I
> have found that rules tend to mean squat compared to
> the people you are
> playing with.
>
>
>
> You can have the most perfect game in the world but
> if you don't have
> the right players and GM, it will be crap every
> time, the reverse,
> however is not the case, you CAN have the worse game
> in the world and as
> long as the GM is imaginative, applies common sense
> and that the players
> give their buy-in the game WILL be okay at least.
>
>
>
> That's my two cents, and I am sure it will be picked
> apart, but all I am
> essentially saying is that everybody has a right to
> view gaming and
> gaming products whatever way they like, but that is
> their view and not
> necessarily the only right view. The important thing
> is to find gamers
> that share your view and game with them, not cite
> rules and loopholes,
> raising awareness of something that many don't
> really give a hoot about
> and most of the time already considered and resolved
> in their own gaming
> group.
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

Lev,

 

I think you took me too literally with the worst game in the world comment, and reading back on the post that was my fault. The point I was simply trying to make is that the people involved are far more important than the game system. I read the link concerning this and I think that Ron Edwards has a point, but in my consideration of what is important in a game his evaluation and rankings are different to mine, way different.

 

To be quite honest if I thought a game was the worst in the world, then I probably would not play it and generally I think that if the system is that bad I can convince those that I game with not to play it and try an alternative (Twilight 2000 still comes back to haunt me). Anyhow, take systems that I am perhaps indifferent too, and you get one or two crap players in the group, well that would spoil it for me. It had nothing to do with the system, just the crap players. Now take a game that I love, Call of Cthulhu for example, and put the same crap players at the table, I’m not going to enjoy that either. Now even take DQ and four great players and one crap player, who doesn’t stop complaining when they get stunned, even though it was him who charged into combat without a weapon or his shield prepared and then gets hit, and then repeats the same mistake the next game (plus he didn’t think WP was important and only put 10 points on it). I’m not going to enjoy that game either (BTW this is the only guy who has tried the R&S Golem thing on me).

 

Whether or not it is a simulationists model, gamists model or a narrative model, the same crap players can spoil the day and the game

 

Game designers can sit there and adapt theories and game designs and what not all they want, essentially it comes down to the people that buy the books and how they run their games and

(Message over 64 KB, truncated)

Well, we're all in furious agreement. Nobody claims
that system is *more* important than the players, but
it does seem that we all agree that system *is*
somewhat important.

I will also suggest that the academic excersise that
Prof. Edwards is undertaking is a worthwhile project,
even if the topic is "fun". After all Professor
Tolkien's own academic studies helped make The Lord of
the Rings "fun" as well.

You may be interested to know that Edwards' "big
model" actually covers the point that I think you're
trying to make; that it is not so much crap gamers,
but crap people who can spoil any game. Well, of
course. The game is a social contract and certain
behaviour expectations exist. People who do not abide
by those common courtesies are going to crap
*regardless* of whether they're playing an RPG, at a
pizza bar or seeing a movie. In that sense, the system
doesn't matter, because what you're talking about is
crap people, not crap players.

By pure coincidence, it seems my list of game played
regularly (I use 6-8 sessions as a rule of thumb) is
very similar.

In some attempt of order:

Rolemaster (well, I did write a Companion)
GURPS
AD&D
RuneQuest
Cyberpunk
Call of Cthulhu
Vampire/Mage/Werewolf/Wraith
D&D
Nephilim
Champions/Fantasy Hero
Justice Inc.
Warhammer FRP
Middle Earth Role Playing
Hero Wars/HeroQuest
Dogs in the Vineyard
In Nomine
DragonQuest
Stormbringer
Paranoia
Pendragon
Shadowrun
Palladium RPG


--- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net> wrote:

> Well said, Ian.
> Lev,
>
>
> I think you took me too literally with the worst
> game in the world comment, and reading back on the
> post that was my fault. The point I was simply
> trying to make is that the people involved are far
> more important than the game system. I read the link
> concerning this and I think that Ron Edwards has a
> point, but in my consideration of what is important
> in a game his evaluation and rankings are different
> to mine, way different.
>
>
>
> To be quite honest if I thought a game was the
> worst in the world, then I probably would not play
> it and generally I think that if the system is that
> bad I can convince those that I game with not to
> play it and try an alternative (Twilight 2000 still
> comes back to haunt me). Anyhow, take systems that I
> am perhaps indifferent too, and you get one or two
> crap players in the group, well that would spoil it
> for me. It had nothing to do with the system, just
> the crap players. Now take a game that I love, Call
> of Cthulhu for example, and put the same crap
> players at the table, I'm not going to enjoy that
> either. Now even take DQ and four great players and
> one crap player, who doesn't stop complaining when
> they get stunned, even though it was him who charged
> into combat without a weapon or his shield prepared
> and then gets hit, and then repeats the same mistake
> the next game (plus he didn't think WP was important
> and only put 10 points on it). I'm not going to
> enjoy that game either (BTW this is the only guy who
> has tried the R&S Golem thing on me).
>
>
>
> Whether or not it is a simulationists model,
> gamists model or a narrative model, the same crap
> players can spoil the day and the game
>
>
>
> Game designers can sit there and adapt theories
> and game designs and what not all they want,
> essentially it comes down to the people that buy the
> books and how they run their games and the
> personalities in their groups. Generally, certain
> personalities will gravitate to the various models
> you mentioned and then form groups around them,
> others are more flexible and manage to run various
> types of games, but I have not met one group that
> has not somehow changed the rules or introduced
> house rules for every game that they have played
> (the least changed I have come across is D & D, but
> that is another debate altogether).
>
>
>
> Regarding the mental energy thing, yes I agree you
> can sometimes use up a lot of mental energy running
> games. My personal experiences is that I find I am
> more exhausted running games with a mix of crap
> players in them than I am for forgiving and friendly
> players who enjoy your games in general and are
> willing to overlook small inconsistencies. The
> amount of mental energy I use trying to appease the
> troublemakers and ensuring that I don't upset them
> could have been used more fruitfully on the players
> that appreciate your efforts. The system itself, as
> long as I have had sufficient experience with it,
> does not matter so much.
>
>
>
> Using Rifts again as an example, since this is a
> perfect example of how not to design a game, I GM'ed
> this quite consistently for a good part of a decade,
> usually for two different groups each week. One
> group was the group that I discussed previously
> another had a smattering of hard cases in there,
> including the guy who tried that R&S Golem thing on
> me. I'll let you guess which group exhausted me the
> most, not to say the others didn't challenge me with
> out of the box type action and character moments,
> but I used all of my mental reserves trying to
> appease prima donnas and RPG theorists in the
> trouble group, whilst I could have just been telling
> a great story and providing a framework for people
> to use to build on their concepts of their
> characters.
>
>
>
> Just for the record, I was running exactly the
> same campaign using the good group to play test the
> game for the trouble group. You'd think the second
> time I ran a session it would be easier..no way!
> Most of the time it had nothing to do with the
> rules, just people being awkward and when it did
> have something to do with the rules it was always to
> do with improving their character to such a degree
> that things became a little awkward for the rest of
> the group..which flamed up with the rest of the
> group bitching about others in the group..very ugly.
> Rifts was not the sort of game they should have been
> playing, perhaps D & D or GURPS would have been
> better for them. Hence it was not so much the rules,
> but the type of people that was playing them.
>
>
>
> I have met far too many people who make gaming
> into some kind of academic concept rather than an
> avenue to allow their imaginations to flourish.
> Rules should have some semblance of playability and
> absolutely crap games will simply fade and
> disappear, but those that hang around obviously have
> an audience and have something going for them and as
> such the right GM and the right players will
> generally have a good time playing them. Throw in
> those crap players and out the window goes the fun.
>
>
>
> Whilst I had my games shop I watched groups come
> and go playing various games in our games rooms and
> always the reason the group split up was because of
> personalities, it never had a damn thing to do with
> the game itself.
>
>
>
> In summary Mr Ron Edwards, in my opinion, is one
> of those so called gaming academics, that is making
> the concept of having fun into a tedious and boring
> thesis of no apparent value (and I can honestly say
> that I have actively played over 20 systems on a
> regular basis over the past 26 years, see below and
> refer comments by Ron Edwards). If you get a group
> of four or more people around a table and some of
> them are crap players then the fun is stopped for
> all (perhaps not for the crap player though) no
> matter what the hell you are playing. You get a
> group of friends around a table who like each other
> and have similar requirements in the games that they
> play, and they respect each other, fun will be had
> by all. Hence the system is far less important than
> the people, and the people who like a system will
> tend to gravitate with like minded individuals, you
> just have to weed out the crap players.
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> PS: I don't mean that a crap player is
> inexperienced or is not comfortable with any
> particular genre, I mean those guys who just spoil
> it by being an a-hole.
>
>
>
> Games I have played over a dozen times:
>
>
>
> DragonQuest
>
> Call of Cthulhu
>
> D & D 3.5
>
> D20 Modern
>
> GURPS (various settings)
>
> MERP
>
> Rolemaster
>
> Rune Quest
>
> Blue Planet
>
> A State
>
> Feng Shui
>
> Hong Kong Action Theatre
>
> Spycraft
>
> Riddle of Steel
>
> Behind Enemy Lines
>
> Twilight 2000
>
> Rifts
>
> Nightspawn (I know that it is now Nightbane but I
> like Nightspawn)
>
> Beyond the Supernatural
>
> Heroes Unlimited
>
> Unknown Armies
>
> Traveler
>
> Traveler 2300
>
> Various D20 supplements including Wild West, Judge
> Dredd and Conan
>
> All Flesh Must be Eaten
>
> Hellboy
>
> Star Wars (the D6 one)
>
> ..and more I am sure of it.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:dqn-list@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lev
> Lafayette
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 December 2006 10:51 AM
> To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] R & S Golems and Manna
> Rich or Poor Areas
>
>
>
>
> Heya Ian,
>
> Most of what you say makes a lot of sense and I
> agree
> with. Indeed, the entirety of your post is about
> the
> relative poles of "System versus Freeform"
>
> Now, I seriously hope that nobody here is
> suggesting
> that a gaming environment should entirely be
> system
> driven. Freeform decision making is inevitable and
> really to even debate the point is paddling in the
> shallows.
>
> The real question is 'how much freeform decisions
> versus system detail'.
>
> Personally, I like systems to be simple and
> elegant in
> design (meaning the same type of mechanic can be
> used
> in a variety of contexts e.g., HeroQuest) and with
> effects appropriate for the genre (e.g., Rifts can
> be
> explicitly wildly powered and chaotic, whilst Dogs
> in
> the Vineyard has mechanics which follow the plot
> evolution of a western).
>
> There are all sorts of freeform techniques that
> can be
> raised, *all* of which really are impromtu system
> designs - the question is what sort of system?
>
> Is the decision being applied for genre-plausible
> purposes (the simulationist model)? Is it being
> applied for game balance and player opportunity
> (the
> gamist model)? Is it being applied for plot and
> story
> purposes (the narrativist model)? [1]
>
> OK, assuming we've gotten this far then the next
> bone
> of contention is "How Important Is System
> Anyway?", as
> emphasised by your statement:
>
> - - -
> > You can have the most perfect game in the world
> but
> > if you don't have
> > the right players and GM, it will be crap every
> > time, the reverse,
> > however is not the case, you CAN have the worse
> game
> > in the world and as
> > long as the GM is imaginative, applies common
> sense
> > and that the players
> > give their buy-in the game WILL be okay at
> least.
> - - -
>
> Now I do take some issue with this whilst agreeing
> with the general point. My answer is, in brief: If
> you
> have the hypothetical perfect game but you you
> have
> crap players and GM it will probably be *better*
> than
> having a crap game.
>
> Likewise if you have a crap system but good
> players
> and a good GM the game will *not* be as good as
> good
> players and a good GM with a good system.
>
> Why is this the case? Because System Does Matter
> [2].
> The best GM in the world when playing with a crap
> system is going to have to make all sorts of
> impromptu
> decisions to make the session work [3]. They will
> *not* always make the right decision. They will
> *not*
> always be consistent. They *will* be spend time
> and
> mental energy on system decisions, flipping
> through
> the rules to find the particular rule for
> situation x
> etc, when they could be spending it on interesting
> plot development, setting detail and so forth.
>
> Likewise, reverse the case for crap players and a
> good
> system. A crap RP group that plays a good system
> will
> possibly *learn* good gaming techniques from the
> experience - this is *not* the case for crap
> players
> with a crap game.
>
> The interesting result of all this is that the
> game
> designer has a not-insignificant influence on how
> games actually run. Which is why there are
> different
> game systems out there - and yes, there *has* been
> improvements in game design as well, even if some
> game
> systems (e.g., Fantasy Imperium, Synibarr) really
> haven't learned anything from them. It is
> certainly a
> testament to DragonQuest's design features that
> some
> twenty six years after its initial publication
> there
> are still people playing it.
>
> All the best,
>
> Lev
>
> 1] If dear readers are unfamiliar with these terms
> check out GNS theory check out the following:
>
>
>

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/

> http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/
>
> 2] No really, system *is* important. Read this:
>
>

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html

>
> 3] All of this assumes you don't have an
> omniscient
> being as your GM. If you do, send me an email, I'd
> like to meet said divinity ;-)
>
> --- Ian Bouch <ianbouch@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Merry Xmas all,
> >
> >
> >
> > I have read these threads and it has occurred to
> me
> > that perhaps the
> > main contention isn't so much the technical
> aspects
> > but a preference in
> > how a set of rules and the gaming environment is
> > laid out. On one hand
> > you have a school of thought that things are
> > supposed to make sense and
> > that game balance is to be maintained at all
> times
> > and on the other you
> > have people who don't mind playing a little wild
> and
> > woolly, finding
> > solutions for things as they crop up. I am most
> > definitely of the latter
> > although I can understand the frame of mind of
> the
> > former.
> >
> >
> >
> > DQ was written in the '80's and forgotten about
> by
> > publishers in the
> > same decade, we are now living and playing some
> > twenty years later, and
> > man I hope we have made advances in gaming since
> > then, but one of the
> > reasons people still like DQ is because it does
> have
> > inconsistencies and
> > because it has a simple framework by which to
> adapt
> > to your playing
> > style, if they didn't they would have moved on
> to a
> > more recent edition
> > of another game by now. To tighten up this
> framework
> > would squeeze the
> > charm out of it. This part is simply an opinion
> of
> > all published games
> > that I have, if you don't like it, don't play it
> or
> > change it to
> > something that you do like. Don't debate the
> issues
> > with people who
> > obviously like how it is or have adopted their
> own
> > variations of the
> > system, you simply do not need to game with them
> and
> > they with you.
> >
> >
> >
> > This game has not been editioned to death like
> some
> > others, with the
> > editions that were published carrying some
> errors
> > all the way through to
> > the TSR edition, again typical of its era. DQ is
> not
> > likely to emerge
> > again as an economically viable gaming product;
> most
> > importantly those
> > who have the license don't want to release it
> from
> > their IP library and
> > don't want to re-release it to the gaming
> public. As
> > such arguments over
> > published text and conventions are superfluous.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think Jeffrey has said exactly the right
> thing,
> > and I am sure all game
> > publishers and designers would tend to agree (as
> > they are gamers too, or
> > I should hope they are); the GM and the players
> > decide what's right for
> > them and go with it. If it doesn't make sense,
> but
> > it would make for a
> > fun game and your players will go for it, then
> go
> > with it. I have used
> > some very tenuous conventions in games that I
> have
> > run and usually, as
> > long as I have a decent story line, players will
> go
> > for it. I have also
> > ran some ultra realistic games (oh can I ever
> forget
> > my Twilight 2000
> > experience, I did not do a good job on that one,
> > yuck) and I have had
> > decent story lines but bored the hell out of
> players
> > with garbage they
> > didn't care about.
> >
> >
> >
> > A perfect example of rules not mattering is when
> I
> > was heavily into
> > Rifts, we had a gaming group that met monthly
> and
> > boy did I look forward
> > to those games, although I played other games in
> > between, that was the
> > one I would never miss, although it was 1.5
> hours
> > there and then 1.5
> > hours back on public transport just to play in
> it.
> > Palladium's rules are
> > absolutely rubbish, there is no game balance at
> all
> > and it is totally
> > open to munchkinism, but because we had a great
> > gaming group it worked.
> > The house rules would often change from session
> to
> > session and the
> > characters' abilities would fluctuate in power
> as
> > the house rules
> > changed, but we enjoyed it. The GM trusted his
> > players not to find a
> > loophole and use them unreasonably and the
> players
> > trusted the GM to
> > tell a great story and to not kill their
> characters
> > on a whim. We also
> > played in environments that were not fully
> planned
> > out and the GM had to
> > wing it a lot, so there were always
> inconsistencies
> > but we forgave them
> > as we were both enjoying the game and trusted
> that
> > the GM had his
> > reasons for this.
> >
> >
> >
> > I personally prefer players who are there to
> have
> > fun, players that add
> > to the story rather than being a pain in the
> > proverbial, players that
> > have enough faith in their GM that he won't kill
> > them on a whim or on a
> > dubious call and most of all players that don't
> > argue when a call goes
> > against them, particularly if it doesn't matter
> in
> > the overall scheme of
> > things. This goes both ways though as the GM
> should
> > have faith in the
> > players also not to be jerks and not to look for
> > ways to screw things
> > up, and simply try not to make bad calls
> listening
> > to what the players
> > want and expect from the game and their
> characters
> > (one of my favourite
> > points to make concerning GM's is that they are
> > there to entertain the
> > players and if they don't derive fun from that
> then
> > don't GM). I have
> > played and GM'ed in probably I would say
> thousands
> > of games (I started
> > the year DQ came out) and have played with all
> > variety of people, and I
> > have found that rules tend to mean squat
> compared to
> > the people you are
> > playing with.
> >
> >
> >
> > You can have the most perfect game in the world
> but
> > if you don't have
> > the right players and GM, it will be crap every
> > time, the reverse,
> > however is not the case, you CAN have the worse
> game
> > in the world and as
> > long as the GM is imaginative, applies common
> sense
> > and that the players
> > give their buy-in the game WILL be okay at
> least.
> >
> >
> >
> > That's my two cents, and I am sure it will be
> picked
> > apart, but all I am
> > essentially saying is that everybody has a right
> to
> > view gaming and
> > gaming products whatever way they like, but that
> is
> > their view and not
> > necessarily the only right view. The important
> thing
> > is to find gamers
> > that share your view and game with them, not
> cite
> > rules and loopholes,
> > raising awareness of something that many don't
> > really give a hoot about
> > and most of the time already considered and
> resolved
> > in their own gaming
> > group.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>

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

--- Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> By pure coincidence, it seems my list of game played
> regularly (I use 6-8 sessions as a rule of thumb) is
> very similar.
>
> In some attempt of order:

Heh. Of course a few fell off the list that I should
have included

Everyway (which really I should have included
seemingly I'm currently running a game *doh*)
Swordbearer (exceptional early 80s game, it really
was)
Tunnels & Trolls/Monsters! Monsters!
Spacemaster
Cyberspace
Star Trek RPG

And from the unpublished variety

Cybernoia (playtes home brew synthesis)
Mimesis (playtest home brew RPG)

And of course a whole bunch of games that I played in
or ran for one to four sessions.. Most were pretty
cheesy (e.g., Pirates & Plunder, Hunter Planet, Star
Wars, James Bond RRG), some I really liked but didn't
get much of a chance to play more sessions (e.g.,
Classic Traveller, Traveller 2300, Doctor Who RPG, DC
Heroes) and some I just gave up during character
generation (e.g., Aftermath!, Fantasy Imperium). In
the coming year I already have planned Legends of the
Five Rings, Polaris, Little Fears and Kill Puppies for
Satan.

The point of this listmaking? Different games appeal
to different players for different reasons and these
reasons *can* be stated in terms of player desire and
game technique.

All the best,



Lev

>
> Rolemaster (well, I did write a Companion)
> GURPS
> AD&D
> RuneQuest
> Cyberpunk
> Call of Cthulhu
> Vampire/Mage/Werewolf/Wraith
> D&D
> Nephilim
> Champions/Fantasy Hero
> Justice Inc.
> Warhammer FRP
> Middle Earth Role Playing
> Hero Wars/HeroQuest
> Dogs in the Vineyard
> In Nomine
> DragonQuest
> Stormbringer
> Paranoia
> Pendragon
> Shadowrun
> Palladium RPG
>
>
> --- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Well said, Ian.
> > Lev,
> >
> >
> > I think you took me too literally with the worst
> > game in the world comment, and reading back on the
> > post that was my fault. The point I was simply
> > trying to make is that the people involved are far
> > more important than the game system. I read the
> link
> > concerning this and I think that Ron Edwards has a
> > point, but in my consideration of what is
> important
> > in a game his evaluation and rankings are
> different
> > to mine, way different.
> >
> >
> >
> > To be quite honest if I thought a game was the
> > worst in the world, then I probably would not play
> > it and generally I think that if the system is
> that
> > bad I can convince those that I game with not to
> > play it and try an alternative (Twilight 2000
> still
> > comes back to haunt me). Anyhow, take systems that
> I
> > am perhaps indifferent too, and you get one or two
> > crap players in the group, well that would spoil
> it
> > for me. It had nothing to do with the system, just
> > the crap players. Now take a game that I love,
> Call
> > of Cthulhu for example, and put the same crap
> > players at the table, I'm not going to enjoy that
> > either. Now even take DQ and four great players
> and
> > one crap player, who doesn't stop complaining when
> > they get stunned, even though it was him who
> charged
> > into combat without a weapon or his shield
> prepared
> > and then gets hit, and then repeats the same
> mistake
> > the next game (plus he didn't think WP was
> important
> > and only put 10 points on it). I'm not going to
> > enjoy that game either (BTW this is the only guy
> who
> > has tried the R&S Golem thing on me).
> >
> >
> >
> > Whether or not it is a simulationists model,
> > gamists model or a narrative model, the same crap
> > players can spoil the day and the game
> >
> >
> >
> > Game designers can sit there and adapt theories
> > and game designs and what not all they want,
> > essentially it comes down to the people that buy
> the
> > books and how they run their games and the
> > personalities in their groups. Generally, certain
> > personalities will gravitate to the various models
> > you mentioned and then form groups around them,
> > others are more flexible and manage to run various
> > types of games, but I have not met one group that
> > has not somehow changed the rules or introduced
> > house rules for every game that they have played
> > (the least changed I have come across is D & D,
> but
> > that is another debate altogether).
> >
> >
> >
> > Regarding the mental energy thing, yes I agree
> you
> > can sometimes use up a lot of mental energy
> running
> > games. My personal experiences is that I find I am
> > more exhausted running games with a mix of crap
> > players in them than I am for forgiving and
> friendly
> > players who enjoy your games in general and are
> > willing to overlook small inconsistencies. The
> > amount of mental energy I use trying to appease
> the
> > troublemakers and ensuring that I don't upset them
> > could have been used more fruitfully on the
> players
> > that appreciate your efforts. The system itself,
> as
> > long as I have had sufficient experience with it,
> > does not matter so much.
> >
> >
> >
> > Using Rifts again as an example, since this is a
> > perfect example of how not to design a game, I
> GM'ed
> > this quite consistently for a good part of a
> decade,
> > usually for two different groups each week. One
> > group was the group that I discussed previously
> > another had a smattering of hard cases in there,
> > including the guy who tried that R&S Golem thing
> on
> > me. I'll let you guess which group exhausted me
> the
> > most, not to say the others didn't challenge me
> with
> > out of the box type action and character moments,
> > but I used all of my mental reserves trying to
> > appease prima donnas and RPG theorists in the
> > trouble group, whilst I could have just been
> telling
> > a great story and providing a framework for people
> > to use to build on their concepts of their
> > characters.
> >
> >
> >
> > Just for the record, I was running exactly the
> > same campaign using the good group to play test
> the
> > game for the trouble group. You'd think the second
> > time I ran a session it would be easier..no way!
> > Most of the time it had nothing to do with the
> > rules, just people being awkward and when it did
> > have something to do with the rules it was always
> to
> > do with improving their character to such a degree
> > that things became a little awkward for the rest
> of
> > the group..which flamed up with the rest of the
> > group bitching about others in the group..very
> ugly.
> > Rifts was not the sort of game they should have
> been
> > playing, perhaps D & D or GURPS would have been
> > better for them. Hence it was not so much the
> rules,
> > but the type of people that was playing them.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have met far too many people who make gaming
> > into some kind of academic concept rather than an
> > avenue to allow their imaginations to flourish.
> > Rules should have some semblance of playability
> and
> > absolutely crap games will simply fade and
> > disappear, but those that hang around obviously
> have
> > an audience and have something going for them and
> as
> > such the right GM and the right players will
> > generally have a good time playing them. Throw in
> > those crap players and out the window goes the
> fun.
> >
> >
> >
> > Whilst I had my games shop I watched groups come
> > and go playing various games in our games rooms
> and
> > always the reason the group split up was because
> of
> > personalities, it never had a damn thing to do
> with
> > the game itself.
> >
> >
> >
> > In summary Mr Ron Edwards, in my opinion, is one
> > of those so called gaming academics, that is
> making
> > the concept of having fun into a tedious and
> boring
> > thesis of no apparent value (and I can honestly
> say
> > that I have actively played over 20 systems on a
> > regular basis over the past 26 years, see below
> and
> > refer comments by Ron Edwards). If you get a group
> > of four or more people around a table and some of
> > them are crap players then the fun is stopped for
> > all (perhaps not for the crap player though) no
> > matter what the hell you are playing. You get a
> > group of friends around a table who like each
> other
> > and have similar requirements in the games that
> they
> > play, and they respect each other, fun will be had
> > by all. Hence the system is far less important
> than
> > the people, and the people who like a system will
> > tend to gravitate with like minded individuals,
> you
> > just have to weed out the crap players.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> >
> > PS: I don't mean that a crap player is
> > inexperienced or is not comfortable with any
> > particular genre, I mean those guys who just spoil
> > it by being an a-hole.
> >
> >
> >
> > Games I have played over a dozen times:
> >
> >
> >
> > DragonQuest
> >
> > Call of Cthulhu
> >
> > D & D 3.5
> >
> > D20 Modern
> >
> > GURPS (various settings)
> >
> > MERP
> >
> > Rolemaster
> >
> > Rune Quest
> >
> > Blue Planet
> >
> > A State
> >
> > Feng Shui
> >
> > Hong Kong Action Theatre
> >
> > Spycraft
> >
> > Riddle of Steel
> >
> > Behind Enemy Lines
> >
> > Twilight 2000
> >
> > Rifts
> >
> > Nightspawn (I know that it is now Nightbane but
> I
> > like Nightspawn)
> >
> > Beyond the Supernatural
> >
> > Heroes Unlimited
> >
> > Unknown Armies
> >
> > Traveler
> >
> > Traveler 2300
> >
> > Various D20 supplements including Wild West,
> Judge
> > Dredd and Conan
> >
> > All Flesh Must be Eaten
> >
> > Hellboy
> >
> > Star Wars (the D6 one)
> >
> > ..and more I am sure of it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:dqn-list@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lev
> > Lafayette
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 December 2006 10:51 AM
> > To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [DQN-list] R & S Golems and Manna
> > Rich or Poor Areas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Heya Ian,
> >
> > Most of what you say makes a lot of sense and I
> > agree
> > with. Indeed, the entirety of your post is about
> > the
> > relative poles of "System versus Freeform"
> >
> > Now, I seriously hope that nobody here is
> > suggesting
> > that a gaming environment should entirely be
> > system
> > driven. Freeform decision making is inevitable
> and
> > really to even debate the point is paddling in
> the
> > shallows.
> >
> > The real question is 'how much freeform
> decisions
> > versus system detail'.
> >
> > Personally, I like systems to be simple and
> > elegant in
> > design (meaning the same type of mechanic can be
> > used
> > in a variety of contexts e.g., HeroQuest) and
> with
> > effects appropriate for the genre (e.g., Rifts
> can
> > be
> > explicitly wildly powered and chaotic, whilst
> Dogs
> > in
> > the Vineyard has mechanics which follow the plot
> > evolution of a western).
> >
> > There are all sorts of freeform techniques that
> > can be
> > raised, *all* of which really are impromtu
> system
> > designs - the question is what sort of system?
> >
> > Is the decision being applied for
> genre-plausible
> > purposes (the simulationist model)? Is it being
> > applied for game balance and player opportunity
> > (the
> > gamist model)? Is it being applied for plot and
> > story
> > purposes (the narrativist model)? [1]
> >
> > OK, assuming we've gotten this far then the next
> > bone
> > of contention is "How Important Is System
> > Anyway?", as
> > emphasised by your statement:
> >
> > - - -
> > > You can have the most perfect game in the
> world
> > but
> > > if you don't have
> > > the right players and GM, it will be crap
> every
> > > time, the reverse,
> > > however is not the case, you CAN have the
> worse
> > game
> > > in the world and as
> > > long as the GM is imaginative, applies common
> > sense
> > > and that the players
> > > give their buy-in the game WILL be okay at
> > least.
> > - - -
> >
> > Now I do take some issue with this whilst
> agreeing
> > with the general point. My answer is, in brief:
> If
> > you
> > have the hypothetical perfect game but you you
> > have
> > crap players and GM it will probably be *better*
> > than
> > having a crap game.
> >
> > Likewise if you have a crap system but good
> > players
> > and a good GM the game will *not* be as good as
> > good
> > players and a good GM with a good system.
> >
> > Why is this the case? Because System Does Matter
> > [2].
> > The best GM in the world when playing with a
> crap
> > system is going to have to make all sorts of
> > impromptu
> > decisions to make the session work [3]. They
> will
> > *not* always make the right decision. They will
> > *not*
> > always be consistent. They *will* be spend time
> > and
> > mental energy on system decisions, flipping
> > through
> > the rules to find the particular rule for
> > situation x
> > etc, when they could be spending it on
> interesting
> > plot development, setting detail and so forth.
> >
> > Likewise, reverse the case for crap players and
> a
> > good
> > system. A crap RP group that plays a good system
> > will
> > possibly *learn* good gaming techniques from the
> > experience - this is *not* the case for crap
> > players
> > with a crap game.
> >
> > The interesting result of all this is that the
> > game
> > designer has a not-insignificant influence on
> how
> > games actually run. Which is why there are
> > different
> > game systems out there - and yes, there *has*
> been
> > improvements in game design as well, even if
> some
> > game
> > systems (e.g., Fantasy Imperium, Synibarr)
> really
> > haven't learned anything from them. It is
> > certainly a
> > testament to DragonQuest's design features that
> > some
> > twenty six years after its initial publication
> > there
> > are still people playing it.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Lev
> >
> > 1] If dear readers are unfamiliar with these
> terms
> > check out GNS theory check out the following:
> >
> >
> >
>

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/

> > http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/
> >
> > 2] No really, system *is* important. Read this:
> >
> >
>

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html

> >
> > 3] All of this assumes you don't have an
> > omniscient
> > being as your GM. If you do, send me an email,
> I'd
> > like to meet said divinity ;-)
> >
> > --- Ian Bouch <ianbouch@aapt.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Merry Xmas all,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have read these threads and it has occurred
> to
> > me
> > > that perhaps the
> > > main contention isn't so much the technical
> > aspects
> > > but a preference in
> > > how a set of rules and the gaming environment
> is
> > > laid out. On one hand
> > > you have a school of thought that things are
> > > supposed to make sense and
> > > that game balance is to be maintained at all
> > times
> > > and on the other you
> > > have people who don't mind playing a little
> wild
> > and
> > > woolly, finding
> > > solutions for things as they crop up. I am
> most
> > > definitely of the latter
> > > although I can understand the frame of mind of
> > the
> > > former.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > DQ was written in the '80's and forgotten
> about
> > by
> > > publishers in the
> > > same decade, we are now living and playing
> some
> > > twenty years later, and
> > > man I hope we have made advances in gaming
> since
> > > then, but one of the
> > > reasons people still like DQ is because it
> does
> > have
> > > inconsistencies and
> > > because it has a simple framework by which to
> > adapt
> > > to your playing
> > > style, if they didn't they would have moved on
> > to a
> > > more recent edition
> > > of another game by now. To tighten up this
> > framework
> > > would squeeze the
> > > charm out of it. This part is simply an
> opinion
> > of
> > > all published games
> > > that I have, if you don't like it, don't play
> it
> > or
> > > change it to
> > > something that you do like. Don't debate the
> > issues
> > > with people who
> > > obviously like how it is or have adopted their
> > own
> > > variations of the
> > > system, you simply do not need to game with
> them
> > and
> > > they with you.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This game has not been editioned to death like
> > some
> > > others, with the
> > > editions that were published carrying some
> > errors
> > > all the way through to
> > > the TSR edition, again typical of its era. DQ
> is
> > not
> > > likely to emerge
> > > again as an economically viable gaming
> product;
> > most
> > > importantly those
> > > who have the license don't want to release it
> > from
> > > their IP library and
> > > don't want to re-release it to the gaming
> > public. As
> > > such arguments over
> > > published text and conventions are
> superfluous.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think Jeffrey has said exactly the right
> > thing,
> > > and I am sure all game
> > > publishers and designers would tend to agree
> (as
> > > they are gamers too, or
> > > I should hope they are); the GM and the
> players
> > > decide what's right for
> > > them and go with it. If it doesn't make sense,
> > but
> > > it would make for a
> > > fun game and your players will go for it, then
> > go
> > > with it. I have used
> > > some very tenuous conventions in games that I
> > have
> > > run and usually, as
> > > long as I have a decent story line, players
> will
> > go
> > > for it. I have also
> > > ran some ultra realistic games (oh can I ever
> > forget
> > > my Twilight 2000
> > > experience, I did not do a good job on that
> one,
> > > yuck) and I have had
> > > decent story lines but bored the hell out of
> > players
> > > with garbage they
> > > didn't care about.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A perfect example of rules not mattering is
> when
> > I
> > > was heavily into
> > > Rifts, we had a gaming group that met monthly
> > and
> > > boy did I look forward
> > > to those games, although I played other games
> in
> > > between, that was the
> > > one I would never miss, although it was 1.5
> > hours
> > > there and then 1.5
> > > hours back on public transport just to play in
> > it.
> > > Palladium's rules are
> > > absolutely rubbish, there is no game balance
> at
> > all
> > > and it is totally
> > > open to munchkinism, but because we had a
> great
> > > gaming group it worked.
> > > The house rules would often change from
> session
> > to
> > > session and the
> > > characters' abilities would fluctuate in power
> > as
> > > the house rules
> > > changed, but we enjoyed it. The GM trusted his
> > > players not to find a
> > > loophole and use them unreasonably and the
> > players
> > > trusted the GM to
> > > tell a great story and to not kill their
> > characters
> > > on a whim. We also
> > > played in environments that were not fully
> > planned
> > > out and the GM had to
> > > wing it a lot, so there were always
> > inconsistencies
> > > but we forgave them
> > > as we were both enjoying the game and trusted
> > that
> > > the GM had his
> > > reasons for this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I personally prefer players who are there to
> > have
> > > fun, players that add
> > > to the story rather than being a pain in the
> > > proverbial, players that
> > > have enough faith in their GM that he won't
> kill
> > > them on a whim or on a
> > > dubious call and most of all players that
> don't
> > > argue when a call goes
> > > against them, particularly if it doesn't
> matter
> > in
> > > the overall scheme of
> > > things. This goes both ways though as the GM
> > should
> > > have faith in the
> > > players also not to be jerks and not to look
> for
> > > ways to screw things
> > > up, and simply try not to make bad calls
> > listening
> > > to what the players
> > > want and expect from the game and their
> > characters
> > > (one of my favourite
> > > points to make concerning GM's is that they
> are
> > > there to entertain the
> > > players and if they don't derive fun from that
> > then
> > > don't GM). I have
> > > played and GM'ed in probably I would say
> > thousands
> > > of games (I started
> > > the year DQ came out) and have played with all
> > > variety of people, and I
> > > have found that rules tend to mean squat
> > compared to
> > > the people you are
> > > playing with.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You can have the most perfect game in the
> world
> > but
> > > if you don't have
> > > the right players and GM, it will be crap
> every
> > > time, the reverse,
> > > however is not the case, you CAN have the
> worse
> > game
> > > in the world and as
> > > long as the GM is imaginative, applies common
> > sense
> > > and that the players
> > > give their buy-in the game WILL be okay at
> > least.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's my two cents, and I am sure it will be
> > picked
> > > apart, but all I am
> > > essentially saying is that everybody has a
> right
> > to
> > > view gaming and
> > > gaming products whatever way they like, but
> that
> > is
> > > their view and not
> > > necessarily the only right view. The important
> > thing
> > > is to find gamers
> > > that share your view and game with them, not
> > cite
> > > rules and loopholes,
> > > raising awareness of something that many don't
> > > really give a hoot about
> > > and most of the time already considered and
> > resolved
> > > in their own gaming
> > > group.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

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

You realise that I think you're a very bad man for
giving Kevin Siembieda so much money? ;-)

--- Ian Bouch <ianbouch@aapt.net.au> wrote:

> Oh I forgot,
>
>
>
> World of Darkness
>
> Shadowrun
>
> Paranoia
>
> Warhammer FRP
>
> Pendragon
>
>
>
> .and all this time could have been spent solving
> world hunger or curing
> cancer or something...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:dqn-list@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Lev Lafayette
> Sent: Thursday, 28 December 2006 12:47 PM
> To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] R & S Golems and Manna Rich
> or Poor Areas
>
>
>
>
> Well, we're all in furious agreement. Nobody claims
> that system is *more* important than the players,
> but
> it does seem that we all agree that system *is*
> somewhat important.
>
> I will also suggest that the academic excersise that
> Prof. Edwards is undertaking is a worthwhile
> project,
> even if the topic is "fun". After all Professor
> Tolkien's own academic studies helped make The Lord
> of
> the Rings "fun" as well.
>
> You may be interested to know that Edwards' "big
> model" actually covers the point that I think you're
> trying to make; that it is not so much crap gamers,
> but crap people who can spoil any game. Well, of
> course. The game is a social contract and certain
> behaviour expectations exist. People who do not
> abide
> by those common courtesies are going to crap
> *regardless* of whether they're playing an RPG, at a
> pizza bar or seeing a movie. In that sense, the
> system
> doesn't matter, because what you're talking about is
> crap people, not crap players.
>
> By pure coincidence, it seems my list of game played
> regularly (I use 6-8 sessions as a rule of thumb) is
> very similar.
>
> In some attempt of order:
>
> Rolemaster (well, I did write a Companion)
> GURPS
> AD&D
> RuneQuest
> Cyberpunk
> Call of Cthulhu
> Vampire/Mage/Werewolf/Wraith
> D&D
> Nephilim
> Champions/Fantasy Hero
> Justice Inc.
> Warhammer FRP
> Middle Earth Role Playing
> Hero Wars/HeroQuest
> Dogs in the Vineyard
> In Nomine
> DragonQuest
> Stormbringer
> Paranoia
> Pendragon
> Shadowrun
> Palladium RPG
>
> --- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.
> <mailto:igmod%40comcast.net>
> net> wrote:
>
> > Well said, Ian.
> > Lev,
> >
> >
> > I think you took me too literally with the worst
> > game in the world comment, and reading back on the
> > post that was my fault. The point I was simply
> > trying to make is that the people involved are far
> > more important than the game system. I read the
> link
> > concerning this and I think that Ron Edwards has a
> > point, but in my consideration of what is
> important
> > in a game his evaluation and rankings are
> different
> > to mine, way different.
> >
> >
> >
> > To be quite honest if I thought a game was the
> > worst in the world, then I probably would not play
> > it and generally I think that if the system is
> that
> > bad I can convince those that I game with not to
> > play it and try an alternative (Twilight 2000
> still
> > comes back to haunt me). Anyhow, take systems that
> I
> > am perhaps indifferent too, and you get one or two
> > crap players in the group, well that would spoil
> it
> > for me. It had nothing to do with the system, just
> > the crap players. Now take a game that I love,
> Call
> > of Cthulhu for example, and put the same crap
> > players at the table, I'm not going to enjoy that
> > either. Now even take DQ and four great players
> and
> > one crap player, who doesn't stop complaining when
> > they get stunned, even though it was him who
> charged
> > into combat without a weapon or his shield
> prepared
> > and then gets hit, and then repeats the same
> mistake
> > the next game (plus he didn't think WP was
> important
> > and only put 10 points on it). I'm not going to
> > enjoy that game either (BTW this is the only guy
> who
> > has tried the R&S Golem thing on me).
> >
> >
> >
> > Whether or not it is a simulationists model,
> > gamists model or a narrative model, the same crap
> > players can spoil the day and the game
> >
> >
> >
> > Game designers can sit there and adapt theories
> > and game designs and what not all they want,
> > essentially it comes down to the people that buy
> the
> > books and how they run their games and the
> > personalities in their groups. Generally, certain
> > personalities will gravitate to the various models
> > you mentioned and then form groups around them,
> > others are more flexible and manage to run various
> > types of games, but I have not met one group that
> > has not somehow changed the rules or introduced
> > house rules for every game that they have played
> > (the least changed I have come across is D & D,
> but
> > that is another debate altogether).
> >
> >
> >
> > Regarding the mental energy thing, yes I agree you
> > can sometimes use up a lot of mental energy
> running
> > games. My personal experiences is that I find I am
> > more exhausted running games with a mix of crap
> > players in them than I am for forgiving and
> friendly
> > players who enjoy your games in general and are
> > willing to overlook small inconsistencies. The
> > amount of mental energy I use trying to appease
> the
> > troublemakers and ensuring that I don't upset them
> > could have been used more fruitfully on the
> players
> > that appreciate your efforts. The system itself,
> as
> > long as I have had sufficient experience with it,
> > does not matter so much.
> >
> >
> >
> > Using Rifts again as an example, since this is a
> > perfect example of how not to design a game, I
> GM'ed
> > this quite consistently for a good part of a
> decade,
> > usually for two different groups each week. One
> > group was the group that I discussed previously
> > another had a smattering of hard cases in there,
> > including the guy who tried that R&S Golem thing
> on
> > me. I'll let you guess which group exhausted me
> the
> > most, not to say the others didn't challenge me
> with
> > out of the box type action and character moments,
> > but I used all of my mental reserves trying to
> > appease prima donnas and RPG theorists in the
> > trouble group, whilst I could have just been
> telling
> > a great story and providing a framework for people
> > to use to build on their concepts of their
> > characters.
> >
> >
> >
> > Just for the record, I was running exactly the
> > same campaign using the good group to play test
> the
> > game for the trouble group. You'd think the second
> > time I ran a session it would be easier..no way!
> > Most of the time it had nothing to do with the
> > rules, just people being awkward and when it did
> > have something to do with the rules it was always
> to
> > do with improving their character to such a degree
> > that things became a little awkward for the rest
> of
> > the group..which flamed up with the rest of the
> > group bitching about others in the group..very
> ugly.
> > Rifts was not the sort of game they should have
> been
> > playing, perhaps D & D or GURPS would have been
> > better for them. Hence it was not so much the
> rules,
> > but the type of people that was playing them.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have met far too many people who make gaming
> > into some kind of academic concept rather than an
> > avenue to allow their imaginations to flourish.
> > Rules should have some semblance of playability
> and
> > absolutely crap games will simply fade and
> > disappear, but those that hang around obviously
> have
> > an audience and have something going for them and
> as
> > such the right GM and the right players will
> > generally have a good time playing them. Throw in
> > those crap players and out the window goes the
> fun.
> >
> >
> >
> > Whilst I had my games shop I watched groups come
> > and go playing various games in our games rooms
> and
> > always the reason the group split up was because
> of
> > personalities, it never had a damn thing to do
> with
> > the game itself.
> >
> >
> >
> > In summary Mr Ron Edwards, in my opinion, is one
> > of those so called gaming academics, that is
> making
> > the concept of having fun into a tedious and
> boring
> > thesis of no apparent value (and I can honestly
> say
> > that I have actively played over 20 systems on a
> > regular basis over the past 26 years, see below
> and
> > refer comments by Ron Edwards). If you get a group
> > of four or more people around a table and some of
> > them are crap players then the fun is stopped for
> > all (perhaps not for the crap player though) no
> > matter what the hell you are playing. You get a
> > group of friends around a table who like each
> other
> > and have similar requirements in the games that
> they
> > play, and they respect each other, fun will be had
> > by all. Hence the system is far less important
> than
> > the people, and the people who like a system will
> > tend to gravitate with like minded individuals,
> you
> > just have to weed out the crap players.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> >
> > PS: I don't mean that a crap player is
> > inexperienced or is not comfortable with any
> > particular genre, I mean those guys who just spoil
> > it by being an a-hole.
> >
> >
> >
> > Games I have played over a dozen times:
> >
> >
> >
> > DragonQuest
> >
> > Call of Cthulhu
> >
> > D & D 3.5
> >
> > D20 Modern
> >
> > GURPS (various settings)
> >
> > MERP
> >
> > Rolemaster
> >
> > Rune Quest
> >
> > Blue Planet
> >
> > A State
> >
> > Feng Shui
> >
> > Hong Kong Action Theatre
> >
> > Spycraft
> >
> > Riddle of Steel
> >
> > Behind Enemy Lines
> >
> > Twilight 2000
> >
> > Rifts
> >
> > Nightspawn (I know that it is now Nightbane but I
> > like Nightspawn)
> >
> > Beyond the Supernatural
> >
> > Heroes Unlimited
> >
> > Unknown Armies
> >
> > Traveler
> >
> > Traveler 2300
> >
> > Various D20 supplements including Wild West, Judge
> > Dredd and Conan
> >
> > All Flesh Must be Eaten
> >
> > Hellboy
> >
> > Star Wars (the D6 one)
> >
> > ..and more I am sure of it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dqn-list@yahoogroup
> <mailto:dqn-list%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
> > [mailto:dqn-list@yahoogroup
> <mailto:dqn-list%40yahoogroups.com> s.com]
> On Behalf Of Lev
> > Lafayette
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 December 2006 10:51 AM
> > To: dqn-list@yahoogroup
> <mailto:dqn-list%40yahoogroups.com> s.com
> > Subject: Re: [DQN-list] R & S Golems and Manna
> > Rich or Poor Areas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Heya Ian,
> >
> > Most of what you say makes a lot of sense and I
> > agree
> > with. Indeed, the entirety of your post is about
> > the
> > relative poles of "System versus Freeform"
> >
> > Now, I seriously hope that nobody here is
> > suggesting
> > that a gaming environment should entirely be
> > system
> > driven. Freeform decision making is inevitable and
> > really to even debate the point is paddling in the
> > shallows.
> >
> > The real question is 'how much freeform decisions
> > versus system detail'.
> >
> > Personally, I like systems to be simple and
> > elegant in
> > design (meaning the same type of mechanic can be
> > used
> > in a variety of contexts e.g., HeroQuest) and with
> > effects appropriate for the genre (e.g., Rifts can
> > be
> > explicitly wildly powered and chaotic, whilst Dogs
> > in
> > the Vineyard has mechanics which follow the plot
> > evolution of a western).
> >
> > There are all sorts of freeform techniques that
> > can be
> > raised, *all* of which really are impromtu system
> > designs - the question is what sort of system?
> >
> > Is the decision being applied for genre-plausible
> > purposes (the simulationist model)? Is it being
> > applied for game balance and player opportunity
> > (the
> > gamist model)? Is it being applied for plot and
> > story
> > purposes (the narrativist model)? [1]
> >
> > OK, assuming we've gotten this far then the next
> > bone
> > of contention is "How Important Is System
> > Anyway?", as
> > emphasised by your statement:
> >
> > - - -
> > > You can have the most perfect game in the world
> > but
> > > if you don't have
> > > the right players and GM, it will be crap every
> > > time, the reverse,
> > > however is not the case, you CAN have the worse
> > game
> > > in the world and as
> > > long as the GM is imaginative, applies common
> > sense
> > > and that the players
> > > give their buy-in the game WILL be okay at
> > least.
> > - - -
> >
> > Now I do take some issue with this whilst agreeing
> > with the general point. My answer is, in brief: If
> > you
> > have the hypothetical perfect game but you you
> > have
> > crap players and GM it will probably be *better*
> > than
> > having a crap game.
> >
> > Likewise if you have a crap system but good
> > players
> > and a good GM the game will *not* be as good as
> > good
> > players and a good GM with a good system.
> >
> > Why is this the case? Because System Does Matter
> > [2].
> > The best GM in the world when playing with a crap
> > system is going to have to make all sorts of
> > impromptu
> > decisions to make the session work [3]. They will
> > *not* always make the right decision. They will
> > *not*
> > always be consistent. They *will* be spend time
> > and
> > mental energy on system decisions, flipping
> > through
> > the rules to find the particular rule for
> > situation x
> > etc, when they could be spending it on interesting
> > plot development, setting detail and so forth.
> >
> > Likewise, reverse the case for crap players and a
> > good
> > system. A crap RP group that plays a good system
> > will
> > possibly *learn* good gaming techniques from the
> > experience - this is *not* the case for crap
> > players
> > with a crap game.
> >
> > The interesting result of all this is that the
> > game
> > designer has a not-insignificant influence on how
> > games actually run. Which is why there are
> > different
> > game systems out there - and yes, there *has* been
> > improvements in game design as well, even if some
> > game
> > systems (e.g., Fantasy Imperium, Synibarr) really
> > haven't learned anything from them. It is
> > certainly a
> > testament to DragonQuest's design features that
> > some
> > twenty six years after its initial publication
> > there
> > are still people playing it.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> > Lev
> >
> > 1] If dear readers are unfamiliar with these terms
> > check out GNS theory check out the following:
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.darkshir
>

<http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/>

> e.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/
> > http://www.indie-
> <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/>
> rpgs.com/articles/3/
> >
> > 2] No really, system *is* important. Read this:
> >
> >
> http://www.indie-
>

<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html>

> rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html
> >
> > 3] All of this assumes you don't have an
> > omniscient
> > being as your GM. If you do, send me an email, I'd
> > like to meet said divinity ;-)
> >
> > --- Ian Bouch <ianbouch@aapt.
> <mailto:ianbouch%40aapt.net.au> net.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Merry Xmas all,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have read these threads and it has occurred to
> > me
> > > that perhaps the
> > > main contention isn't so much the technical
> > aspects
> > > but a preference in
> > > how a set of rules and the gaming environment is
> > > laid out. On one hand
> > > you have a school of thought that things are
> > > supposed to make sense and
> > > that game balance is to be maintained at all
> > times
> > > and on the other you
> > > have people who don't mind playing a little wild
> > and
> > > woolly, finding
> > > solutions for things as they crop up. I am most
> > > definitely of the latter
> > > although I can understand the frame of mind of
> > the
> > > former.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > DQ was written in the '80's and forgotten about
> > by
> > > publishers in the
> > > same decade, we are now living and playing some
> > > twenty years later, and
> > > man I hope we have made advances in gaming since
> > > then, but one of the
> > > reasons people still like DQ is because it does
> > have
> > > inconsistencies and
> > > because it has a simple framework by which to
> > adapt
> > > to your playing
> > > style, if they didn't they would have moved on
> > to a
> > > more recent edition
> > > of another game by now. To tighten up this
> > framework
> > > would squeeze the
> > > charm out of it. This part is simply an opinion
> > of
> > > all published games
> > > that I have, if you don't like it, don't play it
> > or
> > > change it to
> > > something that you do like. Don't debate the
> > issues
> > > with people who
> > > obviously like how it is or have adopted their
> > own
> > > variations of the
> > > system, you simply do not need to game with them
> > and
> > > they with you.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This game has not been editioned to death like
> > some
> > > others, with the
> > > editions that were published carrying some
> > errors
> > > all the way through to
> > > the TSR edition, again typical of its era. DQ is
> > not
> > > likely to emerge
> > > again as an economically viable gaming product;
> > most
> > > importantly those
> > > who have the license don't want to release it
> > from
> > > their IP library and
> > > don't want to re-release it to the gaming
> > public. As
> > > such arguments over
> > > published text and conventions are superfluous.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think Jeffrey has said exactly the right
> > thing,
> > > and I am sure all game
> > > publishers and designers would tend to agree (as
> > > they are gamers too, or
> > > I should hope they are); the GM and the players
> > > decide what's right for
> > > them and go with it. If it doesn't make sense,
> > but
> > > it would make for a
> > > fun game and your players will go for it, then
> > go
> > > with it. I have used
> > > some very tenuous conventions in games that I
> > have
> > > run and usually, as
> > > long as I have a decent story line, players will
> > go
> > > for it. I have also
> > > ran some ultra realistic games (oh can I ever
> > forget
> > > my Twilight 2000
> > > experience, I did not do a good job on that one,
> > > yuck) and I have had
> > > decent story lines but bored the hell out of
> > players
> > > with garbage they
> > > didn't care about.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > A perfect example of rules not mattering is when
> > I
> > > was heavily into
> > > Rifts, we had a gaming group that met monthly
> > and
> > > boy did I look forward
> > > to those games, although I played other games in
> > > between, that was the
> > > one I would never miss, although it was 1.5
> > hours
> > > there and then 1.5
> > > hours back on public transport just to play in
> > it.
> > > Palladium's rules are
> > > absolutely rubbish, there is no game balance at
> > all
> > > and it is totally
> > > open to munchkinism, but because we had a great
> > > gaming group it worked.
> > > The house rules would often change from session
> > to
> > > session and the
> > > characters' abilities would fluctuate in power
> > as
> > > the house rules
> > > changed, but we enjoyed it. The GM trusted his
> > > players not to find a
> > > loophole and use them unreasonably and the
> > players
> > > trusted the GM to
> > > tell a great story and to not kill their
> > characters
> > > on a whim. We also
> > > played in environments that were not fully
> > planned
> > > out and the GM had to
> > > wing it a lot, so there were always
> > inconsistencies
> > > but we forgave them
> > > as we were both enjoying the game and trusted
> > that
> > > the GM had his
> > > reasons for this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I personally prefer players who are there to
> > have
> > > fun, players that add
> > > to the story rather than being a pain in the
> > > proverbial, players that
> > > have enough faith in their GM that he won't kill
> > > them on a whim or on a
> > > dubious call and most of all players that don't
> > > argue when a call goes
> > > against them, particularly if it doesn't matter
> > in
> > > the overall scheme of
> > > things. This goes both ways though as the GM
> > should
> > > have faith in the
> > > players also not to be jerks and not to look for
> > > ways to screw things
> > > up, and simply try not to make bad calls
> > listening
> > > to what the players
> > > want and expect from the game and their
> > characters
> > > (one of my favourite
> > > points to make concerning GM's is that they are
> > > there to entertain the
> > > players and if they don't derive fun from that
> > then
> > > don't GM). I have
> > > played and GM'ed in probably I would say
> > thousands
> > > of games (I started
> > > the year DQ came out) and have played with all
> > > variety of people, and I
> > > have found that rules tend to mean squat
> > compared to
> > > the people you are
> > > playing with.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You can have the most perfect game in the world
> > but
> > > if you don't have
> > > the right players and GM, it will be crap every
> > > time, the reverse,
> > > however is not the case, you CAN have the worse
> > game
> > > in the world and as
> > > long as the GM is imaginative, applies common
> > sense
> > > and that the players
> > > give their buy-in the game WILL be okay at
> > least.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's my two cents, and I am sure it will be
> > picked
> > > apart, but all I am
> > > essentially saying is that everybody has a right
> > to
> > > view gaming and
> > > gaming products whatever way they like, but that
> > is
> > > their view and not
> > > necessarily the only right view. The important
> > thing
> > > is to find gamers
> > > that share your view and game with them, not
> > cite
> > > rules and loopholes,
> > > raising awareness of something that many don't
> > > really give a hoot about
> > > and most of the time already considered and
> > resolved
> > > in their own gaming
> > > group.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> > protection around
> > http://mail. <http://mail.yahoo.com> yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail. <http://mail.yahoo.com> yahoo.com
>
>
>
>

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

A big yahoo goes out to philocube who has found a copy of the article
that we have been seeking. Workable versions are now posted to the DQ-
rules list and once it has been worked it into a final archive
version it will be posted in the files here.

JohnR

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "rthorm" <rthorm@...> wrote:
>
> The DragonQuest completist in me is looking for every last article
> that was published about DQ when it was in print. To that end,
> there's an article I've seen reference to that I've never seen, and
I
> was wondering if anyone had a copy of it that could be shared or
> copied or scanned. The article is "Priests & Paladins for
> DragonQuest" from Multiverse Magazine (Issue 2, Spring 1984).
>
> If anyone can turn up a copy, I'd very much like to get it in a form
> that could be shared with the DQ community in general.
>
> Rodger
>

It looks like I am finally going to make a run at writing my long
dreamed of DQ computer aid program. Do not ask why this has taken so
long or what is motivating me now or a completion date estimate. I am
working on it here and there. So far the only restriction I know of
is that user's will need to have higher that 640 x 480 screen
resolution and 800 x 600 is in danger. Yes this means it will run on
Mac and Windows.

Currently I have my creature data imported and have set up a way to
edit any of the existing creatures and am working on a way to add/
delete creatures.

Next up is the encounter generator. This will be something simple -
basically it rolls up a set of creatures randomly. The idea is to
work with the software prior to the adventure to print (or pdf) them
out for use during the game (keeps the computer away from the crumbs
and soda spills).

I have not figured out exactly how/whether to integrate magic and
skills tracking (or EXP expenditure) and I will address that as part
of the PC/NPC generation (following encounters). I may just load the
magic and skills section in for reference or to print out for player
reference.

I had a dream about a combat simulator, but doubt that will ever happen.

I am planning to do this regardless of whether there is any interest.
I am curious whether there is any interest and if so is it enough to
charge for it. I also am not sure about how or even if this will
violate any copyright laws and do not want to debate the topic
(useful information welcomed).

Marty

--- Martin Gallo <martimer@mindspring.com> wrote:

> It looks like I am finally going to make a run at
> writing my long
> dreamed of DQ computer aid program. Do not ask why
> this has taken so
> long or what is motivating me now or a completion
> date estimate. I am
> working on it here and there. So far the only
> restriction I know of
> is that user's will need to have higher that 640 x
> 480 screen
> resolution and 800 x 600 is in danger. Yes this
> means it will run on
> Mac and Windows.

Why not write in in Java and make it platform
independent?

Great project btw...






____________________________________________________________________________________
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html

Well I'm certainly interested in it but as for deciding whether or not
you charge for it I will just say that there is pretty much no chance
of me paying for anything less than very polished, finished commercial
quality application. On the other hand I have no problem at all
donating money to Open Source projects.

On the copyright issue I would say that it is probably shakey ground
to begin with and charging for it probably makes make it even more shakey.

Looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

Phil

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Martin Gallo <martimer@...> wrote:
>
> It looks like I am finally going to make a run at writing my long
> dreamed of DQ computer aid program. Do not ask why this has taken so
> long or what is motivating me now or a completion date estimate. I am
> working on it here and there. So far the only restriction I know of
> is that user's will need to have higher that 640 x 480 screen
> resolution and 800 x 600 is in danger. Yes this means it will run on
> Mac and Windows.
>
> Currently I have my creature data imported and have set up a way to
> edit any of the existing creatures and am working on a way to add/
> delete creatures.
>
> Next up is the encounter generator. This will be something simple -
> basically it rolls up a set of creatures randomly. The idea is to
> work with the software prior to the adventure to print (or pdf) them
> out for use during the game (keeps the computer away from the crumbs
> and soda spills).
>
> I have not figured out exactly how/whether to integrate magic and
> skills tracking (or EXP expenditure) and I will address that as part
> of the PC/NPC generation (following encounters). I may just load the
> magic and skills section in for reference or to print out for player
> reference.
>
> I had a dream about a combat simulator, but doubt that will ever happen.
>
> I am planning to do this regardless of whether there is any interest.
> I am curious whether there is any interest and if so is it enough to
> charge for it. I also am not sure about how or even if this will
> violate any copyright laws and do not want to debate the topic
> (useful information welcomed).
>
> Marty
>

Because I am not a Java programmer. Sorry.

I am using RealBasic, and it supports Linux as well.

Marty

On Jan 17, 2007, at 4:26 PM, Lev Lafayette wrote:

>
> --- Martin Gallo <martimer@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> It looks like I am finally going to make a run at
>> writing my long
>> dreamed of DQ computer aid program. Do not ask why
>> this has taken so
>> long or what is motivating me now or a completion
>> date estimate. I am
>> working on it here and there. So far the only
>> restriction I know of
>> is that user's will need to have higher that 640 x
>> 480 screen
>> resolution and 800 x 600 is in danger. Yes this
>> means it will run on
>> Mac and Windows.
>
> Why not write in in Java and make it platform
> independent?
>
> Great project btw...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ______________
> Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
> Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Fair enough. If you want a hand with the coding, let
me know.

All the best,

Lev

--- Martin Gallo <martimer@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Because I am not a Java programmer. Sorry.
>
> I am using RealBasic, and it supports Linux as well.
>
> Marty
> On Jan 17, 2007, at 4:26 PM, Lev Lafayette wrote:
>
> >
> > --- Martin Gallo <martimer@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It looks like I am finally going to make a run at
> >> writing my long
> >> dreamed of DQ computer aid program. Do not ask
> why
> >> this has taken so
> >> long or what is motivating me now or a completion
> >> date estimate. I am
> >> working on it here and there. So far the only
> >> restriction I know of
> >> is that user's will need to have higher that 640
> x
> >> 480 screen
> >> resolution and 800 x 600 is in danger. Yes this
> >> means it will run on
> >> Mac and Windows.
> >
> > Why not write in in Java and make it platform
> > independent?
> >
> > Great project btw...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

______________________________________________________________________

>
> > ______________
> > Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
> > Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> >
>

http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html

> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091

It sounds great. Barring legal quandaries, I'd likely be willing to
contribute/beta test.

K64

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Martin Gallo <martimer@...> wrote:
>
> It looks like I am finally going to make a run at writing my long
> dreamed of DQ computer aid program. Do not ask why this has taken
so
> long or what is motivating me now or a completion date estimate. I
am
> working on it here and there. So far the only restriction I know
of
> is that user's will need to have higher that 640 x 480 screen
> resolution and 800 x 600 is in danger. Yes this means it will run
on
> Mac and Windows.
>
> Currently I have my creature data imported and have set up a way
to
> edit any of the existing creatures and am working on a way to add/
> delete creatures.
>
> Next up is the encounter generator. This will be something simple -

> basically it rolls up a set of creatures randomly. The idea is to
> work with the software prior to the adventure to print (or pdf)
them
> out for use during the game (keeps the computer away from the
crumbs
> and soda spills).
>
> I have not figured out exactly how/whether to integrate magic and
> skills tracking (or EXP expenditure) and I will address that as
part
> of the PC/NPC generation (following encounters). I may just load
the
> magic and skills section in for reference or to print out for
player
> reference.
>
> I had a dream about a combat simulator, but doubt that will ever
happen.
>
> I am planning to do this regardless of whether there is any
interest.
> I am curious whether there is any interest and if so is it enough
to
> charge for it. I also am not sure about how or even if this will
> violate any copyright laws and do not want to debate the topic
> (useful information welcomed).
>
> Marty
>

After a couple of weeks of being ill and getting caught up (twice each!!) I am back to the
programming grindstone. I am adding data entry robustness features to the Creatures
portion of my little tool and I have a couple of questions for the masses.

One: Multiple Creature Entries

As currently constructed the data is split into parts with each creature pigeonholed into
the Type, Category and Creature as specified in the rule book (Land Mammals, Primates,
Baboon being an example). I have implemented data addition and deletion with the ability
to add new Types, Categories and Creatures. What I would like to have feedback on is
whether to allow duplicates of a particular type of creature.

Suppose, for example, you want to have an entry for Character Races, Uncommon, Elf as
well as Faery, Fairy, Elf. Should that be allowed, or should it be one Elf entry, period?

Things would be much simpler if this is not allowed, but since it is doable I thought I
would ask.

Two: Paragraphs for the Various Descriptions

As currently entered, there are text fields for Creature Notes, Combat Notes and Treasure
Notes with Combat Notes being handled by two such fields. This is because I originally
entered the data in an old spreadsheet in the mid 90's that did not allow for carriage
returns withing a cell. This necessitated the splitting of the combat notes into two entries
and is the PRIMARY reason why the creature data I have is summarized from what is in the
rules.

Going over to a database format opens up the possibilities for data entry by a great deal,
but limits some aspects of data backup - as I currently have things written it is possible to
export and import the database into a text. I do this in case I make some egregious
database error and wipe out all my data - a cheap backup method that also allows for
spell checking!

Unfortunately, this means that the user cannot (well, should not) use any paragraphs
(carriage returns) in the descriptive text as it COMPLETELY breaks the import routine. I
could probably add some method of preserving the paragraphs, but it is a chore. So, what
I would like to know is how important multiple paragraphs are to people for creature
related notes.

A related question is how important the data backup feature is to any of you. The database
system is pretty robust, and it is certainly easy to make database copies for those of you
who want to add creature data.

Anyway, thanks.

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Gallo" <martimer@...> wrote:

> One: Multiple Creature Entries

I don't see any need for multple entries of the same creature. I can
see being able to flag a creature as playable character race though so
maybe you should just include that as a boolean flag for each creature.

> Two: Paragraphs for the Various Descriptions

Seems like paragraphs would be important if people wanted the complete
content of a creatures entry in there. Storing it as HTML encoded text
might work depending on the text handling capabilities of your dev
language.

> A related question is how important the data backup feature is to

any of you.

Do you mean export into some human readable (or easily convertible)
format that can also be imported back in or just some user option to
save a copy of the database somewhere?

Both are important IMO.

Thanks for the response. Naturally they brought up the need for a
little more information.

On Jan 31, 2007, at 8:08 AM, darkislephil wrote:

> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Gallo" <martimer@...> wrote:
>> One: Multiple Creature Entries
>
> I don't see any need for multple entries of the same creature. I can
> see being able to flag a creature as playable character race though so
> maybe you should just include that as a boolean flag for each
> creature.

The creature and character/NPC databases are separate. The creature
database and program basically only has what is contained in the
rulebook with no way of tracking any ranks (sorry). It is mostly just
a quick and easy way to roll up an encounter and will requires some
tracking and help from the GM for things like treasure or equipment -
thus the notes fields. It will calculate the BCs and other statistics
for each creature so it is not completely useless.

>> Two: Paragraphs for the Various Descriptions
>
> Seems like paragraphs would be important if people wanted the complete
> content of a creatures entry in there. Storing it as HTML encoded text
> might work depending on the text handling capabilities of your dev
> language.

I had a brainstorm last night and I think I can capture and convert
the paragraphs, at least for the Macinstosh platform. The basic
problem is that PCs use two characters (ASCII 11 and 12??) for a
paragraph marker while Macs use one (ASCII 13) and trapping both of
them can be annoying. It is probably doable, though. Obviously it is
doable - it is more of a question of can I do it. The idea is
definitely to make it human readable.

>> A related question is how important the data backup feature is to
> any of you.
>
> Do you mean export into some human readable (or easily convertible)
> format that can also be imported back in or just some user option to
> save a copy of the database somewhere?
>
> Both are important IMO.

I think i will go ahead and just do both. If I can figure out the
paragraph thing, that will make the decision much easier.

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Martin Gallo <martimer@...> wrote:

>
> Thanks for the response. Naturally they brought up the need for a
> little more information.
>
> On Jan 31, 2007, at 8:08 AM, darkislephil wrote:
>
> > --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Gallo" <martimer@> wrote:
> >> One: Multiple Creature Entries
> >
> > I don't see any need for multple entries of the same creature. I can
> > see being able to flag a creature as playable character race though so
> > maybe you should just include that as a boolean flag for each
> > creature.
>
> The creature and character/NPC databases are separate.

I was specifically responding to your example of duplicate entries
into the Creature Database. (Or at least that is how I read your example.)

You gave as an example having Elf under two entries:
Character Races, Uncommon, Elf
Faery, Fairy, Elf

While it could be useful I don't see it as a necessary feature.

> The creature database and program basically only has what is
> contained in the rulebook with no way of tracking any
> ranks (sorry). It is mostly just a quick and easy way to roll up
> an encounter and will requires some tracking and help from the
> GM for things like treasure or equipment - thus the notes
> fields. It will calculate the BCs and other statistics
> for each creature so it is not completely useless.

Seems like a good start.

> >> Two: Paragraphs for the Various Descriptions
> I had a brainstorm last night and I think I can capture and convert
> the paragraphs, at least for the Macinstosh platform. The basic
> problem is that PCs use two characters (ASCII 11 and 12??) for a
> paragraph marker while Macs use one (ASCII 13) and trapping both of
> them can be annoying. It is probably doable, though. Obviously it is
> doable - it is more of a question of can I do it. The idea is
> definitely to make it human readable.

Macs uses Carriage Return (CR) which is ASCII 13 as you noted.
*nix uses LineFeed (LF) which is ASCII 10.
Windows uses the CR/LF pair which is probably the most correct thing
to do even if it is annoying.

Technically none of those are Paragraph markers but End Of Line (EOL)
markers. It is more like the HTML br tag. Some languages provide a
standard macro or other method to call out the EOL character(s) such
that it is correct on whatever platform it is being run on.

Trivial to filter out any or all of the EOL characters but the
resulting text stored in the database has to keep some type of marker
to indicate paragraphs such that when you export or display the text
data the paragraphs are preserved/displayed.

In any case, I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

Way back when there was an unpublished suppliment by Steve Jackson
called 'the world of dragonquest' where he did try to go into detail
about mana rich and mana poor areas, the whys and wherefor's of... I
know JK has seen this and probably based some of his stuff on this.

This can be a justification for play balance, for one thing, the GM
is of course free to decide that in their world there is some other
reason... or that cities in some areas are or aren't manna rich or
poor.

The whole reason for the existence was to provide some
other 'variability' to the 'world' to allow for scenarios that might
otherwise not be viable.

For example, if you have a mystery that would be killed by a sorcer
of the mind... if the area was really mana-poor, and his spells
weren't safe to use... the mystery might then become a fun scenario
the characters have to figure out.

Further, if there is a creature of some great high-magic that the GM
wants to use but that he doesn't want to justify, for example, why
these creatures haven't taken over the countryside, having some local
area that's mana rich can provide a reason for there being such a
creature for the PC's to encounter but also explain why it's stuck
there.

Mana-rich regions, for example, could be caused by things like a
great black-magics ritual that caused some demon to come down and via
some demonic magics, which the GM need not explain [ :) ], made the
area an evil and mana rich area.

Or some other spell could have 'used up' all the mana in an area,
making it mana poor.

Some people connect 'mana' to 'life force', so an over-abundance of
life could mean using it (or more of it) or lots of death could
increase it...

If you want to hang a physical attribute to it, one could think about
tying the presence of Potassium to it, for example. It might be
higher near natural concentrations... but if you look at the life
cycle and the movement of potasium through an ecology it makes a nice
possible way to think about it.

So both 'natural places' of high and low but also tied to the the
life and death of living organisms.

Make the *reason* fit the needs and let that make the world
work!!!

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "gallants2" <gallants2@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Everybody,
> I'll shed some light on this. Per Eric, Greg, and confirmed by
Gerry Klug: the reason for low
> mana in cities is that the concentration of population also results
in a concentration of
> spell casters doing business in the area. (ie casting spells for
money) That concentration
> depletes the mana. There can be other reasons for mana depletion in
an area that is not a
> city (a great ritual was performed in the area). Simple supply /
demand economics with
> tragedy of commons thrown in accounts for this. It always made
perfect sense to me and
> my players.
> --Dean Martelle
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, igmod@ wrote:
> >
> > IIRC, from the first edition there was a comment about the use of
iron in settled areas to
> explain why it was mana-poor.
> >
> > ~Jeffery~
> >
> > > >1. Connection between population and mana
> > > >
> > > >There is no causal connection between population and
> > > >mana, although there is a correlation.
> > >
> > > The rules don't explain WHY there is a correlation; your
conclusion that
> > > humans live in mana-poor areas because they are "safe" is just
as
> > > speculative as Jim's theory that it is due to those humans
depleting a
> > > natural resource (which, for what it's worth, is the
explanation I have
> > > always favored).
> > >
> > > -Cameron
> > >
> > >
_________________________________________________________________
> > > Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com
Football Page
> > > www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Many years ago now I started my 'champions gm helper program' for
self-amusement and my own use. At one point I was running more DQ
than champions, so I added some DQ support to it (still probably 80%
of it was geared to champs)... it has things like the backfire table
(s) [we have some extras], it let me store 'adventures', adversaries,
etc.

I had a set of text entry areas for character data and history, etc.,
along with photo areas for them. I had a few of the helpful charts I
wanted - character gen charts, FT/Enc., and 'planned' to do the rest.
I had the encounter tables, the fear table, and the Grev injury table.

One of the things I started but never finished was the 'random
scenario generators', that included weather generators, encounters,
names, etc. as well as sort of the 'plot+names+places+objects'
involved in the scenario.

I sort of also had this layout to enter/store spells by college along
with rank and % with the idea one could randomly generate or choose
and associate them with a given character, forming a spell list.

I hooked it up but never got around to filling it with any data...

Then I had the idea of a 'casebook', making the progam to be usable
by both players and GM's - the idea is the GM has a 'world's eye
view' of the data, the player may store only what they 'know' about
people/places/things in the world. (there are some extra screens for
places, races, etc.). That's also 'there' but I don't think ever got
used too much, except by me keeping track when I was the player in
someone else's campaign, and sad to say I still did that more with a
word-processor than the program.

I don't game as much as I used to so it never got more 'polished', in
fact a main 'missing piece' is probably that I never got the install
really great, it uses the BDE and that was a pain automate the
install/setup of at the time.

I also never really hooked up 'characteristics' to anything more than
a place to allow you to write them in and show them, it doesn't help
you generate or calculate from them (for DQ, anyway), at least not
yet, and it doesn't look like I'm going to get to it any time soon.

I guess if I were currently playing I'd be adding more to it... but
knowing me, I'd probably be spending just as much time re-writing it
in a different language for fun - it's been re-written in parts more
than once for fun, which is why it never gets finished :) It's
currently in C++. If you want some screen shots, mail me off-line.

And of course reports, that's another big area I never did much with,
I only have a few for the champions side of things.

But good luck, I'm sure we'd all like to see what you come up with.
If you did it in C# and put it on sourceforge you might get some of
us to do some extra parts for amusement!

The fundamental thing is that any such program is basically
a *database* program. If you first think of it that way you'll
be off on the right foot.

If you start playing with xml and html for data storage, you're
probably heading toward a mess.

Do things with database as the back end, and then you can easily
serialize the results to xml files or anything else - but you want
any program's database format to be independent of the 'middle-
layer', or core computation of the program. If the UI is also
independent, you can have a client or web-interface or java or both
and the rest of the code won't be effected.

And these days if you can put a web-service interface your players
can query player-only data over their own laptops when playing and
get up to date world or house-rules data...

Then when you go virtual world a few years later, you'll be all set :)

David Union

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Martin Gallo <martimer@...> wrote:
>
> It looks like I am finally going to make a run at writing my long
> dreamed of DQ computer aid program. Do not ask why this has taken
so
> long or what is motivating me now or a completion date estimate. I
am
> working on it here and there. So far the only restriction I know
of
> is that user's will need to have higher that 640 x 480 screen
> resolution and 800 x 600 is in danger. Yes this means it will run
on
> Mac and Windows.
>
> Currently I have my creature data imported and have set up a way
to
> edit any of the existing creatures and am working on a way to add/
> delete creatures.
>
> Next up is the encounter generator. This will be something simple -

> basically it rolls up a set of creatures randomly. The idea is to
> work with the software prior to the adventure to print (or pdf)
them
> out for use during the game (keeps the computer away from the
crumbs
> and soda spills).
>
> I have not figured out exactly how/whether to integrate magic and
> skills tracking (or EXP expenditure) and I will address that as
part
> of the PC/NPC generation (following encounters). I may just load
the
> magic and skills section in for reference or to print out for
player
> reference.
>
> I had a dream about a combat simulator, but doubt that will ever
happen.
>
> I am planning to do this regardless of whether there is any
interest.
> I am curious whether there is any interest and if so is it enough
to
> charge for it. I also am not sure about how or even if this will
> violate any copyright laws and do not want to debate the topic
> (useful information welcomed).
>
> Marty
>

Thanks for all that. Sounds like we had similar ideas 'back in the
day'. My successful programs include a Car Wars impulse tracker and a
Star Fleet Battles damage roller. I had started a Champions impulse
tracker, but we quit playing when many in the group ignored some GM
imposed rules. The cool thing was that I had one of those old TRS
model 100 portable devices (a very early and terrific LCD screen
laptop) that used very little table space.

I think I have cracked the I/O part and so things will be backed up
as a text file (thus also preserving the spell-check capability. Now
I just need time to work on it.

Marty

I am working on rewriting and rebalancing many of the skills of
DragonQuest. There are a few areas in Alchemy that are not expanded
upon within the rules, and was wondering how other player groups
handle them.

- How long should alchemical creations last?

- How are alchemical creations stored and how much do they weigh
empty?

- How much should alchemical creations weigh with the container?

- How do your groups handle the Herbs section. Can an alchemist make
the powders with or without having the corresponding specialty of
medicines & antidotes, potions (including venoms) and poisons.

- We allow for alchemist with the ability to make poisons the same
ability to use poisons without any danger. Do any of your groups
also allow for this?

- How do your other groups calculate costs of many of the alchemical
creations (Cost to make and cost to others)?

- How are poisons treated in dead bodies if raised by a healer?

- Do any of you allow for specialty grenados? smoke, poison, flash,
etc…

- How about the clasic Transmutations from historical Legends:
changing lead to gold, creating gems, potions of youth and
immortality, and the philosopher's stone?

- Would like any other suggestions related to alchemy that this
group might consider appropriate.

Hi all,

I just wanted to inform you that I am setting up an oldschool-oriented
message board and have created a specific DragonQuest section for it,

since DQ is one of my favourite games. The site is still pretty much
under construction, but you might like to visit. :-)

http://wayfarer.myfreeforum.org/

I hope at least some of you find their way there!

Yours,

Rafael

Just a brief note that I've put a review of
DragonQuest up at RPG.net

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12828.phtml

All the best,


Lev



____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367

Hullo, folks,

After a somewhat long, lengthy absence, I am back on the
DRAGONQUEST mailing list, although I see it is very quiet, almost dead
around here.

So, what have I missed? :)

Oh, and good to be back. :)

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

Well John, you missed a big kerfflufle at dq-rules. Some people
took umbrage at a recent review at RPGnet. It was all a bit
juvenile. other than that, nice you have you back!

JohnC

Humm, might as well delurk myself. I've been pretty damned busy and I
only read through that flamewar because this post intrigued me. I didn't
mind the actual review that much but the defense against critcisms of it
was pretty pathetic.

I believe I've got some nearly finished DQ projects sitting on a back
burner somewhere. Who wants an additional bestiary? I've got one that
has close to a couple of hundred new critters in it, based on the turn
based strategy game Dominions II: The Ascension Wars by Illwinter Games
(published by Shrapnel Games). It's more useful to campaigns that have
progressed to intermediate to high skill levels. It does incorporate a
couple of additional game mechanics where a few monsters are concerned,
but it'd be a shame just to let that thing sit unshared.

I'll also check the weapons and armor stuff I posted in the groups a
couple of years back and finally amend them for accuracy. The best thing
is that I can make the lot of them to PDF directly.

Any takers?

Edi

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

John Corey wrote:

>
> Well John, you missed a big kerfflufle at dq-rules. Some people
> took umbrage at a recent review at RPGnet. It was all a bit
> juvenile. other than that, nice you have you back!
>
> JohnC
>
> __._,
>
>
>

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

>
> Well John, you missed a big kerfflufle at dq-rules.

What's the address for dq-rules? I tried searching Google and
Yahoogroups and couldn't find it. Thanks.

--Anthony
(delurking for a moment...)

The address for dq-rules:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/

Edi

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

Anthony Ragan wrote:

>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com <mailto:dqn-list%40yahoogroups.com>,
> John Corey <john@...> wrote:
> >
> > Well John, you missed a big kerfflufle at dq-rules.
>
> What's the address for dq-rules? I tried searching Google and
> Yahoogroups and couldn't find it. Thanks.
>
> --Anthony
> (delurking for a moment...)
>
>

It is juvenile to question a person's assumptions when you feel that they
are wrong?

~Jeffery~

> Well John, you missed a big kerfflufle at dq-rules. Some people
> took umbrage at a recent review at RPGnet. It was all a bit
> juvenile. other than that, nice you have you back!
>
> JohnC
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net> wrote:

> It is juvenile to question a person's assumptions
> when you feel that they
> are wrong?
>
> ~Jeffery~

Well, let's try to look at it rationally (or at least
give it a good shot).

1) John Garcia's art. Not especially fantastic, and
certainly not enough of it to make a difference to the
style rating in any case. The fact that he's been an
illustrator for TSR, SPI and Dark Horse comics doesn't
really change my opinion on that. *shrug*

2) An page number ToC and an Index. I would have
preferred these. Sure, the numbered rules does help (I
ended up doing the same thing in a RPG supplement I
wrote many years ago), but I certainly wouldn't have
been too much of a pain to include. An index however
would have made a world of difference for players of
DQ particularly given that DQ is more than average as
a rules-heavy system.

3) Lack of a general intelligence/education
characteristic. Personally, I think this is not a
design feature for DQ, but rather a bug. I don't think
the suggestion of using PC is a particularly good one.


4) Shields and armour in DQ are comparatively poor and
unrealistically so. There really shouldn't be too much
of a debate about this, but apparently some think
otherwise. The total bonus for a shield varies from 2%
(unranked buckler) to 24% (full ranked tower). This
has no relationship to reality (if the game is trying
to be simulationist, which I think it is), and is
quite low for other comparative games (compare RQ, RM,
Pendragon). It is somewhat on par with AD&D1e, or even
closer to C&S, especially in terms of unranked and
low-ranked use. As for armour, I do not think there is
a game which uses damage reduction where armour
protects less than in DQ. I do not think this is a
good thing.

5) Scalability of characteristics. OK, very few games
do this well. DQ isn't one of them, but that's hardly
special.

6) Arbritary restrictions of college and backfires.
Personally, I find these annoying and I stated as such
(reviewers are allowed to have personal opinions and
tates, y'know). I also dislike the fact that spell
backfires do not scale.

As always, imo and ymmv. However, I think it *is*
juvenile to believe there is only one legitimate
opinion on matters which are clearly and obviously
questions of taste rather than empirical matters.



____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/

Since this debate seems to be reviving again, I'll take a stab at it.

Lev--

1) I don't disagree with the issue of the art. I don't really give much
of a damn about it, since it's a non-issue for me. Third edition had a
bit more and a couple of better pictures, but generally it could have
been better.

2) Originally I found the lack of index annoying, but learned soon
enough to use the numbered index, which I found just as good. Given that
most rules sections in DQ are no more than a page or so, except in the
monster section, the lack of index isn't that much of an issue. Would be
nice to have, lack doesn't slow the players down too much, though. And
it WAS made nearly 30 years ago.

3) You are entitled to your opinion. Personally, I like not having a
general intelligence characteristic, because I've had enough experience
of players who roll high intelligence and wisdom for their characters
and then proceed to play them like complete bloody morons. In DQ, I
don't have to deal with that and I do NOT get the whining about "I want
an intel check to retcon out the stupid! Waaaaahhhh!" I can just tell
them to quit yapping and kill their characters off and tell them to use
their own brains a bit more the next time. A good role player does NOT
need an education or intelligence characteristic, since if their
character isn't the brightest one in the world, they know how to play it
that way, and if the character is intelligent, they can also manage
that. The Willpower and Perception characteristic and some judicious
role playing cover pretty damned well almost any situation where other
games use intelligence instead. It also tends to reduce the rules lawyering.

4) I find the armor system works just fine and heavy armor really makes
it pretty damn difficult to kill someone unless you get in critical hits
or grievous injuries. Especially if you put any armor on creatures that
already have natural armor. Slap a leather armor on an ogre and it's the
equivalent of improved plate armor. Put plate armor on the ogre and it
suddenly gets to the point where critical hits are almost the only way
to get any damage in.

The shield system is rather 'meh' and the modifiers could be and should
be greater in my opinion. Or perhaps there should be a defense modifier
AND an armor modifier to shields, so that if the attacker rolls too low
to hit past the shield but high enough to hit if there was no shield, he
hits the shield instead and then the shield armor value gets deducted.
Obviously the shield armor values would likely be greater than other
armor values to be any use if that system were used.

5) I've yet to see ANY system that scales characteristics well. Star
Frontiers, maybe, but that's about it. None of the other dozen or so
games I've got and the other dozen or two I've seen manage it well. No
big deal.

6) I like the backfire system. It makes mages thing a bit before they
try the über-spell of doom they just learned without any preparation or
before they have experience with it. Some of the effects are annoying,
but on balance, it's not too bad. The college restrictions are another
matter. The system works as it is and the limitation is in a way a
refreshing change from the tendency of mages to be able to do whatever
they want and have access to all magic as they wish. You need to pick
and choose if you want. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the GM
from allowing multiple Colleges. I do that myself, it's just that you
had better have damned good Magical Aptitude and even then you run the
risk of insanity. Not to mention that the rules about how many spells
you can know mean that you need to get a lot of spells squared away to
Rank 6 or above before you tackle a new college or you need to keep
things at Rank 0 and failry useless.

In any case, maybe it's just me, but I've found DQ to be the system I'm
most comfortable with. I'm so sick and tired of the various D&D versions
that I wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot pole. DQ isn't perfect, but
for something that's 30 years old, it still kicks some major arse. Needs
less customization than anything else I've run into to suit my needs too.

Edi

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

Lev Lafayette wrote:

>
>
> --- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net
> <mailto:igmod%40comcast.net>> wrote:
>
> > It is juvenile to question a person's assumptions
> > when you feel that they
> > are wrong?
> >
> > ~Jeffery~
>
> Well, let's try to look at it rationally (or at least
> give it a good shot).
>
> 1) John Garcia's art. Not especially fantastic, and
> certainly not enough of it to make a difference to the
> style rating in any case. The fact that he's been an
> illustrator for TSR, SPI and Dark Horse comics doesn't
> really change my opinion on that. *shrug*
>
> 2) An page number ToC and an Index. I would have
> preferred these. Sure, the numbered rules does help (I
> ended up doing the same thing in a RPG supplement I
> wrote many years ago), but I certainly wouldn't have
> been too much of a pain to include. An index however
> would have made a world of difference for players of
> DQ particularly given that DQ is more than average as
> a rules-heavy system.
>
> 3) Lack of a general intelligence/education
> characteristic. Personally, I think this is not a
> design feature for DQ, but rather a bug. I don't think
> the suggestion of using PC is a particularly good one.
>
> 4) Shields and armour in DQ are comparatively poor and
> unrealistically so. There really shouldn't be too much
> of a debate about this, but apparently some think
> otherwise. The total bonus for a shield varies from 2%
> (unranked buckler) to 24% (full ranked tower). This
> has no relationship to reality (if the game is trying
> to be simulationist, which I think it is), and is
> quite low for other comparative games (compare RQ, RM,
> Pendragon). It is somewhat on par with AD&D1e, or even
> closer to C&S, especially in terms of unranked and
> low-ranked use. As for armour, I do not think there is
> a game which uses damage reduction where armour
> protects less than in DQ. I do not think this is a
> good thing.
>
> 5) Scalability of characteristics. OK, very few games
> do this well. DQ isn't one of them, but that's hardly
> special.
>
> 6) Arbritary restrictions of college and backfires.
> Personally, I find these annoying and I stated as such
> (reviewers are allowed to have personal opinions and
> tates, y'know). I also dislike the fact that spell
> backfires do not scale.
>
> As always, imo and ymmv. However, I think it *is*
> juvenile to believe there is only one legitimate
> opinion on matters which are clearly and obviously
> questions of taste rather than empirical matters.
>
> .
>
>