Didn't realize it was going to turn into a cross-list sporting event.

Is there really nothing else in DQ to talk about?

Some time ago I went through the three 2nd Edition PDF DQ books and
added Acrobat bookmarks to them. Also fixed a couple hundred of the
more obvious OCR errors, especially in Book 2. And "restored" the
Shield table that was butchered in the original Book 1 PDF.

Anybody care? Should I upload them here?

What do you mean "Should I?" What kind of a question is that? Of course
you should! Gimme already! :-D

Edi

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

darkislephil wrote:

>
> Some time ago I went through the three 2nd Edition PDF DQ books and
> added Acrobat bookmarks to them. Also fixed a couple hundred of the
> more obvious OCR errors, especially in Book 2. And "restored" the
> Shield table that was butchered in the original Book 1 PDF.
>
> Anybody care? Should I upload them here?
>
> .
>
>

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the dqn-list
group.

File : /DQ_Armaments.pdf
Uploaded by : esko_halttunen <edirr@welho.com>
Description : Comprehensive list of weapons & armor from all editions of DQ

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/files/DQ_Armaments.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

esko_halttunen <edirr@welho.com>

Yes I care. Please either post them or email me a copy.

Thanks for the effort.

> Some time ago I went through the three 2nd Edition PDF DQ books and
> added Acrobat bookmarks to them. Also fixed a couple hundred of the
> more obvious OCR errors, especially in Book 2. And "restored" the
> Shield table that was butchered in the original Book 1 PDF.
>
> Anybody care? Should I upload them here?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange

Hello all!

Since the recent events on both he dq-rules and DQN-list groups managed
to prod me back to the dusty archive folders where I've got my DQ files,
I figured I might as well finish one of my long-neglected projects. More
than three years ago (Has it really been that damned long already?!?!) I
undertook to compile a comprehensive list of weapons and armor from all
three editions of DQ, the Poor Brendan's Almanac and a couple of other
sources I'd run across. That project progressed some, then went back to
sleep, was revived and finally at one point I managed to get a friend of
mine with extensive knowledge of historical weapons to do a quick review
to check that I wasn't talking out of my arse on some sections. So I
dusted that file off, made the finishing touches, corrections and final
last minute additions such as the Introduction to it and converted the
whole damn thing to a PDF.

So, Edi proudly presents:
DQ Armaments : Weapons, Armor & Shields supplement, uploaded to both
dq-rules and DQN-list. Hence the crosspost.

I hope you enjoy it. I would very much welcome feedback.

Best regards,
Edi

--- jcorey30 <john@johncorey.com> wrote:

> here is an interesting and new way to take this
> agruement. There is new informaiton here.
> What do you think Lev?

Personally, I think the best paper on different
"types" of intelligence can be found in the American
Psychological Association's publication after the
publication of "The Bell Curve". It's entitled
"Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns". One aspect I
particularly like was the inclusion of Piaget's
developmental approach to cognitive processing and
Vygotsky's "proximal intelligence".

A strong definition comes from "Mainstream Science on
Intelligence", which was signed by 52 intelligence
researchers in 1994. They provided the following
definition:

'... a very general mental capability that, among
other things, involves the ability to reason, plan,
solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex
ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is
not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or
test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and
deeper capability for comprehending our
surroundings—"catching on", "making sense" of things,
or "figuring out" what to do.'

"Multiple intelligences" is hardly a new proposal. The
version referred to below was first suggested by
Howard Gardner in 1981, and was prominent in the book
"Frames of Mind" (1983). The biggest problem the
theory has is that it offers no predictive outcome and
when actually tested the existence of the proposed
multiplicity of intelligences is dubious at best. A
stronger version is Robert Sternberg (1985) who splits
intelligence into analytic, creative, and practical
which does have more empirical backing.

> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Lance Dyas
> <lance@...> wrote:
> >
> > davis john wrote:
> > >
> > > I like DQ because it has No INT stat.
> > >
> > Always thought it was an interesting feature.. got
> me thinking about
> > what intelligence was
> > There are studies are out in the real world about
> whether such a thing
> > even exists....
> >
> > General intelligence is kind of an old fashioned
> concept
> > Last thing I saw the more current theory is there
> are closer to 10 or 12
> > intelligences
> > In effect these intelligences represent specific
> talent areas where
> > somebodies reasoning
> > and memory and perception etc speed of learning
> etc all work "better"
> >
> > People have a Green(Nature etc) intelligence and a
> Mathlematic Intelligence
> > and a Musical Intelligence entirely independent of
> one another...
> > and it means they learn and reason and remember
> better or worse in
> > each field, I think the scientists even required
> for an intelligence to be
> > distinct it had to involve distinct parts of the
> brain.
> >
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups
> email.
>

http://us.click.yahoo.com/4It09A/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/ofVplB/TM

>

--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

____________________________________________________________________________________
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php

Lev Lafayette wrote:

>
>
> --- jcorey30 <john@johncorey. com <mailto:john%40johncorey.com>> wrote:
>
> > here is an interesting and new way to take this
> > agruement. There is new informaiton here.
> > What do you think Lev?
>
> Personally, I think the best paper on different
> "types" of intelligence can be found in the American
> Psychological Association' s publication after the
> publication of "The Bell Curve".
>

Ahh yes the prejudice and bigotry enabler... After the political agenda
of that thing... I cant imagine anyone taking it seriously.

"The Bell Curve,/ /near its closing tail, contains two chapters
concerned with affirmative action, in higher education and in the
workplace. To read those chapters is to hear the second shoe drop.
The rest of the book, I believe, was written merely as a prelude to
its assault on affirmative action. The vigor of the attack is
astonishing." Ö (pg 98)

"Now, at long last, Herrnstein and Murray let it all hang out:
"affirmative action, in education and the workplace alike, is
leaking a poison into the American soul." Having examined the
American condition at the close of the twentieth century, these two
philosopher-kings conclude, "It is time for America once again to
try living with inequality, as life is lived...." This kind of
sentiment, I imagine, lay behind the conclusion of /New York Times
/columnist Bob Herbert that "the book is just a genteel way of
calling somebody a nigger." Herbert is right. The book has nothing
to do with science." (pg 99)

Hi John

> > 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*
>
> Actually, I disagree. John Garcia's artwork in
> the main DQ
> rulebook is actually quite good for the time, and
> represents what he was
> doing back in 1979/1980.

*meh* If the range of opinions seems to be from "OK"
to "Quite Good"...

> > 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.
>
> I agree that a ToC and an Index would have been
> useful. There is a
> ToC technically, but what it lacks are page numbers,
> however that's a
> minor quibble. The Index is something that would
> have been very useful,
> but I can't see one being done by the fans now given
> we're all using
> different versions of the main book likely.

*nods*

>
> > 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.
>
> Frankly, I can't agree with this. One of the
> biggest problems
> with any game statistic or characteristic is whether
> the player can play
> it, and Intelligence is one of the ones that can is
> the worst offender
> in this regard. This debate raged here and on the
> old DQ lists at one
> time, but it's moot. What it really comes down to
> is that the game was
> created back in a time when that sort of stat wasn't
> common. Players
> were expected to use their own intelligence to do
> things, not one that
> is a game mechanic. But we can agree to disagree on
> this point for the
> rest of our lives, if you like. :)

Sure... Although I am interested in the conundrum that
is raised by NPCs. Does this mean that the GM should
be the smartest player? ;-)

> As for an Education characteristic, well... I
> think it has its
> uses in CALL OF CTHULHU and a couple of other games
> out there, but how
> would you incorporate this in a fantasy mediaeval
> world, where
> technically speaking, 98% of the popyulation are
> illiterate (if you go
> with a somewhat realistic model of the world
> (another can of worms, I
> know))?

A combination of "age" and "worldliness" would be a
good combination, imo.

> At one time, I actually added an Intelligence
> characteristic to my
> DRAGONQUEST game, but I abandoned it some time in
> late 2000, since it
> really served no purpose, and players have an
> inability to play certain
> INTs. The characteristic serves no purpose in a
> game such as DQ, in my
> experience and opinion.

Including a new characteristic should mean integration
into the game system mechanics, otherwise, yes, it
will be useless. Because AD&D doesn't integrate CHA
heavily in the system it is typically used as a "dump
stat".

For example, using INT to provide an experience point
multiplier or reduced training times, to act as a
modifier to various skills (e.g., the various alchemy,
astrologer, mechanician, merchant, military scientist,
navigator).

> Always did like this concept in DQ, and it was the
> first rpg to use this
> Characteristic, too.

Good point. It is indeed one of my favourite
contributions by DQ.

> > 4) Shields and armour in DQ are comparatively poor
>
> The whole business with armour and shields in
> DQ has been a
> bugbear (no pun intended) for...well, since the game
> came out. Some
> people can live with it, others can't. The real
> problems that D&Ders
> and some others who came to the game back in the
> early days was the fact
> that they couldn't get used to the fact that armour
> absorbed damage, and
> didn't reduce the chance to hit the way it did in
> D&D.

I think players with Intelligence scores that low
shouldn't be playing RPGs ;-)

> Other than that,
> I'm going to leave this discussion to those with
> more experience than I,
> but I will state that having been part of SCA for a
> while back when, I
> was pretty lousy with a shield without having any
> skill in it. That
> said, if you want to provide a "revised" set of
> Shield rules, go for it.
> I'll certainly look at it open-minded.

My experience with a shield (and it's pretty minimal,
I'm more of a fencer) is that the general principles
aren't too much different to other parrying weapons -
deflect, don't block, protect from the angle of attack
etc.

I'll give it a whirl writing up some alternate rules
and putting them on the rules-list (rather than the
news-list)

> > 5) Scalability of characteristics. OK, very few
>
> I don't know whether this is true or not.
> When it comes right
> down to it, the way you treat the Physical Strength
> (PS) of a human or a
> minotaur character (if you were to allow the latter)
> seems to work fine
> in the game system. This one I think needs a bit
> more explanation on
> your part, since the review pretty much skimped on
> this one.

Well, the obvious example is from contested PS
situations which suggests a linear scale, but where
that isn't applied on creature statistics. For
example, two PS 20 people shouldn't be considered as
strong as PS 40 bear.

> > 6) Arbritary restrictions of college and
> backfires.
>
> Frankly, I don't find that the magic system in
> DQ is all that
> arbitrary, and it didn't seem that way when we were
> playtesting the game
> system (although that was 25+ years ago, so my
> memories aren't sharp on
> some of that stuff any more). The Colleges are not
> restrictive, except
> in the sense that a Mage who uses magics of earth
> can't use magics of
> necromancy, air, fire, and ensorcelments, but this
> has a lot of credence
> when it comes to myth, tales, and literature.

I'm racking my brains on this one, and I can't think
of a *lot* of credence. Sure fantasy and mythic
wizards specialise, we all do, but usually it's a
little more open than what DQ suggests. Perhaps a
restriction on the branch of magic (elemental, entity
and thaumatugy) would have been a better requirement.

> As
> for the backfires,
> well...I think every GM that I have ever known who
> runs DQ tailors their
> backfires according to the College type and stuff
> like that. More
> comments on this are welcome.

*nods* That would be nice...

All the best,


Lev



____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/

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

> > I said your opinion on shields was categorically
> > wrong, but it wasn't a mere matter of taste, but
> > rather an empirical issue. An untrained person
> will
> > benefit by more than 2-6% by picking up a shield,
> they
> > really will.
>
> On what do you base this conclusion?

Actual use and discussion with others in the same
situation.

> > I have played DragonQuest on more than twenty-five
> > occassions as both player and GM (although most of
> my
> > DQ gaming was about 15+ years ago). I consider
> that
> > sufficient practical experience to go along with a
> > "programmer's approach"* to the game system.
>
> Twenty-five occassions is different from the 25
> years you said you played.

Ummm... No it's not, and have perplexed by the mental
processes that one uses to come to such a conclusion.

> > Not when there's a simulationist agenda in the
> game
> > (and DQ certainly was trying to be "realistic" in
> its
> > combat system, wasn't it?)
>
> What-huh?

That's not an answer ;-)

> > Yes, I *agree* with the DR system used in DQ, in
> RQ,
> > in GURPS, in Pendragon etc. The point I have made
> on
> > several occassions (indeed, on this thread and in
> the
> > review) is that armour in DQ is not as effective
> as in
> > these other examples. *Significantly* so.
>
> How is it not effective?

As I have pointed out - empirically - it is not *as*
effective as armour in the aforementioned games.

> That is a GM issue. I have had no problem deciding
> what an NPC has for
> intelligence. I don't need a stat for it. I've
> played Orcs as smart, dumb,
> gullible and everything in between. Relying on a
> stat do determine the
> intelligence of an NPC is a crutch and not needed
> for a good GM. Of course
> that is just my opinion.

You may as well say the same thing about every other
stat in the game. The question is whether the game
system could be improved (provide more opportunities
for story-telling, challenges, model-simulation) with
the integration of the stat into the mechanics. On all
levels I think this is the case.

Also, as someone who has been told by so many people
my ears are ringing over it that they are a good GM, I
prefer Intelligence stats in game systems. ;-)

Regards,


Lev



____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121

The confusion between correlation and causation that went on in "The
Bell Curve"
was umm impressive ;-). Anyone who cares can investigate the
pseudo-science that the
bell curve represents in there public library a personal read like I did..
a few years ago or see some reviews on the web...
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/bellcurve.shtml

If you are interested in modelling talents... like the character who
"Never forgets a face"
or "Just seems to have a green thumb" and dont want a single stat to
have a bloated
importance on your game... well you might find multiple intelligence
theory fun.

By the way...
My son tested out off the chart recently on whatever version of IQ tests
they are now
using in school. Practical and Creative and Analytical sounds like it
might have been
the categorizations used
It still seems like these are approaches rather than abilities ... My
wife has a practical
and occasionally creative approach and Im a analytical and creative
type, my son
is pretty much flooded by the value of all three.

They said it was very unusual for someone to be so far out on all
scales... they didn't
test him for kinesthetics or they might have found he is not
particularly above average


Lance Dyas wrote:

>
> Lev Lafayette wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- jcorey30 <john@johncorey. com <mailto:john% 40johncorey. com>>
> wrote:
> >
> > > here is an interesting and new way to take this
> > > agruement. There is new informaiton here.
> > > What do you think Lev?
> >
> > Personally, I think the best paper on different
> > "types" of intelligence can be found in the American
> > Psychological Association' s publication after the
> > publication of "The Bell Curve".
> >
> Ahh yes the prejudice and bigotry enabler... After the political agenda
> of that thing... I cant imagine anyone taking it seriously.
>
> "The Bell Curve,/ /near its closing tail, contains two chapters
> concerned with affirmative action, in higher education and in the
> workplace. To read those chapters is to hear the second shoe drop.
> The rest of the book, I believe, was written merely as a prelude to
> its assault on affirmative action. The vigor of the attack is
> astonishing. " Ö (pg 98)
>
> "Now, at long last, Herrnstein and Murray let it all hang out:
> "affirmative action, in education and the workplace alike, is
> leaking a poison into the American soul." Having examined the
> American condition at the close of the twentieth century, these two
> philosopher- kings conclude, "It is time for America once again to
> try living with inequality, as life is lived...." This kind of
> sentiment, I imagine, lay behind the conclusion of /New York Times
> /columnist Bob Herbert that "the book is just a genteel way of
> calling somebody a nigger." Herbert is right. The book has nothing
> to do with science." (pg 99)
>

It's the kind of question that the list moderator has final say on. :)

But I've uploaded the three books plus the sample adventure I had to
excise as the file size on the 3rd book was too big for Yahoo. The
files can be found in the Files area under Archives (just because that
is where Arcane Wisdom was located).

As I said, I fixed a number of OCR errors in the original versions but
there are undoubtedly more so if you find them let me know and I'll
fix them.

Layout issues I can't really deal with as I only have the Standard
edition of Acrobat and its editing abilities are limited.

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Edi <edirr@...> wrote:
>
> What do you mean "Should I?" What kind of a question is that? Of course
> you should! Gimme already! :-D
>
> Edi
>
> -----------------
>
> darkislephil wrote:
> >
> > Some time ago I went through the three 2nd Edition PDF DQ books and
> > added Acrobat bookmarks to them. Also fixed a couple hundred of the
> > more obvious OCR errors, especially in Book 2. And "restored" the
> > Shield table that was butchered in the original Book 1 PDF.
> >
> > Anybody care? Should I upload them here?
> >
> > .
> >
> >
>

Lev Lafayette wrote:

>
> This simply isn't true.
>
> GM: OK, the message scroll appears to encrypted.
> Player: Hmmm, I have an Intelligence of 23. Can I
> figure it out? [The player in question has an
> Intelligence of 15]
> GM: OK, this is a characteristic test, with a multiple
> of 3, so that's a 69% chance. It'll take you fifteen
> minutes per test.
> Player: Hey, I rolled a 55, I guess I make it, eh?
> GM: OK they information is ....
>

This is a perfect example of why I don't care for the INT stat in GURPS.
Or for using basic characteristics for skill tests.
It is lazy. It is unrealistic. Intelligence is a thing based on
experience and specialized knowledge. Should a PC that has no real
experience in decryption be able to roll the dice and be told the
answer? No. I know some very intelligent people that are stumped by
the entire idea of encryption/decryption. It is simply not part of
their knowledge or experience. If I had a great need for there to be
decryption of documents in a DQ campaign, I'd add it as a sub-skill
under Spy/Thief. Or better yet, keep it simple enough that my players
could figure it out themselves.

> Apart from the trivial examples of Intelligence
> characteristic tests, there is also default abilities
> in skill and ability tests (e.g., a highly Intelligent
> mechanician may be more inventive that a dull one,
> even if they have the same competence).
>

This is where the skill Ranks come into play in DQ. DQ has specialized
intelligence, just like the real world. Should a Beast Master PC with a
high INT by default be able to mix an Alchemist potion just because of
the high characteristic? A high rank mechanician has more knowledge
than a lower ranked one. The role playing performed by the player
determines inventiveness. I played a GURPS game at Origins last year
that was nothing more than a "Choose your own adventure" book, where the
choices were determined by dice rolls. Boring. Your INT test example
above is boring... the player would just keep rolling the dice
(following the 15 minute restriction) until the luck of the roll gives
them success.
Don't get me wrong, a good GURPS GM can use the base characteristic
tests to enhance a game, but so often it becomes a crutch for lazy GMing
and lazy role playing.

I think you are expecting DQ to be more like GURPS or other more modern
game. Well, it is sort of the proto-GURPS. DQ skills are broad and are
more like job descriptions, where GURPS breaks down the job into
individual skills and abilities. There are people that cite this very
thing as making GURPS overly complex.

And if you look closely, many of the DQ skills include information a GM
can use on how to let a PC perform an unranked test for success.

--- Deven Atkinson <deven@sciotowireless.net> wrote:

>
> This is a perfect example of why I don't care for
> the INT stat in GURPS.
> Or for using basic characteristics for skill
> tests.
> It is lazy. It is unrealistic. Intelligence is a
> thing based on
> experience and specialized knowledge. Should a PC
> that has no real
> experience in decryption be able to roll the dice
> and be told the
> answer? No. I know some very intelligent people
> that are stumped by
> the entire idea of encryption/decryption. It is
> simply not part of
> their knowledge or experience. If I had a great
> need for there to be
> decryption of documents in a DQ campaign, I'd add it
> as a sub-skill
> under Spy/Thief. Or better yet, keep it simple
> enough that my players
> could figure it out themselves.

Actually I think this is erroneous; on two points.

Firstly, wrt to knowledge and experience, the GURPS IQ
stat explicitly states that it refers to both
cognitive ability and to general knowledge.

Secondly, basic encryption/decryption (simple
substitution ciphers and transposition ciphers and
even simple polyalphabetic substitution) is a
cognitive ability, rather than a trained skill.

In complex substitution and transposition ciphers
mathematical formulae are used to create the
encryption patterns; these *would* require specialist
training in that field.

Even more advanced cryptography (symmetric key and
assymmetric algorithms) require special machines due
to the sheer quantity of variables.

Regards,


Lev



____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peek at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather

Nice work collecting all of that together!

>>
>> Twenty-five occassions is different from the 25
>> years you said you played.
>
> Ummm... No it's not, and have perplexed by the mental
> processes that one uses to come to such a conclusion.

Excuse me, how is 25 occasions sthe same as 25 years?

Definition of occassion is: a particular time, esp. as marked by certain
circumstances or occurrences: They met on three occasions.

In other words, you played DQ on 25 occasions, but not for 25 years, unless
you are saying that you played DQ on one occasion each year. That's not
much at all.

>> > Not when there's a simulationist agenda in the
>> game
>> > (and DQ certainly was trying to be "realistic" in
>> its
>> > combat system, wasn't it?)
>>
>> What-huh?
>
> That's not an answer ;-)

No its not an answer its an expression saying I haven't the faintest idea of
what you are talking about. DQ combat system is far more realistic than D&D
and most other RPGs I've participated in. But what are you actually trying
to say?

>> > Yes, I *agree* with the DR system used in DQ, in
>> RQ,
>> > in GURPS, in Pendragon etc. The point I have made
>> on
>> > several occassions (indeed, on this thread and in
>> the
>> > review) is that armour in DQ is not as effective
>> as in
>> > these other examples. *Significantly* so.
>>
>> How is it not effective?
>
> As I have pointed out - empirically - it is not *as*
> effective as armour in the aforementioned games.

How is it not as effective as armor in other games? Provide examples so I
know what you are talking about, or know that you know what you are talking
about.

>> That is a GM issue. I have had no problem deciding
>> what an NPC has for
>> intelligence. I don't need a stat for it. I've
>> played Orcs as smart, dumb,
>> gullible and everything in between. Relying on a
>> stat do determine the
>> intelligence of an NPC is a crutch and not needed
>> for a good GM. Of course
>> that is just my opinion.
>
> You may as well say the same thing about every other
> stat in the game. The question is whether the game
> system could be improved (provide more opportunities
> for story-telling, challenges, model-simulation) with
> the integration of the stat into the mechanics. On all
> levels I think this is the case.

And I don't. We can agree to disagree.

> Also, as someone who has been told by so many people
> my ears are ringing over it that they are a good GM, I
> prefer Intelligence stats in game systems. ;-)

It is not mine, and it is not others, but you seem to be on a quest to
convince others that it is a good idea, even when you are repeatedly told
that other people aren't interested. Fine, you like Intelligence stats but
many don't, please stop trying to convince us that it is a good idea.

~Jeffery~

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

>
> >>
> >> Twenty-five occassions is different from the 25
> >> years you said you played.
> >
> > Ummm... No it's not, and have perplexed by the
> mental
> > processes that one uses to come to such a
> conclusion.
>
> Excuse me, how is 25 occasions sthe same as 25
> years?

Ummm... It's not the same thing; but they are not
exclusive either. One can play a game on twenty five
different occassions over a twenty-five year period.

> In other words, you played DQ on 25 occasions, but
> not for 25 years, unless
> you are saying that you played DQ on one occasion
> each year. That's not
> much at all.

LOL... Yeah, I played once put the game run for 25
years. Except for tea and sleep breaks ;-)

(Actually I did run Rolemaster for 78 hours once...)

> >>
> >> What-huh?
> >
> > That's not an answer ;-)
>
> No its not an answer its an expression saying I
> haven't the faintest idea of
> what you are talking about. DQ combat system is far
> more realistic than D&D
> and most other RPGs I've participated in. But what
> are you actually trying
> to say?

OK, this is good. So you admit that DQ has a
simulationist agenda. Cool.

The point in question is that it is *not* faulty to
use other (simulationist) games (e.g., RuneQuest,
GURPS) that have different rules as benchmarks because
the *effects* (e.g., relative capacity of armour to
protect) should be realistic regardless of the system.

> > As I have pointed out - empirically - it is not
> *as*
> > effective as armour in the aforementioned games.
>
> How is it not as effective as armor in other games?
> Provide examples so I
> know what you are talking about, or know that you
> know what you are talking
> about.

I have already discussed this on the other list. To
summarise an example, chainmail will negate damage
from a broadsword approximately 20% of the time. In
GURPS, RQ and Pendragon (three game systems which also
use damage reduction methods) however that figure is
50%+.

I could do statistical analysis of all weapons and
armour, but if you look through the charts of the four
game systems in question you will discern that what I
am writing is true. Armour simply does protect as well
in DQ as it does in other games. This is not a matter
of opinion, but one of verifiable fact.

> > You may as well say the same thing about every
> other
> > stat in the game. The question is whether the game
> > system could be improved (provide more
> opportunities
> > for story-telling, challenges, model-simulation)
> with
> > the integration of the stat into the mechanics. On
> all
> > levels I think this is the case.
>
> And I don't. We can agree to disagree.

You realise of course, but even describing an orc as
being dumb, average or smart you are effectively
giving it an impromptu system stat of course ;-)

> Fine, you like
> Intelligence stats but
> many don't, please stop trying to convince us that
> it is a good idea.

I'll advocate whatever I think is appropriate, thank
you very much. You are under no compulsion to accept
or reject the arguments, let alone even read them.

Regards,


Lev



____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

Hullo, Lev,

In a message of March 19th, 2007, Lev Lafayette wrote,

>>>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*
>>
>> Actually, I disagree. John Garcia's artwork in the main DQ
>>rulebook is actually quite good for the time, and represents what he was
>>doing back in 1979/1980.
>
> *meh* If the range of opinions seems to be from "OK"
> to "Quite Good"...

Perhaps, but you have to remember to evaluate it based on what was
being done at the time, not on what is being done now. Too often
reviews of old products or old rpgs tend to forget that the market has
changed so much (especially since the early 1980's) that it's an apples
vs. oranges kind of thing. Artwork in rpg books is no exception.

>>>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.
>>
>> Frankly, I can't agree with this. One of the biggest problems
>>with any game statistic or characteristic is whether the player can play
>>it, and Intelligence is one of the ones that can is the worst offender
>>in this regard. This debate raged here and on the old DQ lists at one
>>time, but it's moot. What it really comes down to is that the game was
>>created back in a time when that sort of stat wasn't common. Players
>>were expected to use their own intelligence to do things, not one that
>>is a game mechanic. But we can agree to disagree on this point for the
>>rest of our lives, if you like. :)
>
> Sure... Although I am interested in the conundrum that
> is raised by NPCs. Does this mean that the GM should
> be the smartest player? ;-)

Well, you have to remember these games are *roleplaying* games. As
far as I am concerned (and I suspect a lot of the old-time gamers are
concerned), Intelligence is not something that is dice rolled. In games
where the stat exists, such as CoC, early D&D, and others, the players
had the joy of just using the dice to determine whether the character
could solve a riddle, or some such, and this was just too much. In DQ,
I use WP to have a character remember a piece of information the
character might know with a variable DF depending on the length of time
that has passed. After having tried to put that stat into the game, I
realised that it doesn't work very well, and is better left out.

>> As for an Education characteristic, well... I
>>think it has its uses in CALL OF CTHULHU and a couple of other games
>>out there, but how would you incorporate this in a fantasy mediaeval
>>world, where technically speaking, 98% of the popyulation are
>>illiterate (if you go with a somewhat realistic model of the world
>>(another can of worms, I know))?
>
> A combination of "age" and "worldliness" would be a good combination,
>imo.

In which case, the stat should not be called "Education." Most
game systems that have something along the lines of an Education stat
either give the character more points to allot to something, or give the
character a batch of default education- or worldliness-derived skills.
ARROWFLIGHT, and all of the Chaosium systems are good examples of this.

Mind you, I'd *love* to see what you could work out for this! <g>

>> At one time, I actually added an Intelligence characteristic to my
>>DRAGONQUEST game, but I abandoned it some time in late 2000, since it
>>really served no purpose, and players have an inability to play certain
>>INTs. The characteristic serves no purpose in a game such as DQ, in my
>>experience and opinion.
>
> Including a new characteristic should mean integration
> into the game system mechanics, otherwise, yes, it
> will be useless. Because AD&D doesn't integrate CHA
> heavily in the system it is typically used as a "dump
> stat".
>
> For example, using INT to provide an experience point
> multiplier or reduced training times, to act as a
> modifier to various skills (e.g., the various alchemy,
> astrologer, mechanician, merchant, military scientist,
> navigator).

Maybe, maybe not. As things are, characters increase their
abilities too fast as it is in DQ. Especially if one plays the game on
a regular basis.

>>Always did like this concept in DQ, and it was the first rpg to use this
>>Characteristic, too.
>
> Good point. It is indeed one of my favourite contributions by DQ.

Mine too. :)

>>>4) Shields and armour in DQ are comparatively poor
>>
>> The whole business with armour and shields in DQ has been a
>>bugbear (no pun intended) for...well, since the game came out. Some
>>people can live with it, others can't. The real problems that D&Ders
>>and some others who came to the game back in the early days was the fact
>>that they couldn't get used to the fact that armour absorbed damage, and
>>didn't reduce the chance to hit the way it did in D&D.
>
> I think players with Intelligence scores that low shouldn't be playing RPGs ;-)

Ah, but you forget: When a lot of players were discovering the
DRAGONQUEST system and coming over to it from D&D's early
incarnation(s), armour reduced chance to hit through the AC business in
D&D, and DRAGONQUEST's armour reducing damage taken was greeted with,
"What the <bleep>!!??" Sure, it may be common sense, but most rpgs out
there at the time weren't handling it this way.

>> Other than that, I'm going to leave this discussion to those with
>>more experience than I, but I will state that having been part of SCA for a
>>while back when, I was pretty lousy with a shield without having any
>>skill in it. That said, if you want to provide a "revised" set of
>>Shield rules, go for it. I'll certainly look at it open-minded.
>
> My experience with a shield (and it's pretty minimal,
> I'm more of a fencer) is that the general principles
> aren't too much different to other parrying weapons -
> deflect, don't block, protect from the angle of attack
> etc.

Sure, but without being ambidextrous and having no training with
the shield, you're lucky if you can coordinate an attack and a defense.
I know, from personal experience, and have a scar to prove it. :( And
shields are not as light as people make them out to be, comparatively.
But enough on this, we'll leave this to others to deal with. :)

> I'll give it a whirl writing up some alternate rules
> and putting them on the rules-list (rather than the
> news-list)

I'd like to see this, too. :)

I'm going to write a second, separate post about this, and will
comment there.

>>>5) Scalability of characteristics. OK, very few
>>
>> I don't know whether this is true or not. When it comes right
>>down to it, the way you treat the Physical Strength (PS) of a human or a
>>minotaur character (if you were to allow the latter) seems to work fine
>>in the game system. This one I think needs a bit more explanation on
>>your part, since the review pretty much skimped on this one.
>
> Well, the obvious example is from contested PS
> situations which suggests a linear scale, but where
> that isn't applied on creature statistics. For
> example, two PS 20 people shouldn't be considered as
> strong as PS 40 bear.

Frankly, scaled systems for characteristics and the like belong in
superhero rpgs, where you need to simulate Superman's strength versus
that of Jimmy Olsen or whatever. The DQ system works fine, far as I'm
concerned, and has done so for 25+ years. That said, what would the DQ
system be like if it were being designed these days? :)

>>>6) Arbritary restrictions of college and backfires.
>>
>> Frankly, I don't find that the magic system in DQ is all that
>>arbitrary, and it didn't seem that way when we were playtesting the game
>>system (although that was 25+ years ago, so my memories aren't sharp on
>>some of that stuff any more). The Colleges are not restrictive, except
>>in the sense that a Mage who uses magics of earth can't use magics of
>>necromancy, air, fire, and ensorcelments, but this has a lot of credence
>>when it comes to myth, tales, and literature.
>
> I'm racking my brains on this one, and I can't think
> of a *lot* of credence. Sure fantasy and mythic
> wizards specialise, we all do, but usually it's a
> little more open than what DQ suggests. Perhaps a
> restriction on the branch of magic (elemental, entity
> and thaumatugy) would have been a better requirement.

Maybe, I don't know. What I do know is the magic system works
pretty well, and to be honest, with some of the new Colleges of Magic
I've seen out on the web (not to mention the stuff I've come up with
myself), well...you can do pretty much anything you want.

>> As for the backfires, >well...I think every GM that I have ever known who
>>runs DQ tailors their backfires according to the College type and stuff
>>like that. More comments on this are welcome.
>
> *nods* That would be nice...

Nobody's commmented on this yet, perhaps it needs to be in s
separate post. :)

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

Hullo, Lev,

In a message of March 19th, 2007, Lev Lafayette wrote,

>>>I said your opinion on shields was categorically
>>>wrong, but it wasn't a mere matter of taste, but
>>>rather an empirical issue. An untrained person
>>will benefit by more than 2-6% by picking up a shield,
>>they really will.
>>
>>On what do you base this conclusion?
>
> Actual use and discussion with others in the same
> situation.

Is it that you find the rules for shields to be
too...unrealistic...or that you find the maximum Rank for shields to be
too low?

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

Hullo, Lev,

In a message of March 19th, 2007, Lev Lafayette wrote,

> I'll give it a whirl writing up some alternate rules
> and putting them on the rules-list (rather than the
> news-list)

Post the rules here.

I just wanted to comment on something here. I've gone through
about 900+ on the dq-rules mailing list, and want to say that there is a
lot of stuff there that could just as easily have been put on this
mailing list and kept the traffic going and an active list flowing here.

JohnR, Rodger, if you're both still here, I just want to say that
while it's really good to have both lists, I think the functions of the
two lists need to be clarified a bit more, or perhaps the lists need to
be merged. There's just not enough traffic in my opinion on either list
to justify both lists these days.

What are the functions of the two lists? :)

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

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

> Hullo, Lev,
>
> In a message of March 19th, 2007, Lev Lafayette
> wrote,
>
> >>>I said your opinion on shields was categorically
> >>>wrong, but it wasn't a mere matter of taste, but
> >>>rather an empirical issue. An untrained person
> >>will benefit by more than 2-6% by picking up a
> shield,
> >>they really will.
> >>
> >>On what do you base this conclusion?
> >
> > Actual use and discussion with others in the same
> > situation.
>
> Is it that you find the rules for shields to
> be
> too...unrealistic...or that you find the maximum
> Rank for shields to be
> too low?
>

On the latter point I don't really know. I'm not an
experienced shield user in person ;-) I'll have to ask
a couple of my SCA buddies about that. However, I am
absolutely certain that a untrained and minimally
person who uses a shield will gain a greater bonus to
defense than 2-4%... Five times that figure would be
more appropriate.

Regards,

Lev



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

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

> Hullo, Lev,
>
> In a message of March 19th, 2007, Lev Lafayette
> wrote,
>
> > I'll give it a whirl writing up some alternate
> rules
> > and putting them on the rules-list (rather than
> the
> > news-list)
>
> Post the rules here.
>
> I just wanted to comment on something here.
> I've gone through
> about 900+ on the dq-rules mailing list, and want to
> say that there is a
> lot of stuff there that could just as easily have
> been put on this
> mailing list and kept the traffic going and an
> active list flowing here.
>
> JohnR, Rodger, if you're both still here, I
> just want to say that
> while it's really good to have both lists, I think
> the functions of the
> two lists need to be clarified a bit more, or
> perhaps the lists need to
> be merged. There's just not enough traffic in my
> opinion on either list
> to justify both lists these days.
>
> What are the functions of the two lists? :)
>

*nods* I've been wondering the same thing. My
preference in the past has been to post 'news' related
items to this list and 'rules' related items to the
other list. However, that would mean that this list
would be receiving a lot less traffic, unless people
start posting their actual play experiences here....

All the best,

Lev



____________________________________________________________________________________
The fish are biting.
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php

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

> >
> > *meh* If the range of opinions seems to be from
> "OK"
> > to "Quite Good"...
>
> Perhaps, but you have to remember to evaluate
> it based on what was
> being done at the time, not on what is being done
> now. Too often
> reviews of old products or old rpgs tend to forget
> that the market has
> changed so much (especially since the early 1980's)
> that it's an apples
> vs. oranges kind of thing. Artwork in rpg books is
> no exception.

Ah, we part company at this point. When I do my
reviews I review the product according to the
standards of when the review is written. I did
consider historically contextual reviewing, but I (a)
realised that would confuse ratings far too much and
(b) in some cases it would be impossible as I didn't
play the game at the time of its release. Also the
*advantage* of reviewing products according to
contemporary standards is that one can see which
products have 'aged well' and which have 'aged
poorly'.

> > Sure... Although I am interested in the conundrum
> that
> > is raised by NPCs. Does this mean that the GM
> should
> > be the smartest player? ;-)
>
> Well, you have to remember these games are
> *roleplaying* games. As
> far as I am concerned (and I suspect a lot of the
> old-time gamers are
> concerned), Intelligence is not something that is
> dice rolled. In games
> where the stat exists, such as CoC, early D&D, and
> others, the players
> had the joy of just using the dice to determine
> whether the character
> could solve a riddle, or some such, and this was
> just too much.

Again, I'll disagree. In CoC INT is a useful stat to
derive hints from the Keeper (the "idea roll") and in
D&D of course it's a handy for being able to know a
range of spells and to learn languages.

> > A combination of "age" and "worldliness" would be
> a good combination,
> >imo.
>
> In which case, the stat should not be called
> "Education." Most
> game systems that have something along the lines of
> an Education stat
> either give the character more points to allot to
> something, or give the
> character a batch of default education- or
> worldliness-derived skills.
> ARROWFLIGHT, and all of the Chaosium systems are
> good examples of this.

This debate did occur in the recent Deluxe Basic
Roleplaying playtest list....

>
> Mind you, I'd *love* to see what you could
> work out for this! <g>
>
> >> At one time, I actually added an
> Intelligence characteristic to my
> >>DRAGONQUEST game, but I abandoned it some time in
> late 2000, since it
> >>really served no purpose, and players have an
> inability to play certain
> >>INTs. The characteristic serves no purpose in a
> game such as DQ, in my
> >>experience and opinion.
> >
> > Including a new characteristic should mean
> integration
> > into the game system mechanics, otherwise, yes, it
> > will be useless. Because AD&D doesn't integrate
> CHA
> > heavily in the system it is typically used as a
> "dump
> > stat".
> >
> > For example, using INT to provide an experience
> point
> > multiplier or reduced training times, to act as a
> > modifier to various skills (e.g., the various
> alchemy,
> > astrologer, mechanician, merchant, military
> scientist,
> > navigator).
>
> Maybe, maybe not. As things are, characters
> increase their
> abilities too fast as it is in DQ. Especially if
> one plays the game on
> a regular basis.

Oh, it would cut both ways. Low INT would mean that
you wouldn't learn as quickly.... Just as in the real
world!

> > I think players with Intelligence scores that low
> shouldn't be playing RPGs ;-)
>
> Ah, but you forget: When a lot of players were
> discovering the
> DRAGONQUEST system and coming over to it from D&D's
> early
> incarnation(s), armour reduced chance to hit through
> the AC business in
> D&D, and DRAGONQUEST's armour reducing damage taken
> was greeted with,
> "What the <bleep>!!??" Sure, it may be common
> sense, but most rpgs out
> there at the time weren't handling it this way.

Well, D&D's biggest challenger at the time, RuneQuest
certainly was in 1978. Ditto for Tunnels & Trolls
(where apparently RQ got the idea) in 1975 and The
Fantasy Trip (1978-1980). All of these were pretty
significant in their day.

On the other side, (A)D&D, C&S and I suppose Traveller
had Armour Class systems.

> > My experience with a shield (and it's pretty
> minimal,
> > I'm more of a fencer) is that the general
> principles
> > aren't too much different to other parrying
> weapons -
> > deflect, don't block, protect from the angle of
> attack
> > etc.
>
> Sure, but without being ambidextrous and
> having no training with
> the shield, you're lucky if you can coordinate an
> attack and a defense.
> I know, from personal experience, and have a scar
> to prove it. :( And
> shields are not as light as people make them out to
> be, comparatively.
> But enough on this, we'll leave this to others to
> deal with. :)

Er, yeah. The heaviness of shield is an interesting
challenge. ;-)

> For
> > example, two PS 20 people shouldn't be considered
> as
> > strong as PS 40 bear.
>
> Frankly, scaled systems for characteristics
> and the like belong in
> superhero rpgs, where you need to simulate
> Superman's strength versus
> that of Jimmy Olsen or whatever. The DQ system
> works fine, far as I'm
> concerned, and has done so for 25+ years. That
> said, what would the DQ
> system be like if it were being designed these days?
> :)

In the design of RQ (and they didn't always follow
through on this) they had a working assumption that
every 10 points of Strength (or any other
characteristic) effectively doubled the stat; which
was reflected in the resistance table. OK, Steve
Perrin reckon's he's being trying to get away from the
Resitance Table for almost thirty years now, but
scaling issues do remain. On one hand, one can't just
add Strength's together when there's any sort of
geometric progression if one wants to be realistic. On
the other, it's clumsy in a game sense to have strict
linear systems. It's quite a conundrum.

Regards,


Lev





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

IMO I think shields be something like this:

They give a base bonus to def (maybe 3* current rank bonus) + their normal
rank bonus.

ie a small shield is +9% def plus +3% per rank

BUT

they should have a much bigger MD penalty (as they get in the way). Compare
to AG which just gets hammered by armour and weight. It should be say 4 more
MD penalty than current

BUT

The MD penalty should drop as you increase in rank in the shield. So rank 4
large shield gives you say (12+16)% to defence, which is nice, AND incurrs
whatever the normal MD penalty for using a large sheild is.

hope that makes sense

John

_________________________________________________________________
Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile.
https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/

I think that's an interesting take on it. Have you tried it out?

Would that stack with the 20% that even an untrained person gets with
a shield while doing a Defensive Withdrawal?

I wonder how many GMs enforce the MD penalties and the subsequent BC
modifiers when the MD penalty drops it below the minimum MD required
to use a weapon?

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "davis john" <jrd123@...> wrote:
>
> IMO I think shields be something like this:
>
> They give a base bonus to def (maybe 3* current rank bonus) + their
normal
> rank bonus.
>
> ie a small shield is +9% def plus +3% per rank
>
> BUT
>
> they should have a much bigger MD penalty (as they get in the way).
Compare
> to AG which just gets hammered by armour and weight. It should be
say 4 more
> MD penalty than current
>
> BUT
>
> The MD penalty should drop as you increase in rank in the shield. So
rank 4
> large shield gives you say (12+16)% to defence, which is nice, AND
incurrs
> whatever the normal MD penalty for using a large sheild is.
>
> hope that makes sense
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile.
> https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/
>

No, but will try it next time

would stack with all other bonuses. I always thought the +20% withdrawl
bonus was a bit low. If you put everything into just defeding with a sheild,
you do become pretty hard to it.

I think it would be too much paperwork to penalise a person if in a certain
situation there MD drops a bit more

. Currently i use a spreadsheet for character sheets and that does
automatically knock off the MD penalty.

John

>From: "darkislephil" <phergus@gmail.com>
>Reply-To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Shield Rules
>Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:09:23 -0000
>
>I think that's an interesting take on it. Have you tried it out?
>
>Would that stack with the 20% that even an untrained person gets with
>a shield while doing a Defensive Withdrawal?
>
>I wonder how many GMs enforce the MD penalties and the subsequent BC
>modifiers when the MD penalty drops it below the minimum MD required
>to use a weapon?
>
>
>
>--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "davis john" <jrd123@...> wrote:
> >
> > IMO I think shields be something like this:
> >
> > They give a base bonus to def (maybe 3* current rank bonus) + their
>normal
> > rank bonus.
> >
> > ie a small shield is +9% def plus +3% per rank
> >
> > BUT
> >
> > they should have a much bigger MD penalty (as they get in the way).
>Compare
> > to AG which just gets hammered by armour and weight. It should be
>say 4 more
> > MD penalty than current
> >
> > BUT
> >
> > The MD penalty should drop as you increase in rank in the shield. So
>rank 4
> > large shield gives you say (12+16)% to defence, which is nice, AND
>incurrs
> > whatever the normal MD penalty for using a large sheild is.
> >
> > hope that makes sense
> >
> > John
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile.
> > https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/
> >
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile.
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/

How about doubling the bonus and making it 5%/rank, to make
calculations easier. My children find 5%/rank easier to calculate
than 3 or 4% (I've make weapon and spell ranks 5% also).

It makes a diference wether it's strapped to yor arm or you hold it in
your hand. Strapped is more cumbersome and less flexible, but you
have a hand free and can't drop it (do these features cancel out?)

There is the problem that improved sheilds and armour make combat last
longer, but on the whole I think that there is room for better defence

modifying the panalty is a good idea, I wounder how it would work in
practice

David

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "davis john" <jrd123@...> wrote:
>
> IMO I think shields be something like this:
>
> They give a base bonus to def (maybe 3* current rank bonus) + their
normal
> rank bonus.
>
> ie a small shield is +9% def plus +3% per rank
>
> BUT
>
> they should have a much bigger MD penalty (as they get in the way).
Compare
> to AG which just gets hammered by armour and weight. It should be
say 4 more
> MD penalty than current
>
> BUT
>
> The MD penalty should drop as you increase in rank in the shield. So
rank 4
> large shield gives you say (12+16)% to defence, which is nice, AND
incurrs
> whatever the normal MD penalty for using a large sheild is.
>
> hope that makes sense
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile.
> https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/
>

Welcome

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "RedRoo" <rupert.carus@...> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
>
>
> I'm de-lurking too!
>
>
>
> I'd adding this comment(s) as a Western Martial Artist rather than a
role
> player. I haven't role-played properly for at least a decade, whilst
I train
> using medieval sword manuals as a guide (and a beast of an
instructor) at
> least twice a week.
>
>
>
> Shields should properly be considered part of the weapon system
rather than
> a stand alone item. Fighting with a buckler, as per the 13th Cent
I.33, is
> very different from fighting with just a sword. Sword and buckler
need to
> operate in unison. Any experienced fighter with a sword would
certainly find
> that they have trouble co-ordinating the sword with the buckler if
they have
> no experience with one. I would argue that an untrained fighter who
picks up
> a shield without knowing how to use it will have real difficulties
and it
> wouldn't aid their defence. I think their main assumption would be
that the
> shield will defend them, which it won't. Sticking a shield in the
way of an
> attack is not a defence, just wishful thinking!

It might help against arrows and such like

> I would qualify this by saying that using a shield against an
untrained or
> animal opponent might work if the wielder is unskilled, however,
against a
> skilled opponent it will soon become clear to them that the wielder
of the
> shield is easy pickings as the shield can be used against them.
>
> My primary area of training in the hand and a half, known as the bastard
> sword in Blighty. This weapon system uses attacks as a defence, anyone
> skilled with a bastard sword should have their defence increased as
well as
> having an improved SC.


I have played with giving all 1 handed weapons a 1%/rank defence (this
was in addition to the sheid, what do you think)? and two handed
weapons 2%/rank (no sheild though)

There are already rules on attacking with a shield


> How all this might be expressed in rules terms would seem to me to
be rather
> complicated, so I won't try ;-)

> As for armour, well don't get me started (it's hard enough to learn
to fight
> without armour). When you wear anything more than a few pounds of
steel your
> centre of gravity changes, any action you make has different
dynamics and if
> you wear steel gauntlets half the techniques you know cannot be
executed.
> Therefore, fighting without armour (i.e. wearing a padded jack or soft
> leather or a t-shirt) is very different from fighting in armour; you
need to
> relearn all the techniques from scratch starting with how you move your
> feet. This would suggest that armour should be ranked too! Failure to
> practice your weapons under armoured tutelage to gain the necessary
skill
> would then reduce the rank of the weapons you wield!

I think rank in armour is a good idea - to reduce the AG panalty

> Armour definitely reduces the amount of damage you receive rather than
> making you harder to hit, we have a number of badly bruised cabbages
that
> would otherwise be cut in two as witnesses!
>
>
>
> I recall thinking that FRPGing was fun! I do not suggesting that
either of
> these suggestions are acted upon, I think that there are enough rules
> already!
>
> Best regards
>
> Rupert
>
> You can check out my WMA group at: http://www.the-exiles.org.uk/
Intersting there's two in Edinburgh I might join

David

re: withdrawal bonus

Well [20% + (Mod. AG) + (Normal Shield Defense)] would be in the
ballpark of 45% for an average adventurer. Good but more is better.

Taking into account that an attacker who wants to hit the withdrawn
character has to do a Charge (to close the 1 hex distance again) which
is another 15% so that's 60% off the attackers strike chance.

Assume an average weapon with BC of 50%, a Mod. MD of 17 and 4 ranks
with the weapon and you get a SC of 83%. Minus the 60% leaves only a
23% strike chance. That's not too bad of a defense actually.

If the character had even a middling R5 or so with his prepared weapon
he would instead just Evade and end up with even more defense and the
opportunity for Parry/Riposte.

Your idea of using 3xShieldMod as a base defense for shields is
intriguing though.

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "davis john" <jrd123@...> wrote:
>
> No, but will try it next time
>
> would stack with all other bonuses. I always thought the +20% withdrawl
> bonus was a bit low. If you put everything into just defeding with a
sheild,
> you do become pretty hard to it.
>
> I think it would be too much paperwork to penalise a person if in a
certain
> situation there MD drops a bit more
>
> . Currently i use a spreadsheet for character sheets and that does
> automatically knock off the MD penalty.
>
> John
>
>
> >From: "darkislephil" <phergus@...>
> >Reply-To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> >To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Shield Rules
> >Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:09:23 -0000
> >
> >I think that's an interesting take on it. Have you tried it out?
> >
> >Would that stack with the 20% that even an untrained person gets with
> >a shield while doing a Defensive Withdrawal?
> >
> >I wonder how many GMs enforce the MD penalties and the subsequent BC
> >modifiers when the MD penalty drops it below the minimum MD required
> >to use a weapon?
> >
> >
> >
> >--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "davis john" <jrd123@> wrote:
> > >
> > > IMO I think shields be something like this:
> > >
> > > They give a base bonus to def (maybe 3* current rank bonus) + their
> >normal
> > > rank bonus.
> > >
> > > ie a small shield is +9% def plus +3% per rank
> > >
> > > BUT
> > >
> > > they should have a much bigger MD penalty (as they get in the way).
> >Compare
> > > to AG which just gets hammered by armour and weight. It should be
> >say 4 more
> > > MD penalty than current
> > >
> > > BUT
> > >
> > > The MD penalty should drop as you increase in rank in the shield. So
> >rank 4
> > > large shield gives you say (12+16)% to defence, which is nice, AND
> >incurrs
> > > whatever the normal MD penalty for using a large sheild is.
> > >
> > > hope that makes sense
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile.
> > > https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/
> > >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile.
> http://www.msn.txt4content.com/
>

Well there has been a heap of talk about the review of DQ, which I
might say overall was very solid and quite complimentary of the
system. There have however been raised a few points of interest that
I disagreed with and as such said so in the RPG.net forum, since
then there has been much talk and bluster about the exchange, which
seems to have got a little out of control. Particularly when it was
just a few minor points that were the contention of the postings and
was not a total condemnation of the review overall, which has led me
to actually sit down and articulate a more accurate and detailed
response (now that I have time).

The main areas that seem to be under scrutiny are the effectiveness
of shields, backfires and magic strength and the old intelligence
statistic.

Here we go:

A few people, who claim to have experience with shields have stated
that having no knowledge of how to handle one can be more of a
hindrance in battle than a benefit, my very limited experience using
one reinforces this in my mind. Hence any untrained benefit that is
derived from carrying one is a bonus (although I hate to use the
term) in a simulationist sense, and comparing this bonus to other
systems seems faulty as long as the initial assumption is correct
that you need some experience in using a shield and thus my
position, as stated previously, on the default bonus to DEF when
using a shield. All said and done though I wouldn't consider it
difficult to learn how to wield a shield and as such the EXP costs
are fairly minimal, which in itself is a kind of default ability,
i.e. even a magic user can afford to get a few ranks in a shield.

Now let's look at the practical usage of the shield in the game,
firstly however I would like to state that a shield is useless or
next to useless when conducting an all out attack and as such any
benefits whilst not making a defensive stance should be negligible.
Any disagreement at this point will mean total disagreement with the
rest of the comments, but this stance has been considered using the
experience of people who have actually engaged in armed combat
(simulated off-course).

The skilled usage of a shield I think needs a little bit of work,
but I do not think that simply increasing the DEF is the answer. I
love the Evading rule and I believe this is central to the effective
use of a shield, but I think that it needs to be slightly tweaked so
that only characters who are ambidextrous or those that have a
shield can claim the 4 X Rank bonus to their DEF for two weapons
(i.e. a non-ambidextrous character using two sabres cannot claim an
evading bonus for the second sabre). What this does is gives the non-
ambidextrous characters wielding a shield more incentive to fight
defensively in the hope of that they can gain that tactical
advantage. I would also include another ruling that non-shield
weapons do not allow any additional benefits when Evading against
ranged weapons (this is just a bit of common sense that I think
missed the three separate editions of the rules).

For example, a character with Rank 4 in a Broadsword and Rank 4 in a
shield (let's say a large round variety), when evading would have a
DEF of 58% + Mod AG (against melee attacks), which I would consider
a very good edge indeed. Compare this now with the character without
the shield, assuming the same rank with a Broadsword, their DEF
would only be 26% + Mod AG (when evading), significantly lower
indeed, a full 32% lower and no chance of a disarm or riposte (well
next to no chance anyhow).

In summary, you can't just say the default ability doesn't compare
with other games and therefore is wrong; What if the other games are
wrong in their analysis of the situation? What about other elements
of the rules which make the shield very effective when used?

Now Backfires, well these should be scaled, i.e. even if a backfire
occurs there should be a chance that it has no negative effect and
the chance of a really bad effect should be scaled to the extent
that the Magic User failed. I don't really think that DQ is too way
off given the nature and how powerful some of the spells are. It
should also be noted that there are a bunch of ways to reduce the
chance of Backfires which can be implemented, which kind of carries
on from the Shield discussion above, not everything is balanced in
one segment of the game, there are other sections that are important
to consider before damning any one portion of it. Extensive playing
of the game is required to really figure these elements out and
appreciate them.

Some of the base chances for the spells need to be revisited, but
overall I don't see a problem with them. The same risk mitigation
tactics used to decrease the chance of a Backfire can be used to
increase your success chance in casting (i.e. certain Rituals,
preparation time, College specific bonuses, etc.). I have to say the
people that are the most negatively vocal about this part of the
game tend to be the ones that don't put much thought into their
spell casting and treat their college like a spell list from D & D.
The two games have totally different concepts and as such should be
approached differently.

As a side note, I hear the same sort of complaints, put in the same
way for another element of the game, stunning. Again it tends to be
the people who don't put much thought into that element of the game
and have the lowest WP.

Intelligence stats are pointless in fantasy games, they are not as
relevant as general knowledge or common sense (and yes I think
intelligence, knowledge and common sense are different animals). I
read somewhere on these posts that the WP stat is used a lot, I have
used a mixture of WP and PC for many practical tasks and that worked
okay. Having said this there is something missing in this area but
an INT stat, in my opinion, is not it.

Ian

--- RedRoo <rupert.carus@olieri.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I'm de-lurking too!

The more the merrier!

> I'd adding this comment(s) as a Western Martial
> Artist rather than a role
> player. I haven't role-played properly for at least
> a decade, whilst I train
> using medieval sword manuals as a guide (and a beast
> of an instructor) at
> least twice a week.

*nods* I have a couple of friends in the same
situation.. funny thing about instructors ;-)

> Shields should properly be considered part of the
> weapon system rather than
> a stand alone item. Fighting with a buckler, as per
> the 13th Cent I.33, is
> very different from fighting with just a sword.

*nods* This is very true. The only game I've seen even
attempt to do this is HeroQuest. The same of course
applies to dual-weapon combination (such as the
Portuguese used in the 16th century); iirc Rolemaster
(in Compaion II) had a skill for that.

> Sword and buckler need to
> operate in unison. Any experienced fighter with a
> sword would certainly find
> that they have trouble co-ordinating the sword with
> the buckler if they have
> no experience with one. I would argue that an
> untrained fighter who picks up
> a shield without knowing how to use it will have
> real difficulties and it
> wouldn't aid their defence. I think their main
> assumption would be that the
> shield will defend them, which it won't. Sticking a
> shield in the way of an
> attack is not a defence, just wishful thinking!

I think it's a little harsh (from my limited
experience) to say it wouldn't aid at all. It would
certainly aid against missile attacks, and anyone who
pays attention to the arc of attack and using it for
deflection will at least protect a significant portion
of their surface error.

> I would qualify this by saying that using a shield
> against an untrained or
> animal opponent might work if the wielder is
> unskilled, however, against a
> skilled opponent it will soon become clear to them
> that the wielder of the
> shield is easy pickings as the shield can be used
> against them.

Well, yes. That is indeed an *very* appropriate
qualificiation and does give an interesting insight to
the nature of the problem.

It suggests - and this makes perfect sense - that the
first two or three shield deflections would be
effective, but after that the skilled attacker would
have 'sized up' their opponent and worked out that
they really aren't up to this; thus *reducing* the
effective defense ability.

> My primary area of training in the hand and a half,
> known as the bastard
> sword in Blighty. This weapon system uses attacks as
> a defence, anyone
> skilled with a bastard sword should have their
> defence increased as well as
> having an improved SC.

Almost the case with all weapons (even and especially
pole arms) really.

> As for armour, well don't get me started (it's hard
> enough to learn to fight
> without armour). When you wear anything more than a
> few pounds of steel your
> centre of gravity changes, any action you make has
> different dynamics and if
> you wear steel gauntlets half the techniques you
> know cannot be executed.

*nods* Rolemaster/MERP etc had a "maneurving in
armour" skill.

> Armour definitely reduces the amount of damage you
> receive rather than
> making you harder to hit, we have a number of badly
> bruised cabbages that
> would otherwise be cut in two as witnesses!

Indeed; one GM I know using a "penetration" value
(slash/impale) and a "absorbing" value (crushing)
weapons. It is quite possible to be battered, bruised,
even knocked out, but not cut or impaled.

> I recall thinking that FRPGing was fun! I do not
> suggesting that either of
> these suggestions are acted upon, I think that there
> are enough rules
> already!

If the game system is intuitive and consistent it is
usually easy to add extra flavour and realism without
confusing people.... Having a *different* rule for
every case and having rules that "don't make sense" is
the surest way for the system to get in the way of
having fun.

All the best,


Lev



____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265

A more careful reading will indicate that I have
rejected the proposition that a shield is worth a few
percent of defense to an untrained user in all cases.

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

> Man! I said essentially the same thing and I was
> "categorically"
> wrong...wow, how's that????
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:dqn-list@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Lev Lafayette
> Sent: Thursday, 22 March 2007 10:11 AM
> To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [DQN-list] Shield Rules
>
>
>
>
> --- RedRoo <rupert.carus@
> <mailto:rupert.carus%40olieri.demon.co.uk>
> olieri.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I'm de-lurking too!
>
> The more the merrier!
>
> > I'd adding this comment(s) as a Western Martial
> > Artist rather than a role
> > player. I haven't role-played properly for at
> least
> > a decade, whilst I train
> > using medieval sword manuals as a guide (and a
> beast
> > of an instructor) at
> > least twice a week.
>
> *nods* I have a couple of friends in the same
> situation.. funny thing about instructors ;-)
>
> > Shields should properly be considered part of the
> > weapon system rather than
> > a stand alone item. Fighting with a buckler, as
> per
> > the 13th Cent I.33, is
> > very different from fighting with just a sword.
>
> *nods* This is very true. The only game I've seen
> even
> attempt to do this is HeroQuest. The same of course
> applies to dual-weapon combination (such as the
> Portuguese used in the 16th century); iirc
> Rolemaster
> (in Compaion II) had a skill for that.
>
> > Sword and buckler need to
> > operate in unison. Any experienced fighter with a
> > sword would certainly find
> > that they have trouble co-ordinating the sword
> with
> > the buckler if they have
> > no experience with one. I would argue that an
> > untrained fighter who picks up
> > a shield without knowing how to use it will have
> > real difficulties and it
> > wouldn't aid their defence. I think their main
> > assumption would be that the
> > shield will defend them, which it won't. Sticking
> a
> > shield in the way of an
> > attack is not a defence, just wishful thinking!
>
> I think it's a little harsh (from my limited
> experience) to say it wouldn't aid at all. It would
> certainly aid against missile attacks, and anyone
> who
> pays attention to the arc of attack and using it for
> deflection will at least protect a significant
> portion
> of their surface error.
>
> > I would qualify this by saying that using a shield
> > against an untrained or
> > animal opponent might work if the wielder is
> > unskilled, however, against a
> > skilled opponent it will soon become clear to them
> > that the wielder of the
> > shield is easy pickings as the shield can be used
> > against them.
>
> Well, yes. That is indeed an *very* appropriate
> qualificiation and does give an interesting insight
> to
> the nature of the problem.
>
> It suggests - and this makes perfect sense - that
> the
> first two or three shield deflections would be
> effective, but after that the skilled attacker would
> have 'sized up' their opponent and worked out that
> they really aren't up to this; thus *reducing* the
> effective defense ability.
>
> > My primary area of training in the hand and a
> half,
> > known as the bastard
> > sword in Blighty. This weapon system uses attacks
> as
> > a defence, anyone
> > skilled with a bastard sword should have their
> > defence increased as well as
> > having an improved SC.
>
> Almost the case with all weapons (even and
> especially
> pole arms) really.
>
> > As for armour, well don't get me started (it's
> hard
> > enough to learn to fight
> > without armour). When you wear anything more than
> a
> > few pounds of steel your
> > centre of gravity changes, any action you make has
> > different dynamics and if
> > you wear steel gauntlets half the techniques you
> > know cannot be executed.
>
> *nods* Rolemaster/MERP etc had a "maneurving in
> armour" skill.
>
> > Armour definitely reduces the amount of damage you
> > receive rather than
> > making you harder to hit, we have a number of
> badly
> > bruised cabbages that
> > would otherwise be cut in two as witnesses!
>
> Indeed; one GM I know using a "penetration" value
> (slash/impale) and a "absorbing" value (crushing)
> weapons. It is quite possible to be battered,
> bruised,
> even knocked out, but not cut or impaled.
>
> > I recall thinking that FRPGing was fun! I do not
> > suggesting that either of
> > these suggestions are acted upon, I think that
> there
> > are enough rules
> > already!
>
> If the game system is intuitive and consistent it is
> usually easy to add extra flavour and realism
> without
> confusing people.... Having a *different* rule for
> every case and having rules that "don't make sense"
> is
> the surest way for the system to get in the way of
> having fun.
>
> All the best,
>
> Lev
>
>

__________________________________________________________

> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures
> list.
> http://tv.yahoo
> <http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265>
> com/collections/265
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail

Hullo, Lev,

In a message of March 20th, 2007, Lev Lafayette wrote,

>>>>>I said your opinion on shields was categorically
>>>>>wrong, but it wasn't a mere matter of taste, but
>>>>>rather an empirical issue. An untrained person
>>>>will benefit by more than 2-6% by picking up a
>>>>shield, they really will.
>>>>
>>>>On what do you base this conclusion?
>>>
>>>Actual use and discussion with others in the same
>>>situation.
>>
>> Is it that you find the rules for shields to
>>be too...unrealistic...or that you find the maximum
>>Rank for shields to be too low?
>
> On the latter point I don't really know. I'm not an
> experienced shield user in person ;-) I'll have to ask
> a couple of my SCA buddies about that. However, I am
> absolutely certain that a untrained and minimally
> person who uses a shield will gain a greater bonus to
> defense than 2-4%... Five times that figure would be
> more appropriate.

See, here's the problem I have with that. Go on the assumption
that the non-heroic normal soldier in the DQ world has a Characteristic
set averaging 10-12, okay? With an average MD of of 10, and using a
broadsword, against someone with an AG of 10, and a shield, the attacker
with Rank 2 with the sword and the Defender with no rank with the
shield, you end up with a Strike Chance of

55 (Broadsword base) + 10 (MD) + 8 (Rank x 2) - 5* - 10 (Def AG) - 15
(shield bonus, your way) = 33%

This is not a good percentage, and that doesn't include the
Defender having Rank with the shield!

Of course, this just emphasises some of the other DQ problems in
terms of the combat system and all, but well... :)

* Taking -1% off the SC for every point of MD below the required for the
broadwsord

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

Hullo, Lev,

In a message of March 20th, 2007, Lev Lafayette wrote,

>> I just wanted to comment on something here. I've gone through
>>about 900+ on the dq-rules mailing list, and want to say that there is a
>>lot of stuff there that could just as easily have been put on this
>>mailing list and kept the traffic going and an active list flowing here.
>>
>> JohnR, Rodger, if you're both still here, I just want to say that
>>while it's really good to have both lists, I think the functions of the
>>two lists need to be clarified a bit more, or perhaps the lists need to
>>be merged. There's just not enough traffic in my opinion on either list
>>to justify both lists these days.
>>
>> What are the functions of the two lists? :)
>
> *nods* I've been wondering the same thing. My
> preference in the past has been to post 'news' related
> items to this list and 'rules' related items to the
> other list. However, that would mean that this list
> would be receiving a lot less traffic, unless people
> start posting their actual play experiences here....

Frankly, I think that this list, the DQN-list, is misnamed. There
is a separate list that is meant for the discussion of and stuff
pertaining to the DQ Newsletter, and there's this one which, in the past
has always been about general stuff pertaining to the DQ game system.
The dq-rules list is one that I have always thought should be merged
with this list, since there's a lot of overlap between the two mailing
lists, and discussion of the game rules belongs here too. The dq-rules
list should have limited membership and the like, and should be for
working on the DQ Open Source stuff project and the like (assuming that
is even still alive).

Btw, I finished reading the dq-rules stuff and read the whole
flamewar there about the review that you wrote of the game. I've
nothing else to really say about that (other than the post I wrote to yo
on this list about the stuff), other than the fact that that discussion
should have occurred here, since it was a discussion about the review,
not the rules of the game.

Anyway, back to the contentious discussion about shields! :)

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

Hullo, Lev,

In a message of March 20th, 2007, Lev Lafayette wrote,

>>>*meh* If the range of opinions seems to be from
>>"OK" to "Quite Good"...
>>
>> Perhaps, but you have to remember to evaluate it based on what was
>>being done at the time, not on what is being done now. Too often
>>reviews of old products or old rpgs tend to forget that the market has
>>changed so much (especially since the early 1980's) that it's an apples
>>vs. oranges kind of thing. Artwork in rpg books is no exception.
>
> Ah, we part company at this point. When I do my
> reviews I review the product according to the
> standards of when the review is written.

While that's fine, it's impossible not to have the bias of what
you've been looking at roleplaying wise now, and not looking at the game
in question as what it was up against back at that time. A good example
of this is DQ's game mechanics. You can't compare the game mechanics of
DQ, a game that was published in the early 80's, with the mechanics of
games published in 2002, because the way in which rpg rule design has
changed makes the basis of comparison like the apples vs. oranges thing.
On the other hand, if you had compared the mechanics to the D&D, the
C&S, and the RUNEQUEST of its time, that would have been a different
matter...

>I did consider historically contextual reviewing, but I (a)
> realised that would confuse ratings far too much

Not at all. Another example: If you do the Substance part of the
review based on the games today, it should have been very low. RPGs
today come in rulebooks of some 300+ pages, of which up to half or a
third is devoted to the gaming world being offered as well. DQ was a
rulebook with no game world included, and came out at 150+ pages (the
SPI 2nd edition, my version of choice, with some mods I've made). The
rules are superb, but technically there's not a lot of context to them
and there aren't any real good examples of stuff in the book, other than
a few exceptions. Heck, there's not even a sample of character
generation in the game system!

>and (b) in some cases it would be impossible as I didn't
> play the game at the time of its release.

That is, to be frank, a real contention and makes it hard to
compare the game to its contemporaries.

>Also the advantage* of reviewing products according to
> contemporary standards is that one can see which
> products have 'aged well' and which have 'aged
> poorly'.

Only in some cases. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

>>>Sure... Although I am interested in the conundrum that
>>>is raised by NPCs. Does this mean that the GM should
>>>be the smartest player? ;-)
>>
>> Well, you have to remember these games are *roleplaying* games. As
>>far as I am concerned (and I suspect a lot of the old-time gamers are
>>concerned), Intelligence is not something that is dice rolled. In games
>>where the stat exists, such as CoC, early D&D, and others, the players
>>had the joy of just using the dice to determine whether the character
>>could solve a riddle, or some such, and this was just too much.
>
> Again, I'll disagree. In CoC INT is a useful stat to
> derive hints from the Keeper (the "idea roll")

Yep, and when the player fails the roll, the plot falls apart
completely. Any game that requires the players to learn information to
further the plot or keep the plot going that depends on dice rolls to do
it is...well, "in trouble" is a good word. CoC suffers from this
regularly. One of the reasons for things like the GUMSHOE system from
the folks at Pelgrane.

>and in D&D of course it's a handy for being able to know a
> range of spells and to learn languages.

And in DQ's case, MA serves that purpose for magic, and Languages
are basically Skills that are learend, but we'll have to agree to
disagree on this one as well. :)

>>>A combination of "age" and "worldliness" would be
>>>a good combination, imo.
>>
>> In which case, the stat should not be called "Education." Most
>>game systems that have something along the lines of an Education stat
>>either give the character more points to allot to something, or give the
>>character a batch of default education- or worldliness-derived skills.
>>ARROWFLIGHT, and all of the Chaosium systems are good examples of this.
>
> This debate did occur in the recent Deluxe Basic
> Roleplaying playtest list....

And what was the conclusion or the consensus?

>> Mind you, I'd *love* to see what you could work out for this! <g>
>>
>>>> At one time, I actually added an Intelligence characteristic to my
>>>>DRAGONQUEST game, but I abandoned it some time in late 2000, since it
>>>>really served no purpose, and players have an inability to play certain
>>>>INTs. The characteristic serves no purpose in a game such as DQ, in my
>>>>experience and opinion.
>>>
>>>Including a new characteristic should mean integration
>>>into the game system mechanics, otherwise, yes, it
>>>will be useless. Because AD&D doesn't integrate CHA
>>>heavily in the system it is typically used as a "dump
>>>stat".
>>>
>>>For example, using INT to provide an experience point
>>>multiplier or reduced training times, to act as a
>>>modifier to various skills (e.g., the various alchemy,
>>>astrologer, mechanician, merchant, military scientist,
>>>navigator).
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. As things are, characters increase their
>>abilities too fast as it is in DQ. Especially if one plays the game on
>>a regular basis.
>
> Oh, it would cut both ways. Low INT would mean that
> you wouldn't learn as quickly.... Just as in the real
> world!

I don't think that intelligence is the only, let alone the
primarym, factor in learning in the real world, but that's another
kettle of fish altogether. At that point, might as well as adopt
something along the lines of how it's handled in the old RUNEQUEST and
the RINGWORLD rpg from CHAOSium.

>>>I think players with Intelligence scores that low
>>>shouldn't be playing RPGs ;-)
>>
>> Ah, but you forget: When a lot of players were discovering the
>>DRAGONQUEST system and coming over to it from D&D's early
>>incarnation(s), armour reduced chance to hit through the AC business in
>>D&D, and DRAGONQUEST's armour reducing damage taken was greeted with,
>>"What the <bleep>!!??" Sure, it may be common sense, but most rpgs out
>>there at the time weren't handling it this way.
>
> Well, D&D's biggest challenger at the time, RuneQuest
> certainly was in 1978. Ditto for Tunnels & Trolls
> (where apparently RQ got the idea) in 1975 and The
> Fantasy Trip (1978-1980). All of these were pretty
> significant in their day.

Yeah, but look what TFT evolved into - GURPS. :) To put this back
in perspective, the folks at SPI came from a wargaming background and as
such, went with a more realistic approach to armour - it absorb damage,
can make you easier to hit (with more encumbering armour types), and so
forth. That mindset was difficult for players coming from the other
games, with the possible exception of RUNEQUEST and TUNNELS & TROLLS, to
deal with in DQ.

> On the other side, (A)D&D, C&S and I suppose Traveller
> had Armour Class systems.

Yep.

>>>My experience with a shield (and it's pretty minimal,
>>>I'm more of a fencer) is that the general principles
>>>aren't too much different to other parrying weapons -
>>>deflect, don't block, protect from the angle of attack
>>>etc.
>>
>> Sure, but without being ambidextrous and having no training with
>>the shield, you're lucky if you can coordinate an attack and a defense.
>> I know, from personal experience, and have a scar to prove it. :( And
>>shields are not as light as people make them out to be, comparatively.
>>But enough on this, we'll leave this to others to deal with. :)
>
> Er, yeah. The heaviness of shield is an interesting challenge. ;-)

Damn straight! :)

>>For example, two PS 20 people shouldn't be considered
>>as strong as PS 40 bear.
>>
>> Frankly, scaled systems for characteristics and the like belong in
>>superhero rpgs, where you need to simulate Superman's strength versus
>>that of Jimmy Olsen or whatever. The DQ system works fine, far as I'm
>>concerned, and has done so for 25+ years. That said, what would the DQ
>>system be like if it were being designed these days? :)
>
> In the design of RQ (and they didn't always follow
> through on this) they had a working assumption that
> every 10 points of Strength (or any other
> characteristic) effectively doubled the stat; which
> was reflected in the resistance table.

True - and that was one of my favourite elements of the CHAOSium
system at the time.

>OK, Steve Perrin reckon's he's being trying to get away from the
> Resitance Table for almost thirty years now, but
> scaling issues do remain. On one hand, one can't just
> add Strength's together when there's any sort of
> geometric progression if one wants to be realistic. On
> the other, it's clumsy in a game sense to have strict
> linear systems. It's quite a conundrum.

Okay, in that case, be constructive: How would you alter DQ in
this regard? <evil g>

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

Hullo, JohnD,

In a message of March 20th, 2007, davis john wrote,

> IMO I think shields be something like this:
>
> They give a base bonus to def (maybe 3* current rank bonus) + their normal
> rank bonus.
>
> ie a small shield is +9% def plus +3% per rank
>
> BUT
>
> they should have a much bigger MD penalty (as they get in the way). Compare
> to AG which just gets hammered by armour and weight. It should be say 4 more
> MD penalty than current
>
> BUT
>
> The MD penalty should drop as you increase in rank in the shield. So rank 4
> large shield gives you say (12+16)% to defence, which is nice, AND incurrs
> whatever the normal MD penalty for using a large sheild is.
>
> hope that makes sense

Yep, this makes a lot of sense to me. :)

I'm looking forward to you posting a revised Shield Table, and
some written out rules for this way of thinking. :)

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

A proposal (based on Edi's Shield document)

Shield type Weight Def/Rk MD Cost Max Rank
Buckler 1 4% – 5 7
Small Round Shield 3 6% –2 8 6
Large Round Shield 5 8% –3 10 5
Kite Shield 6 10% –4 15 4
Tower Shield 8 12% –6 20 3

All 1 handed weapons 1%/Rank to defence, stacks with shield or
defensive weapon
All 2 handed weapons 2%/Rank to defence, does not stack with shield or
defensive weapon
Both at no penalty to SC

MD penalty reduced by 1 per 3 or fraction of 3 ranks

I won't be offended by suggestions/outright rejections.
Personnaly I think the Def/Rk is high, but its a tone down of annother
suggestion

David

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

> See, here's the problem I have with that. Go on the assumption
> that the non-heroic normal soldier in the DQ world has a Characteristic
> set averaging 10-12, okay? With an average MD of of 10, and using a
> broadsword, against someone with an AG of 10, and a shield, the

attacker

> with Rank 2 with the sword and the Defender with no rank with the
> shield, you end up with a Strike Chance of
>
> 55 (Broadsword base) + 10 (MD) + 8 (Rank x 2) - 5* - 10 (Def AG) - 15
> (shield bonus, your way) = 33%

<snip>

> * Taking -1% off the SC for every point of MD below the required for

the

> broadwsord

I realize it is an example but your normal soldier would be
considerably worse off than that.

It's -5% per point of MD less than the minimum and as his unmodified
MD is less than the minimum he also can't be ranked with the broadsword.

So it would be: 55%(BC) - 25%(MD penalty) - 10%(Def AG) - 15%(Shield
bonus) = 5% Strike Chance.

It's not easy being an average joe in DQ.

I like John's idea of a base defense of roughly 3x the normal defense
mod. This would give everyone with Rank 0 in a shield a reasonable but
not excessive amount of defense. The normal amount per rank would
accrue after that so a Buckler would be 6% + 2%/Rank.

Giving weapons a rank-based defensive bonus makes sense but I don't
know that it can (or should) be decoupled from offensive bonus. To
gain a defensive bonus from a weapon it must be actively used for
defense and that means some part of the offensive capability directed
in other ways. I've always thought about allowing Rank with a weapon
to be split between offense and defense. For example, someone with
Rank 6 in a weapon could put 2 Ranks into offense (+8% to SC) and 4
Ranks into defense (+16% to Def) on a per pulse basis. After all a
master swordsman (Rank 8) ought to be able to keep a novice (Rank 0)
at bay while still being able to get attacks in now and again. What
kept me from ever trying this was that it would require everyone to
keep track on a per pulse basis how much they put into Offense &
Defense. Probably too much complexity for not enough gain.

Giving individual shields a Max Rank implies that each one would be
ranked individually. Is that what you intended?

Being able to negate or partially negate the MD penalty with training
seems reasonable enough.


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

>
> A proposal (based on Edi's Shield document)
>
> Shield type Weight Def/Rk MD Cost Max Rank
> Buckler 1 4% – 5 7
> Small Round Shield 3 6% –2 8 6
> Large Round Shield 5 8% –3 10 5
> Kite Shield 6 10% –4 15 4
> Tower Shield 8 12% –6 20 3
>
> All 1 handed weapons 1%/Rank to defence, stacks with shield or
> defensive weapon
> All 2 handed weapons 2%/Rank to defence, does not stack with shield or
> defensive weapon
> Both at no penalty to SC
>
> MD penalty reduced by 1 per 3 or fraction of 3 ranks
>
> I won't be offended by suggestions/outright rejections.
> Personnaly I think the Def/Rk is high, but its a tone down of annother
> suggestion
>
> David
>

Salutations,

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

> > Ah, we part company at this point. When I do my
> > reviews I review the product according to the
> > standards of when the review is written.
>
> While that's fine, it's impossible not to have
> the bias of what
> you've been looking at roleplaying wise now, and not
> looking at the game
> in question as what it was up against back at that
> time. A good example
> of this is DQ's game mechanics. You can't compare
> the game mechanics of
> DQ, a game that was published in the early 80's,
> with the mechanics of
> games published in 2002, because the way in which
> rpg rule design has
> changed makes the basis of comparison like the
> apples vs. oranges thing.

I must ask "why not?". At least two of the three RPG
orientations (game challenges and simulation models)
were present in the early 80s with only a third
(dramatic narratives) being introduced relatively
recently in a systematic sense (although DQ's aspects,
AD&D's alignment, RQs cults/runes, Swordbearer's
humours, Pendragon's passions will all precursors).

Now perhaps one *can* make a case that game systems
should have improved over time and in many cases that
is true.

> Not at all. Another example: If you do the
> Substance part of the
> review based on the games today, it should have been
> very low.

I did and it came up with 4/5. It is still better than
most products that are currently in production or
otherwise available.

> RPGs
> today come in rulebooks of some 300+ pages, of which
> up to half or a
> third is devoted to the gaming world being offered
> as well. DQ was a
> rulebook with no game world included, and came out
> at 150+ pages (the
> SPI 2nd edition, my version of choice, with some
> mods I've made). The
> rules are superb, but technically there's not a lot
> of context to them
> and there aren't any real good examples of stuff in
> the book, other than
> a few exceptions. Heck, there's not even a sample
> of character
> generation in the game system!

Again I disagree. More pages certainly doesn't equate
with a more substantial game, and even more rules
don't do this either, especially if they're broken.
Adding a gameworld doesn't necessarily help either.

Density of material, scope of application and
workmanship in the game system, now they're important.

> > Again, I'll disagree. In CoC INT is a useful stat
> to
> > derive hints from the Keeper (the "idea roll")
>
> Yep, and when the player fails the roll, the
> plot falls apart
> completely.

Only if the plot development is *dependent* on a
character making the die roll. A Keeper who does that
should reconsider their design. An idea roll should be
used to expand or accelerate a storyline.

> >and in D&D of course it's a handy for being able to
> know a
> > range of spells and to learn languages.
>
> And in DQ's case, MA serves that purpose for
> magic, and Languages
> are basically Skills that are learend, but we'll
> have to agree to
> disagree on this one as well. :)

Yeah, well the language example I think is pretty
important. :-)

> > This debate did occur in the recent Deluxe Basic
> > Roleplaying playtest list....
>
> And what was the conclusion or the consensus?

IIRC, EDU*5 = general knowledge (appropriate for the
time) and influenced initial experience points to
distribute. In any case I believe it's being used as
an optional characteristic.

> >
> > Oh, it would cut both ways. Low INT would mean
> that
> > you wouldn't learn as quickly.... Just as in the
> real
> > world!
>
> I don't think that intelligence is the only,
> let alone the
> primarym, factor in learning in the real world, but
> that's another
> kettle of fish altogether.

Well the primary factor is opportunity. The secondary
factors are intelligence and motivation.

> > In the design of RQ (and they didn't always follow
> > through on this) they had a working assumption
> that
> > every 10 points of Strength (or any other
> > characteristic) effectively doubled the stat;
> which
> > was reflected in the resistance table.
>
> True - and that was one of my favourite
> elements of the CHAOSium
> system at the time.
>
> >OK, Steve Perrin reckon's he's being trying to get
> away from the
> > Resitance Table for almost thirty years now, but
> > scaling issues do remain. On one hand, one can't
> just
> > add Strength's together when there's any sort of
> > geometric progression if one wants to be
> realistic. On
> > the other, it's clumsy in a game sense to have
> strict
> > linear systems. It's quite a conundrum.
>
> Okay, in that case, be constructive: How would
> you alter DQ in
> this regard? <evil g>

Harsh call man, I'm workin' on it. :-)

The two options are effectively to throw caution into
the wind and have an entirely linear system. It will
look strange, but at least it won't require mucking
around with two many mechanics. The other option is to
use something with a geometric table built in (e.g.,
RQ resitance table, or DC Heroes3ed).

Despite the fact the figures may sometimes look odd
(e.g., the strength of an elephant!), I actually
prefer the linear system.

All the best,


Lev



____________________________________________________________________________________
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

From the points made by the re-enactors I'm against giving too much at
rank 0. Also adding defence will make combats longer.

For the weapon defence; defecting an attack leads to making an attack
of your own (if you're even half ways decent with your weapon). So I
think that a moderate defence from a weapon with no penalty to strike
chance is justified. I have visited many re-enactments and seen the
dance-like skill (except the axe, defence by weapon skill would be
battering the opponent to keep them off balance), but comments from
those with direct experience would be far more valuable.

As with your point I'm afraid that there will be added paperwork, but
not that much.

I would say that having different ranks for shield is justified.
Being able to use a buckler and a tower shield the same way seems
crazy to me. Small round and large round seems less of a difference,
but similar weapons having different skills is a problem for the
various different sword types in the official rules also.

David

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "darkislephil" <phergus@...> wrote:
>
> I like John's idea of a base defense of roughly 3x the normal defense
> mod. This would give everyone with Rank 0 in a shield a reasonable but
> not excessive amount of defense. The normal amount per rank would
> accrue after that so a Buckler would be 6% + 2%/Rank.
>
> Giving weapons a rank-based defensive bonus makes sense but I don't
> know that it can (or should) be decoupled from offensive bonus. To
> gain a defensive bonus from a weapon it must be actively used for
> defense and that means some part of the offensive capability directed
> in other ways. I've always thought about allowing Rank with a weapon
> to be split between offense and defense. For example, someone with
> Rank 6 in a weapon could put 2 Ranks into offense (+8% to SC) and 4
> Ranks into defense (+16% to Def) on a per pulse basis. After all a
> master swordsman (Rank 8) ought to be able to keep a novice (Rank 0)
> at bay while still being able to get attacks in now and again. What
> kept me from ever trying this was that it would require everyone to
> keep track on a per pulse basis how much they put into Offense &
> Defense. Probably too much complexity for not enough gain.
>
> Giving individual shields a Max Rank implies that each one would be
> ranked individually. Is that what you intended?
>
> Being able to negate or partially negate the MD penalty with training
> seems reasonable enough.
>
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@>
> wrote:
> >
> > A proposal (based on Edi's Shield document)
> >
> > Shield type Weight Def/Rk MD Cost Max Rank
> > Buckler 1 4% – 5 7
> > Small Round Shield 3 6% –2 8 6
> > Large Round Shield 5 8% –3 10 5
> > Kite Shield 6 10% –4 15 4
> > Tower Shield 8 12% –6 20 3
> >
> > All 1 handed weapons 1%/Rank to defence, stacks with shield or
> > defensive weapon
> > All 2 handed weapons 2%/Rank to defence, does not stack with shield or
> > defensive weapon
> > Both at no penalty to SC
> >
> > MD penalty reduced by 1 per 3 or fraction of 3 ranks
> >
> > I won't be offended by suggestions/outright rejections.
> > Personnaly I think the Def/Rk is high, but its a tone down of annother
> > suggestion
> >
> > David
> >
>

But in DQ Rank 0 doesn't mean untrained but quite the opposite.

To get Rank 0 in Shield requires 8 weeks. Rank 1 is only 2 weeks after
that. By gaining Rank 0 with a weapon you go from having only the
untrained Base Chance of hitting with a weapon to having Base Chance +
Modified Manual Dexterity. Big difference.

Should not 8 weeks training with a shield grant some amount of
defense? John's suggestion grants between 6% for the buckler and 18%
for the tower shield. The 18% seems like a lot but it is offset by the
minimum 6% reduction in Strike Chance and more likely 11-21% reduction
in SC. Not to mention a couple points of defense (and IV) from Agility
loss due to encumbrance.

No question that more defense is going to mean longer combats which is
certainly a good enough reason on its own to be wary about making the
change.

For fencing, deflecting an attack can lead to making an attack but
that's fencing. We aren't talking about fencing and it is just never
that simple. I only had 2 years of fencing in college but I can assure
you that it takes more effort and skill to make a successful
parry-riposte than a direct lunge. Use your broadsword to deflect a
strike aimed at hamstringing you and you are hardly going to be in the
optimal position for making a return strike.

You suggested that adding more defense from shields would make the
combats take longer with the implication that this would be bad.
Definitely a concern. By adding weapon defense you would be adding a
significant amount of defense as well.

Certainly logic suggests that if different weapons require individual
training then different shields should as well. I doubt this thought
was missed by the original designers however and my feeling is that
they went for fun and simplicity instead of more complexity.

Still it could be fun to have shields ranked individually. Probably
worth experimenting with.

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

>
> From the points made by the re-enactors I'm against giving too much at
> rank 0. Also adding defence will make combats longer.
>
> For the weapon defence; defecting an attack leads to making an attack
> of your own (if you're even half ways decent with your weapon). So I
> think that a moderate defence from a weapon with no penalty to strike
> chance is justified. I have visited many re-enactments and seen the
> dance-like skill (except the axe, defence by weapon skill would be
> battering the opponent to keep them off balance), but comments from
> those with direct experience would be far more valuable.
>
> As with your point I'm afraid that there will be added paperwork, but
> not that much.
>
> I would say that having different ranks for shield is justified.
> Being able to use a buckler and a tower shield the same way seems
> crazy to me. Small round and large round seems less of a difference,
> but similar weapons having different skills is a problem for the
> various different sword types in the official rules also.
>
> David
>

Ok Rank 0 is not an insignificant stage, so I'll accept that there
should be a "base chance" even 3 times (I'd say 2x) and leave the
def/rank as it is in Edi's or the original rules.

For the defence from the weapon at rank 0 there's no defence bonus and
at rank 1 only 1%; basically you're not very good at it until higher
ranks (as you have pointed out Rk0 is not untrained). The bonus for 2
handed makes these weapons less of a penalty and fits in with the
styles of fighting I have seen.

I have a broadsword and it's not that heavy and quite manoverable. In
practice with my son its comparatively easy to deflect a swing, step
to the side; the momentum of the weapon's and your movement will in
quite a few cases lead to some form of attack. Again I'd like to hear
from someone with more practical experience than me of medieval
weapons. DQ takes a "best hit" over a 5 second pulse. If we were
trying to model every single blow then that would be complex and
really rather boring.

I like the idea of being able to achieve higher ranks with some
shields and I think this could be added to DQ with the minimum of
fuss, ie just expanding the table and forgetting the different skills

David

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "darkislephil" <phergus@...> wrote:
>
> But in DQ Rank 0 doesn't mean untrained but quite the opposite.
>
> To get Rank 0 in Shield requires 8 weeks. Rank 1 is only 2 weeks after
> that. By gaining Rank 0 with a weapon you go from having only the
> untrained Base Chance of hitting with a weapon to having Base Chance +
> Modified Manual Dexterity. Big difference.
>
> Should not 8 weeks training with a shield grant some amount of
> defense? John's suggestion grants between 6% for the buckler and 18%
> for the tower shield. The 18% seems like a lot but it is offset by the
> minimum 6% reduction in Strike Chance and more likely 11-21% reduction
> in SC. Not to mention a couple points of defense (and IV) from Agility
> loss due to encumbrance.
>
> No question that more defense is going to mean longer combats which is
> certainly a good enough reason on its own to be wary about making the
> change.
>
> For fencing, deflecting an attack can lead to making an attack but
> that's fencing. We aren't talking about fencing and it is just never
> that simple. I only had 2 years of fencing in college but I can assure
> you that it takes more effort and skill to make a successful
> parry-riposte than a direct lunge. Use your broadsword to deflect a
> strike aimed at hamstringing you and you are hardly going to be in the
> optimal position for making a return strike.
>
> You suggested that adding more defense from shields would make the
> combats take longer with the implication that this would be bad.
> Definitely a concern. By adding weapon defense you would be adding a
> significant amount of defense as well.
>
> Certainly logic suggests that if different weapons require individual
> training then different shields should as well. I doubt this thought
> was missed by the original designers however and my feeling is that
> they went for fun and simplicity instead of more complexity.
>
> Still it could be fun to have shields ranked individually. Probably
> worth experimenting with.
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@>
> wrote:
> >
> > From the points made by the re-enactors I'm against giving too much at
> > rank 0. Also adding defence will make combats longer.
> >
> > For the weapon defence; defecting an attack leads to making an attack
> > of your own (if you're even half ways decent with your weapon). So I
> > think that a moderate defence from a weapon with no penalty to strike
> > chance is justified. I have visited many re-enactments and seen the
> > dance-like skill (except the axe, defence by weapon skill would be
> > battering the opponent to keep them off balance), but comments from
> > those with direct experience would be far more valuable.
> >
> > As with your point I'm afraid that there will be added paperwork, but
> > not that much.
> >
> > I would say that having different ranks for shield is justified.
> > Being able to use a buckler and a tower shield the same way seems
> > crazy to me. Small round and large round seems less of a difference,
> > but similar weapons having different skills is a problem for the
> > various different sword types in the official rules also.
> >
> > David
> >
>

Then use base+x% per rank starting at, and including,
zero.

--- darkislephil <phergus@gmail.com> wrote:

> But in DQ Rank 0 doesn't mean untrained but quite
> the opposite.
>
> To get Rank 0 in Shield requires 8 weeks. Rank 1 is
> only 2 weeks after
> that. By gaining Rank 0 with a weapon you go from
> having only the
> untrained Base Chance of hitting with a weapon to
> having Base Chance +
> Modified Manual Dexterity. Big difference.
>
> Should not 8 weeks training with a shield grant some
> amount of
> defense? John's suggestion grants between 6% for
> the buckler and 18%
> for the tower shield. The 18% seems like a lot but
> it is offset by the
> minimum 6% reduction in Strike Chance and more
> likely 11-21% reduction
> in SC. Not to mention a couple points of defense
> (and IV) from Agility
> loss due to encumbrance.
>
> No question that more defense is going to mean
> longer combats which is
> certainly a good enough reason on its own to be wary
> about making the
> change.
>
> For fencing, deflecting an attack can lead to making
> an attack but
> that's fencing. We aren't talking about fencing and
> it is just never
> that simple. I only had 2 years of fencing in
> college but I can assure
> you that it takes more effort and skill to make a
> successful
> parry-riposte than a direct lunge. Use your
> broadsword to deflect a
> strike aimed at hamstringing you and you are hardly
> going to be in the
> optimal position for making a return strike.
>
> You suggested that adding more defense from shields
> would make the
> combats take longer with the implication that this
> would be bad.
> Definitely a concern. By adding weapon defense you
> would be adding a
> significant amount of defense as well.
>
> Certainly logic suggests that if different weapons
> require individual
> training then different shields should as well. I
> doubt this thought
> was missed by the original designers however and my
> feeling is that
> they went for fun and simplicity instead of more
> complexity.
>
> Still it could be fun to have shields ranked
> individually. Probably
> worth experimenting with.
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "dbarrass_2000"
> <david.barrass@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > From the points made by the re-enactors I'm
> against giving too much at
> > rank 0. Also adding defence will make combats
> longer.
> >
> > For the weapon defence; defecting an attack leads
> to making an attack
> > of your own (if you're even half ways decent with
> your weapon). So I
> > think that a moderate defence from a weapon with
> no penalty to strike
> > chance is justified. I have visited many
> re-enactments and seen the
> > dance-like skill (except the axe, defence by
> weapon skill would be
> > battering the opponent to keep them off balance),
> but comments from
> > those with direct experience would be far more
> valuable.
> >
> > As with your point I'm afraid that there will be
> added paperwork, but
> > not that much.
> >
> > I would say that having different ranks for shield
> is justified.
> > Being able to use a buckler and a tower shield the
> same way seems
> > crazy to me. Small round and large round seems
> less of a difference,
> > but similar weapons having different skills is a
> problem for the
> > various different sword types in the official
> rules also.
> >
> > David
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news

Hi, everyone! Rodger Thorm here.

Yes, the moderators are still around, and still involved, even if it's
only marginally. (I can't speak directly for JohnR, but I've seen his
activity here, periodically.) I haven't been playing DQ recently
(unfortunately), but I'm still here.

It would take a long time to go through the entire history of the
current groups (remember that some of these groups predate Yahoo
groups, and were originally hosted on other services that were
acquired by Yahoo), but here's my recollection of it, in brief.

There are three DQ related groups I co-moderate: DQ Newsletter,
DQN-list, and DQ-rules. DQ Newsletter was formed as a way to manage
the subscriptions and distribution of the DQ Newsletter (which had
been being maintained and distributed by hand.

When we formed the DQN-list, it was meant to be a complement to the
Newsletter. The Newsletter group would be solely for distributing the
newsletters, and the DQN-list was for discussion about the newsletters
(and about DQ in general). Much of the discussion about DQ was on the
WebRPG site, and the list was originally seen as a poor cousin to that
site. Unfortunately, much of that history was lost when the site
suffered a serious crash, and their new format was much less
user-friendly after the site re-formed.

The DQ-rules group was added with the intent of it being for rules
revisions and new rules in conjunction with open source DQ. Having a
second group also gave us more file storage space, since Yahoo gives
each group only 20Mb.

At this point, I think the two groups are mostly interchangable and do
serve a parallel function. However, it's very difficult to extract
the content of a Yahoo group to export it to some other location, so
merging the two would be prohibitive. The loss of storage space is
also a disincentive.

If things become polarized enough to create distinct identities for
the two groups, then that's fine. But any kind of attempt to organize
this community is going to be like trying to herd cats. The DQ
community is self-organizing, so unless a real consensus arises about
separate directions for the two groups, there will probably be a lot
of intermingling between the two.

Rodger Thorm
DQN-list co-moderator

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

> >> JohnR, Rodger, if you're both still here, I just want to say
that
> >>while it's really good to have both lists, I think the functions
of the
> >>two lists need to be clarified a bit more, or perhaps the lists
need to
> >>be merged. There's just not enough traffic in my opinion on
either list
> >>to justify both lists these days.

Kerensa (Female Elf): I am not going to rub Ogre guts all over me.

Jonah (Male Elf): But it will be one less spell component for me to deal
with.

Kerensa: I am NOT going to rub Ogre guts all over me.

Jonah: But it will help us sneak past the guards.

Kerensa: I AM NOT going to rub Ogre guts all over me.

Jonah: You can wash it off later.

Kerensa: I AM NOT going to rub Ogre guts all over me!

Johah: But . . .

Kerensa: Do you hear the words that are coming out of my mouth? I AM NOT
GOING TO RUB OGRE GUTS ALL OVER ME!

~Jeffery~

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@...> wrote:

>
>
> Then use base+x% per rank starting at, and including,
> zero.

If I understand you correctly you are suggesting more or less exactly
what John was suggesting and that I was agreeing with.

Which is that:

* Each shield has a base defense that is gained at Rank 0
* You get X% additional defense per Rank with shield

John's suggestion, I believe, was that the Base Defense would be 3 x
Def Mod in the shield table.

For example a Buckler has a Def Mod of 2%. The Base Defense for it
would become 6% plus an additional 2%/Rank. With a 3x for Base I
wouldn't also give the def mod for Rank 0 but I don't see that it
would upset the balance in any significant way.

David's suggestion of opening up the ranks on the shields a bit has
merit as well.

> --- darkislephil <phergus@...> wrote:
>
> > But in DQ Rank 0 doesn't mean untrained but quite
> > the opposite.
> >
> > To get Rank 0 in Shield requires 8 weeks. Rank 1 is
> > only 2 weeks after
> > that. By gaining Rank 0 with a weapon you go from
> > having only the
> > untrained Base Chance of hitting with a weapon to
> > having Base Chance +
> > Modified Manual Dexterity. Big difference.
> >
> > Should not 8 weeks training with a shield grant some
> > amount of
> > defense? John's suggestion grants between 6% for
> > the buckler and 18%
> > for the tower shield. The 18% seems like a lot but
> > it is offset by the
> > minimum 6% reduction in Strike Chance and more
> > likely 11-21% reduction
> > in SC. Not to mention a couple points of defense
> > (and IV) from Agility
> > loss due to encumbrance.
> >
> > No question that more defense is going to mean
> > longer combats which is
> > certainly a good enough reason on its own to be wary
> > about making the
> > change.
> >
> > For fencing, deflecting an attack can lead to making
> > an attack but
> > that's fencing. We aren't talking about fencing and
> > it is just never
> > that simple. I only had 2 years of fencing in
> > college but I can assure
> > you that it takes more effort and skill to make a
> > successful
> > parry-riposte than a direct lunge. Use your
> > broadsword to deflect a
> > strike aimed at hamstringing you and you are hardly
> > going to be in the
> > optimal position for making a return strike.
> >
> > You suggested that adding more defense from shields
> > would make the
> > combats take longer with the implication that this
> > would be bad.
> > Definitely a concern. By adding weapon defense you
> > would be adding a
> > significant amount of defense as well.
> >
> > Certainly logic suggests that if different weapons
> > require individual
> > training then different shields should as well. I
> > doubt this thought
> > was missed by the original designers however and my
> > feeling is that
> > they went for fun and simplicity instead of more
> > complexity.
> >
> > Still it could be fun to have shields ranked
> > individually. Probably
> > worth experimenting with.
> >
> > --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "dbarrass_2000"
> > <david.barrass@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From the points made by the re-enactors I'm
> > against giving too much at
> > > rank 0. Also adding defence will make combats
> > longer.
> > >
> > > For the weapon defence; defecting an attack leads
> > to making an attack
> > > of your own (if you're even half ways decent with
> > your weapon). So I
> > > think that a moderate defence from a weapon with
> > no penalty to strike
> > > chance is justified. I have visited many
> > re-enactments and seen the
> > > dance-like skill (except the axe, defence by
> > weapon skill would be
> > > battering the opponent to keep them off balance),
> > but comments from
> > > those with direct experience would be far more
> > valuable.
> > >
> > > As with your point I'm afraid that there will be
> > added paperwork, but
> > > not that much.
> > >
> > > I would say that having different ranks for shield
> > is justified.
> > > Being able to use a buckler and a tower shield the
> > same way seems
> > > crazy to me. Small round and large round seems
> > less of a difference,
> > > but similar weapons having different skills is a
> > problem for the
> > > various different sword types in the official
> > rules also.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________

> 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
> with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
>

Heh. Those ogre guts don't come out with just regular washing either.


--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@...>
wrote:

>
> Kerensa (Female Elf): I am not going to rub Ogre guts all over me.
>
> Jonah (Male Elf): But it will be one less spell component for me to

deal

> with.
>
> Kerensa: I am NOT going to rub Ogre guts all over me.
>
> Jonah: But it will help us sneak past the guards.
>
> Kerensa: I AM NOT going to rub Ogre guts all over me.
>
> Jonah: You can wash it off later.
>
> Kerensa: I AM NOT going to rub Ogre guts all over me!
>
> Johah: But . . .
>
> Kerensa: Do you hear the words that are coming out of my mouth? I

AM NOT

> GOING TO RUB OGRE GUTS ALL OVER ME!
>
> ~Jeffery~
>