I still monitor activity on both lists.

A couple of considerations:

I have noticed that they have recently upped the file storage limit
to 100mb per group (we currently consume 30 mb on DQN-List and 10 mb
on DQ-rules according to their calculations and some of this material
may be duplicated).

I have also experimented with a method of backing up the yahoo lists
into a web readable format, see the results here:

http://johnrauchert.brinkster.net/dq/archive/discussions/dq-
rules/msg00000.html

JohnR, Co-moderator DQN-list, DQ-rules

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "rthorm" <rthorm@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
> ...
> second group also gave us more file storage space, since Yahoo gives
> each group only 20Mb.
>...
> 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.
>

Lev Lafayette wrote:

>
>
>
> Salutations,
>
> --- John M Kahane <jkahane@comnet.ca <mailto:jkahane%40comnet.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.
>

I personally think this would have happened with DQ had TSR not gutted
SPI. It is generally accepted that the DQ 3rd ed. was not published by
TSR as an improvement, but as a stop-gap to refresh the copyrights and
trademarks.

> > 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.

And in 25 years from now, someone will do a critique on current game
systems and pan them for things that are included or omitted because
they do not match what will be the accepted norm 25 years from now.
That may even be "density of material" because it hamstrings creative
GMs and role players and clutters up getting at the fundamental
underlying rules mechanism.

>
> > > 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.

Which goes back to my earlier point that you disagreed with. With an
INT characteristic, there will be the inclination that if the player can
not suss the plot, then they are going to want to be told, especially if
their character has a high INT. It opens the door for plot laziness,
role play laziness and a boring game. I'll say it again--I played in a
GURPS science fiction game last year at Origins that ended up being
nothing more than a experiment in dice rolling and comparing stats. The
GM was a strict rules-smith and squelched the creativity of any attempt
to "role play". Bad GM? You bet! However, my point remains that this
would be much, much less likely to happen if the GM was running a DQ
game where the emphasis is on role playing and creativity, not on
rules-smithing and density of material.

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

> >
> I personally think this would have happened with DQ
> had TSR not gutted
> SPI. It is generally accepted that the DQ 3rd ed.
> was not published by
> TSR as an improvement, but as a stop-gap to refresh
> the copyrights and
> trademarks.
>

I don't think you'll get many disagreements there,
although *some* (a minority) of the changes I think
were for the better.

Of course, but criticising TSR's handling of DQ, one
hardly exonerate's SPI from getting themselves in such
a mess to begin with.

> > Density of material, scope of application and
> > workmanship in the game system, now they're
> important.
>
> And in 25 years from now, someone will do a critique
> on current game
> systems and pan them for things that are included or
> omitted because
> they do not match what will be the accepted norm 25
> years from now.

Sure. I don't have a problem with that. Games systems
(largely) improve. This is a good thing.

> > 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.
>
> Which goes back to my earlier point that you
> disagreed with. With an
> INT characteristic, there will be the inclination
> that if the player can
> not suss the plot, then they are going to want to be
> told, especially if
> their character has a high INT.

Yep, and I find that's fair enough too.

> It opens the door
> for plot laziness,
> role play laziness and a boring game. I'll say it
> again--I played in a
> GURPS science fiction game last year at Origins that
> ended up being
> nothing more than a experiment in dice rolling and
> comparing stats. The
> GM was a strict rules-smith and squelched the
> creativity of any attempt
> to "role play". Bad GM? You bet! However, my
> point remains that this
> would be much, much less likely to happen if the GM
> was running a DQ
> game where the emphasis is on role playing and
> creativity, not on
> rules-smithing and density of material.

Personally, I prefer both. YMMV.



____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

"I played in a

>GURPS science fiction game last year at Origins that
>ended up being nothing more than a experiment in dice rolling and
>comparing stats"

Yeah, i have started playing GURPS and didnt realise just how important the
IQ stat was when i rolled it up.

My Victorian Quest (VQ) (ported from DQ) we are currently playing as well, i
havent added an INT stat either. It has a few more skills groups with
'knowledge' skills (Professor, Theologist) but it uses rank and PC to
determine percentages.

John

_________________________________________________________________
Solve the Conspiracy and win fantastic prizes.
http://www.theconspiracygame.co.uk/

SPI was a war gaming business and they operated on a basis of love for the
games and not profit margin. This allowed them to produce a large number of
games and three different magazines at prices affordable to anyone
interested in the hobby. Unfortunately it made them vulnerable to downturns
in the economy and more predatory companies.

~Jeffery~

> Of course, but criticising TSR's handling of DQ, one
> hardly exonerate's SPI from getting themselves in such
> a mess to begin with.

Read this and see if you hold the same opinion
afterwards:

http://www.costik.com/spisins.html

Regards,


Lev

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

> SPI was a war gaming business and they operated on a
> basis of love for the
> games and not profit margin. This allowed them to
> produce a large number of
> games and three different magazines at prices
> affordable to anyone
> interested in the hobby. Unfortunately it made them
> vulnerable to downturns
> in the economy and more predatory companies.
>
> ~Jeffery~
>
> > Of course, but criticising TSR's handling of DQ,
> one
> > hardly exonerate's SPI from getting themselves in
> such
> > a mess to begin with.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

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

Yes.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lev Lafayette" <lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au>
To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Re: SPI


>
> Read this and see if you hold the same opinion
> afterwards:
>
> http://www.costik.com/spisins.html
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Lev
>
> --- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> SPI was a war gaming business and they operated on a
>> basis of love for the
>> games and not profit margin. This allowed them to
>> produce a large number of
>> games and three different magazines at prices
>> affordable to anyone
>> interested in the hobby. Unfortunately it made them
>> vulnerable to downturns
>> in the economy and more predatory companies.
>>
>> ~Jeffery~
>>
>> > Of course, but criticising TSR's handling of DQ,
>> one
>> > hardly exonerate's SPI from getting themselves in
>> such
>> > a mess to begin with.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Don't pick lemons.
> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Would you care to elaborate?

Costikyan makes note of the increase in complexity and
the development of computer wargames. He also points
out that the 1980s (which were largely an economically
positive period) should have been a boom period for
SPI.

However, the specific claim for the decline is: "From
1977 onward, SPI's sales declined, mainly because of
mismanagement." Specifically he notes an internal
power struggle (never a good thing for any company,
but sometimes a necessity as well) and "an inattention
to marketing" and staying in touch with staff
representatives: e.g.,

"When Dunnigan was eventually replaced by Chris Wagner
-- S&T's founder, by now a management consultant
brought in to try to turn SPI around -- new management
discovered that many of SPI's independent commissioned
sales reps didn't realize they were still representing
the company, and one thought SPI had gone out of
business. Nobody had bothered to contact them for
years."

And of course selling things under cost. That's a
particularly bad move when the item is selling *well*

"Another failing was inadequate attention to financial
details. New management discovered that SPI's highly
successful line of Capsule games -- small,
limited-component products sold for $6 -- actually
lost money. Given distributor discounts, $6 would
about cover the cost of shipping blank, white boxes
without games inside them. The Capsule games had sold
very well -- and SPI lost money on every one it sold."

I really don't think this was intentional on SPIs
part. I don't think it was a commitment to produce
games that were "affordable to everyone", but rather
seriously poor management. I mean, it's basic to
economic principles really.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html

Of course, the final act, as Costikyan elaborates, is
TSR taking over an utterly bankrupt company realising
that it has negative net capital and deciding to put a
bullet to its head.

TSR buried SPI; but as much as I love its products it
was certainly walking corpse for quite a few years
prior.

Regards,


Lev


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

> Yes.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lev Lafayette" <lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au>
> To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 1:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Re: SPI
>
>
> >
> > Read this and see if you hold the same opinion
> > afterwards:
> >
> > http://www.costik.com/spisins.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Lev
> >
> > --- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> SPI was a war gaming business and they operated
> on a
> >> basis of love for the
> >> games and not profit margin. This allowed them
> to
> >> produce a large number of
> >> games and three different magazines at prices
> >> affordable to anyone
> >> interested in the hobby. Unfortunately it made
> them
> >> vulnerable to downturns
> >> in the economy and more predatory companies.
> >>
> >> ~Jeffery~
> >>
> >> > Of course, but criticising TSR's handling of
> DQ,
> >> one
> >> > hardly exonerate's SPI from getting themselves
> in
> >> such
> >> > a mess to begin with.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

____________________________________________________________________________________

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

____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL

On 3/24/07, darkislephil <phergus@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- 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.

IMHO 3 x Def Mod is too much. I should be just 1x Def Mod
If you want to increase the defense, you should increase the max rank
for shields

>
> 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
> >
>
>
>
>
>

--
"The life of a software architect is a long (and sometimes painful)
succession of suboptimal decisions made partly in the dark."

-------------------------------------
<EPI/> - Deploying ideas
-------------------------------------
Ing. Diego H. Mornacco
Arquitecto
Epidata Consulting
Maipú 521 1er piso Of. A
Ofi: 5031 0060 / 61
Cel: 15-5884-0040
www.epidataconsulting.com

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Mornak <dmornacco@...> wrote:

>
> IMHO 3 x Def Mod is too much. I should be just 1x Def Mod
> If you want to increase the defense, you should increase the max rank
> for shields

Why? Do you think that weapons should have a 0% base chance?

On 3/26/07, darkislephil <phergus@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Mornak <dmornacco@...> wrote:
> >
> > IMHO 3 x Def Mod is too much. I should be just 1x Def Mod
> > If you want to increase the defense, you should increase the max rank
> > for shields
>
> Why? Do you think that weapons should have a 0% base chance?
>

No, the diference is that you have a base defense on your agility .But
the problem is that I don't think that we should increase so much the
defense bonus because It would unbalance the offensive bonus

Regards

Mornak

I'm with largely with Mornak, too much defence will just make things
slow, but higher max rank for things like bucker make them worthwhile
and can penalise the unwieldy tower shield.

Shields currently have a 0% base chance, there's no benefit (other
than to the withdraw action) for a rank 0 shield (rule [17.5]) so
Mornak is effectively giving a 1x def/rank base chance.

I might be persuaded to go for 2xDefMod but not to 3x

David

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "darkislephil" <phergus@...> wrote:
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Mornak <dmornacco@> wrote:
> >
> > IMHO 3 x Def Mod is too much. I should be just 1x Def Mod
> > If you want to increase the defense, you should increase the max rank
> > for shields
>
> Why? Do you think that weapons should have a 0% base chance?
>

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Mornak <dmornacco@...> wrote:

>
> No, the diference is that you have a base defense on your agility

Okay but you also have a base offense which is your Manual Dexterity.

Offense: [(Weapon BC) + (Mod. MD) + (4 x Rank)]
Defense: [ (Mod. AG) + (Def. Mod x Rank)]

As Shields are ranked and trained as Weapons it seems a bit weird that
they do not have a base defense (though they do have a offensive Base
Chance).

> the problem is that I don't think that we should increase so much the
> defense bonus because It would unbalance the offensive bonus

Given that the amount would be from 4-12% I'm not seeing a big impact
here.

And as you were suggesting that instead the max rank be extended the
end result is still the same. Any character that uses a shield will
have taken it to max rank in probably as few as Max Rank adventures
and certainly less than (2 x Max Rank) adventures unless there is
little to no combat in the game. In that case they probably wouldn't
take shield at all.

Note I'm not saying you are wrong I am just trying to understand what
you think the negative consequences would be in some quantifiable manner.

Mostly just playing devil's advocate. Chances are I'll keep doing what
we have always done which is (Rank in Shield + 1) x (Def. Mod).

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

>
> I'm with largely with Mornak, too much defence will just make things
> slow, but higher max rank for things like bucker make them worthwhile
> and can penalise the unwieldy tower shield.

The end result of that would be that everyone maxes out in Buckler and
never uses anything else because all of the other shields have
penalties to their use. (Based on the original table you posted with
Buckler maxing at 7 and with decreasing max ranks for all of the others.)

> Shields currently have a 0% base chance, there's no benefit (other
> than to the withdraw action) for a rank 0 shield (rule [17.5])

That is certainly a hole in the rules. With a fairly liberal reading
of the shield table you could read it as getting the defense bonus for
every rank including 0 which is what I have always done.

But even so shields are treated as a passive defense. If you have a
shield equipped you get the defense bonus and can attack with your
full strike chance. You can't however concentrate on shield defense
and forgo your attacks in exchange for extra defensive use of the
shield. Your shield defense is constant no matter whether you are on
the offensive or defensive. (Excepting the Defensive Withdrawal.) No
shield walls.

Does it matter? Probably not. One of the best things about DQ, IMO, is
that it doesn't have a gazillion and one rules for combat.

On 3/26/07, darkislephil <phergus@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Mornak <dmornacco@...> wrote:
> >
> > No, the diference is that you have a base defense on your agility
>
> Okay but you also have a base offense which is your Manual Dexterity.
>
> Offense: [(Weapon BC) + (Mod. MD) + (4 x Rank)]
> Defense: [ (Mod. AG) + (Def. Mod x Rank)]

OK, you are right there.

>
> As Shields are ranked and trained as Weapons it seems a bit weird that
> they do not have a base defense (though they do have a offensive Base
> Chance).
>
> > the problem is that I don't think that we should increase so much the
> > defense bonus because It would unbalance the offensive bonus
>
> Given that the amount would be from 4-12% I'm not seeing a big impact
> here.
>
> And as you were suggesting that instead the max rank be extended the
> end result is still the same. Any character that uses a shield will
> have taken it to max rank in probably as few as Max Rank adventures
> and certainly less than (2 x Max Rank) adventures unless there is
> little to no combat in the game. In that case they probably wouldn't
> take shield at all.
>
> Note I'm not saying you are wrong I am just trying to understand what
> you think the negative consequences would be in some quantifiable manner.
>
> Mostly just playing devil's advocate. Chances are I'll keep doing what
> we have always done which is (Rank in Shield + 1) x (Def. Mod).

Let me try to explain a little more. In DQ if you want to have a
really good strike chance (and making an acceptable damage) you need
high stats in PS and MD and rank a weapon to Max Rank (wich take a
long time). Therefore it should be hard to have a high defense. I love
the fact that the main factor of deacresing AG (and therefore defense)
is the weight of your armor, therefore your defense depends on AG and
(indirectly) PS.

So I don't like the idea of giving a defense bonus just for wearing a
shield. Instead of giving a base defense, I would prefer to increase
the max rank. the effect in bonuses will be the same, but it will only
be achived by very "trained" characters
However it might be correct to give the same defense at rank 0 and 1

Half of my current character's defense is provided by the shield (kite
shield, rank 4). If I could rank it over rank 4 I will too much. Think
about the other players wich don't want to use shields. They will be
forced to use it

The only modifications that I liked in this post were:
- Reducing the MD penalty of using a shield
- Ranking each kind of shield separately (but with the same max
rank... or just 1 rank of diference)

I hope to have been clear.

Regards

Thanks for expounding upon your thoughts.

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Mornak <dmornacco@...> wrote:
>
> Let me try to explain a little more. In DQ if you want to have a
> really good strike chance (and making an acceptable damage) you need
> high stats in PS and MD and rank a weapon to Max Rank (wich take a
> long time). Therefore it should be hard to have a high defense.

I don't think that one implies the other but I agree that the DQ
combat benefits in general from the overall higher offensive skills
versus defensive. Especially when you consider the ease of obtaining
magical bonuses to defense.

> Instead of giving a base defense, I would prefer to increase
> the max rank. the effect in bonuses will be the same, but it
> will only be achived by very "trained" characters

Actually the same effect would be attained by only minimally better
trained characters but the principle is probably good.

> Half of my current character's defense is provided by the shield (kite
> shield, rank 4). If I could rank it over rank 4 I will too much. Think
> about the other players wich don't want to use shields. They will be
> forced to use it

I think there are some words missing in there somewhere.

I don't believe however that I would agree that players would be
forced to take shield just because it might grant, for example, 35%
defense instead of 25% (to use your kite shield as the example).
Certainly not if they hadn't already planned for the 4 pts of MD loss
and potential loss of 5-20% from Strike Chance not to mention the
Agility loss from the extra weight.

Certainly any character with shield is going to think getting more
defense for Rank 0 _or_ being able to go up another 2 Ranks or more to
be a wonderful thing.

> The only modifications that I liked in this post were:
> - Reducing the MD penalty of using a shield
> - Ranking each kind of shield separately (but with the same max
> rank... or just 1 rank of diference)

Without the MD penalties on the shields those using them get the free
defense just for carrying it around that you objected to earlier.
Being able to mitigate some portion of the penalty through rank
wouldn't be an unreasonable proposition though IMO.

At the end of the day those who don't think anything needs changing
will go on the way they have in the past and others might try out one
or more of the proposed alternate rules. Maybe some will find their
game improved and maybe they won't. The discussion at least has poked
at the shield mechanics from different directions and that is good.

Having seen your style of discussion, no.

> Would you care to elaborate?
>
> Costikyan makes note of the increase in complexity and
> the development of computer wargames. He also points
> out that the 1980s (which were largely an economically
> positive period) should have been a boom period for
> SPI.
>
> However, the specific claim for the decline is: "From
> 1977 onward, SPI's sales declined, mainly because of
> mismanagement." Specifically he notes an internal
> power struggle (never a good thing for any company,
> but sometimes a necessity as well) and "an inattention
> to marketing" and staying in touch with staff
> representatives: e.g.,
>
> "When Dunnigan was eventually replaced by Chris Wagner
> -- S&T's founder, by now a management consultant
> brought in to try to turn SPI around -- new management
> discovered that many of SPI's independent commissioned
> sales reps didn't realize they were still representing
> the company, and one thought SPI had gone out of
> business. Nobody had bothered to contact them for
> years."
>
> And of course selling things under cost. That's a
> particularly bad move when the item is selling *well*
>
> "Another failing was inadequate attention to financial
> details. New management discovered that SPI's highly
> successful line of Capsule games -- small,
> limited-component products sold for $6 -- actually
> lost money. Given distributor discounts, $6 would
> about cover the cost of shipping blank, white boxes
> without games inside them. The Capsule games had sold
> very well -- and SPI lost money on every one it sold."
>
> I really don't think this was intentional on SPIs
> part. I don't think it was a commitment to produce
> games that were "affordable to everyone", but rather
> seriously poor management. I mean, it's basic to
> economic principles really.
>
> http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html
>
> Of course, the final act, as Costikyan elaborates, is
> TSR taking over an utterly bankrupt company realising
> that it has negative net capital and deciding to put a
> bullet to its head.
>
> TSR buried SPI; but as much as I love its products it
> was certainly walking corpse for quite a few years
> prior.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Lev
>
>
> --- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Yes.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Lev Lafayette" <lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au>
>> To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 1:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Re: SPI
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Read this and see if you hold the same opinion
>> > afterwards:
>> >
>> > http://www.costik.com/spisins.html
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> >
>> > Lev
>> >
>> > --- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> SPI was a war gaming business and they operated
>> on a
>> >> basis of love for the
>> >> games and not profit margin. This allowed them
>> to
>> >> produce a large number of
>> >> games and three different magazines at prices
>> >> affordable to anyone
>> >> interested in the hobby. Unfortunately it made
>> them
>> >> vulnerable to downturns
>> >> in the economy and more predatory companies.
>> >>
>> >> ~Jeffery~
>> >>
>> >> > Of course, but criticising TSR's handling of
>> DQ,
>> >> one
>> >> > hardly exonerate's SPI from getting themselves
>> in
>> >> such
>> >> > a mess to begin with.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
>> > Don't pick lemons.
>> > See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>> > http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Get your own web address.
> Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

1) You assert that SPI was in it for the love of
gaming and not as a business.

2) I post a link to an alternative opinion and ask
whether you would care to reconsider.

3) You continue to hold your opinion, without offering
grounds.

4) I request an elaboration and provide reasons on why
your claim may be false.

5) You respond with an ad hominen rejection.

Is it really that hard to acknowledge your initial
assertion may not be correct? It's just a long-dead
game company for goodness sakes.


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

> Having seen your style of discussion, no.
>
> > Would you care to elaborate?
> >
> > Costikyan makes note of the increase in complexity
> and
> > the development of computer wargames. He also
> points
> > out that the 1980s (which were largely an
> economically
> > positive period) should have been a boom period
> for
> > SPI.
> >
> > However, the specific claim for the decline is:
> "From
> > 1977 onward, SPI's sales declined, mainly because
> of
> > mismanagement." Specifically he notes an internal
> > power struggle (never a good thing for any
> company,
> > but sometimes a necessity as well) and "an
> inattention
> > to marketing" and staying in touch with staff
> > representatives: e.g.,
> >
> > "When Dunnigan was eventually replaced by Chris
> Wagner
> > -- S&T's founder, by now a management consultant
> > brought in to try to turn SPI around -- new
> management
> > discovered that many of SPI's independent
> commissioned
> > sales reps didn't realize they were still
> representing
> > the company, and one thought SPI had gone out of
> > business. Nobody had bothered to contact them for
> > years."
> >
> > And of course selling things under cost. That's a
> > particularly bad move when the item is selling
> *well*
> >
> > "Another failing was inadequate attention to
> financial
> > details. New management discovered that SPI's
> highly
> > successful line of Capsule games -- small,
> > limited-component products sold for $6 -- actually
> > lost money. Given distributor discounts, $6 would
> > about cover the cost of shipping blank, white
> boxes
> > without games inside them. The Capsule games had
> sold
> > very well -- and SPI lost money on every one it
> sold."
> >
> > I really don't think this was intentional on SPIs
> > part. I don't think it was a commitment to produce
> > games that were "affordable to everyone", but
> rather
> > seriously poor management. I mean, it's basic to
> > economic principles really.
> >
> > http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0135.html
> >
> > Of course, the final act, as Costikyan elaborates,
> is
> > TSR taking over an utterly bankrupt company
> realising
> > that it has negative net capital and deciding to
> put a
> > bullet to its head.
> >
> > TSR buried SPI; but as much as I love its products
> it
> > was certainly walking corpse for quite a few years
> > prior.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Lev
> >
> >
> > --- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes.
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Lev Lafayette"
> <lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au>
> >> To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 1:24 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Re: SPI
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Read this and see if you hold the same opinion
> >> > afterwards:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.costik.com/spisins.html
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Lev
> >> >
> >> > --- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@comcast.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> SPI was a war gaming business and they
> operated
> >> on a
> >> >> basis of love for the
> >> >> games and not profit margin. This allowed
> them
> >> to
> >> >> produce a large number of
> >> >> games and three different magazines at prices
> >> >> affordable to anyone
> >> >> interested in the hobby. Unfortunately it
> made
> >> them
> >> >> vulnerable to downturns
> >> >> in the economy and more predatory companies.
> >> >>
> >> >> ~Jeffery~
> >> >>
> >> >> > Of course, but criticising TSR's handling of
> >> DQ,
> >> >> one
> >> >> > hardly exonerate's SPI from getting
> themselves
> >> in
> >> >> such
> >> >> > a mess to begin with.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

____________________________________________________________________________________

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

____________________________________________________________________________________

> > Get your own web address.
> > Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
> > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front

In reading this discussion, one direction from which the shield rules haven't been poked (to paraphrase darkislephil) is genre.  I mean, this isn't realistic combat, this is fantasy combat, and the two ain't the same.  Sure, one of the finer points of DQ is its relative "realism," but when playing an FRPG, you can't forget the `F.'  My question is: How effective are shields in fantasy literature?

(And I certainly realize that there are some who could give a rat's behind for genre considerations, but I think it's worth throwing out there, anyway.)

I'm limiting my question to 20^th-21^st century literature and movies (if you use DQ to play a classical mythology game, well, I got nothin' for you).  Seems to me few enough fantasy heroes even bother with shields – they're just not very heroic.  Further, when the heroes are cutting through swathes of soldiers, guards, etc., all the shields in the world don't slow them down. (Now, if you play DQ with the heroic/unheroic dichotomy, which I do – but plenty don't –  the soldiers are all unranked with their shields anyway…)

I think this colors the reason shields weren't made more potent in DQ.  If you increase the potency of a shield, they become de rigeur, and everyone has them.  A barbarian wielding a great axe or a two-handed sword may be more colorful and true to the genre, but he's at a distinct disadvantage compared to the guy wielding a broad sword and toting a kite shield.  Why would anyone ever use a two-handed weapon, when you can double or triple your defense at the cost of a point or two less damage you're inflicting?

Secondarily, the idea of some adventurer toting around a kite shield or – ye gods! -  a tower shield is pretty silly.  They're huge!  It's the defensive equivalent of toting around a pike or a halberd – these items are for massed combat, not adventuring.

Darkislephil also mentioned toying with the idea of splitting weapon ranks into offense and defense.  I played this way for awhile, and it worked out well.  I got the idea after playing Champions, where you can have skill ranks in combat that can be added to your offense or defense.  Our group played with laminated action cards, where the players indicated their actions before the start of the Pulse with dry-erase marker and handed them in to me.  It was easy enough to change the cards to include an spot for offensive/defensive rank breakdowns, and off we went.

Frankly, I like the idea that a skilled swordsman is more capable of defending himself than the average schmuck, and the only way DQ addresses this is the Evade action.  Whenever I ran a character with a good rank with a weapon, I'd almost always choose Evade – your defense goes up, and with a bit of luck, you get those tasty Ripostes, followed by a clean shot at an unarmed opponent.  However, this does make combats rather boring, and the adjustable ranks rule we used gave each fighter more of an individual feel.

Damn, that was depressing. A good read, but depressing.




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

>
>
> Read this and see if you hold the same opinion
> afterwards:
>
> http://www.costik.com/spisins.html
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Lev
>
> --- "Jeffery K. McGonagill" <igmod@...> wrote:
>
> > SPI was a war gaming business and they operated on a
> > basis of love for the
> > games and not profit margin. This allowed them to
> > produce a large number of
> > games and three different magazines at prices
> > affordable to anyone
> > interested in the hobby. Unfortunately it made them
> > vulnerable to downturns
> > in the economy and more predatory companies.
> >
> > ~Jeffery~
> >
> > > Of course, but criticising TSR's handling of DQ,
> > one
> > > hardly exonerate's SPI from getting themselves in
> > such
> > > a mess to begin with.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

_____________________________________________________________________
_______________

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

Damn! They just keep coming! Sorry, folks.

EH? Sorry for the multiple posts. Damned beta editor...


--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Ran Hardin" <dantalion64@...>
wrote:

>
>
> In reading this discussion, one direction from which the shield

rules

> haven't been poked (to paraphrase darkislephil) is genre. I mean,
> this isn't realistic combat, this is fantasy combat, and the two
> ain't the same. Sure, one of the finer points of DQ is its

relative

> "realism," but when playing an FRPG, you can't forget the
> `F.' My question is: How effective are shields in fantasy
> literature?
>
> (And I certainly realize that there are some who could give a rat's
> behind for genre considerations, but I think it's worth throwing

out

> there, anyway.)
>
> I'm limiting my question to 20th-21st century literature and movies
> (if you use DQ to play a classical mythology game, well, I got
> nothin' for you). Seems to me few enough fantasy heroes even

bother

> with shields – they're just not very heroic. Further, when the
> heroes are cutting through swathes of soldiers, guards, etc., all

the

> shields in the world don't slow them down. (Now, if you play DQ

with

> the heroic/unheroic dichotomy, which I do – but plenty don't
> – the soldiers are all unranked with their shields anyway…)
>
> I think this colors the reason shields weren't made more potent in
> DQ. If you increase the potency of a shield, they become de

rigeur, and

> everyone has them. A barbarian wielding a great axe or a two-

handed

> sword may be more colorful and true to the genre, but he's at a
> distinct disadvantage compared to the guy wielding a broad sword

and

> toting a kite shield. Why would anyone ever use a two-handed

weapon,

> when you can double or triple your defense at the cost of a point

or two

> less damage you're inflicting?
>
> Secondarily, the idea of some adventurer toting around a kite

shield or

> – ye gods! - a tower shield is pretty silly. They're huge!
> It's the defensive equivalent of toting around a pike or a halberd
> – these items are for massed combat, not adventuring.
>
> Darkislephil also mentioned toying with the idea of splitting

weapon

> ranks into offense and defense. I played this way for awhile, and

it

> worked out well. I got the idea after playing Champions, where

you can

> have skill ranks in combat that can be added to your offense or

defense.

> Our group played with laminated action cards, where the players
> indicated their actions before the start of the Pulse with dry-

erase

> marker and handed them in to me. It was easy enough to change the

cards

> to include an spot for offensive/defensive rank breakdowns, and

off we

> went.
>
> Frankly, I like the idea that a skilled swordsman is more capable

of

> defending himself than the average schmuck, and the only way DQ
> addresses this is the Evade action. Whenever I ran a character

with a

> good rank with a weapon, I'd almost always choose Evade – your
> defense goes up, and with a bit of luck, you get those tasty

Ripostes,

> followed by a clean shot at an unarmed opponent. However, this

does

> make combats rather boring, and the adjustable ranks rule we used

gave

> each fighter more of an individual feel.
>

As you may have noticed it appears that we have been spammed by a new
Yahoo! "Feature".

I have deleted the duplicate messages from the online version of the
list (this leaves some strange gaps in the numbering but at least if
you are viewing online you do not see many messages with the same
content).

Unfortunately we can not do anything about the email that we got in our
inboxes (I thought that the group really heated up when I opened my
email tonight).

I am with Ran on this one, we should avoid the Beta Editor for now
given his experience.

I will continue to monitor the list for the next few hours to make sure
everything has calmed down.

JohnR, Co-Moderator DQN-List

An excellent addition to the shield discussion Ran!

In playing my own characters I've generally trended towards fighting
sans shield. To me it does seem less heroic with a shield. My
characters rarely run around in heavy armor as well. Adventuring
heroes in fiction are rarely in full-up armor unless they are headed
into some massive battle known about ahead of time.

Interesting comment about the action cards. I've been using colored
poker chips lately to denote whether or not a character is acting in
the engaged or unengaged phase. We sometimes have as many as 10
players in a session and it becomes very easy to lose track of who has
gone and who hasn't.

Hi John,

I've just responded to you in person, but I'd better
put this on the list as a whole.

I strongly doubt whether this has anything to do with
the beta editor software. It seems far more probable
that this is due to the list server not deleting
messages that have been sent from the mail queue, thus
sending them over and over again.

(Yes, this message will appear a few times - no I
don't use the beta editor).

Simply put, it is best if we JUST DON'T POST to the
list until Yahoo! sorts out the problem.

All the best,


Lev


NB: I deal with mail and list server software on a
professional basis.

--- John Rauchert <jfrauchert@shaw.ca> wrote:

> As you may have noticed it appears that we have been
> spammed by a new
> Yahoo! "Feature".
>
> I have deleted the duplicate messages from the
> online version of the
> list (this leaves some strange gaps in the numbering
> but at least if
> you are viewing online you do not see many messages
> with the same
> content).
>
> Unfortunately we can not do anything about the email
> that we got in our
> inboxes (I thought that the group really heated up
> when I opened my
> email tonight).
>
> I am with Ran on this one, we should avoid the Beta
> Editor for now
> given his experience.
>
> I will continue to monitor the list for the next few
> hours to make sure
> everything has calmed down.
>
> JohnR, Co-Moderator DQN-List
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

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

In our game anyone who is likely to get into a fight carries a shield and
the only people who don't are generally the pure mages. The reason for this
is that defence is vital in any fight to stop you getting pulverised.

But having said that I think the main reason that shields do not have a huge
amount of defence is that it is a game, it is supposed to be fun and a long
protracted combat with neither side hitting each other is boring as hell.

Boring games are not fun games and if they arn't fun people will not play
them.

Mandos
/s

> In our game anyone who is likely to get into a fight carries a shield and
> the only people who don't are generally the pure mages. The reason for this
> is that defence is vital in any fight to stop you getting pulverised.
>
> But having said that I think the main reason that shields do not have a huge
> amount of defence is that it is a game, it is supposed to be fun and a long
> protracted combat with neither side hitting each other is boring as hell.
>
> Boring games are not fun games and if they arn't fun people will not play
> them.
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/join
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
> mailto:dqn-list-digest@yahoogroups.com
> mailto:dqn-list-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> dqn-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

We have much more longer battles.
A few months ago a 5 members party plus 8 soldiers ataked a little castle. The hole battle last more than 40 pulses and more than 6 hours of gaming ... and it was boring




--
"The life of a software architect is a long (and sometimes painful) succession of suboptimal decisions made partly in the dark."

-------------------------------------
<EPI/> - Deploying ideas
-------------------------------------
Ing. Diego H. Mornacco
Arquitecto
Epidata Consulting
Maipú 521 1er piso Of. A
Ofi: 5031 0060 / 61
Cel: 15-5884-0040
www.epidataconsulting.com

-------------- Original message --------------
From: Mornak <dmornacco@gmail.com>
We have much more longer battles.
A few months ago a 5 members party plus 8 soldiers ataked a little castle. The hole battle last more than 40 pulses and more than 6 hours of gaming ... and it was boring

On 3/29/07, igmod@comcast.net <igmod@comcast.net> wrote:

As I've mentioned before, I still use 1st Edition shield rules.  Fights have rarely been long, almost always less than 12 pulses.

 

~Jeffery~

 

> In our game anyone who is likely to get into a fight carries a shield and
> the only people who don't are generally the pure mages. The reason for this
> is that defence is vital in any fight to stop you getting pulverised.
>
> But having said that I think the main reason that shields do not have a huge
> amount of defence is that it is a game, it is supposed to be fun and a long
> protracted combat with neither side hitting each other is boring as hell.
>
> Boring games are not fun games and if they arn't fun people will not play
> them.
>
> Mandos
> /s
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> http://groups. yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/join
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
> mailto: dqn-list-digest@yahoogroups.com
> mailto: dqn-list-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> dqn-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs .yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

--
"The life of a software architect is a long (and sometimes painful) succession of suboptimal decisions made partly in the dark."

-------------------------------------
<EPI/> - Deploying ideas
-------------------------------------
Ing. Diego H. Mornacco
Arquitecto
Epidata Consulting
Maip� 521 1er piso Of. A
Ofi: 5031 0060 / 61
Cel: 15-5884-0040
www.epidataconsulting.com

Well everything seems back to normal. Below is the official response
from Yahoo!

Now let's see if we can generate the same amount of traffic one
message at time :)

JohnR

Official Response:

Duplicate Messages and Email Delivery
Update (8:00 am PST, 3/29): A fix was pushed at midnight (Pacific
Time) that we believe has resolved the problem for messages
submitted after that time. However, it is possible that some users
of some groups may have continued to receive duplicates of messages
that were posted before midnight.

We're aware of the duplicate message bug that began affecting groups
today (Wednesday, March 28th) and are working to resolve the issue
(a side effect of this bug is that some messages are also being
delayed). We have actually pushed two fixes already, but we are
aware that some groups are still experiencing the problem and that
more needs to be done to fully resolve the issue.

There is, however, one silver lining to this bug. It was the result
of our latest system updates intended to improve email delivery
speeds. So once the bugs are resolved, we should see a significant
reduction in the time it takes to deliver messages to Yahoo! Groups
members.

Thank you and our apologies for any inconvenience caused by the
duplicate messages.

The Yahoo! Groups Team

It is highly appropriate of course that person with
the surname 'Bouch' is posting on a discussion about
shields. :-)

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

> I agree, the evade rule is central to this
> discussion, and to the use of
> shields given that it is a defensive stance using a
> defensive weapon.
> The rest of the talk has been increasing the
> effectiveness of a shield
> without consideration of whether it is being used
> defensively or not.
> This I believe is a mistake.
>
>
>
> To give that heroic fantasy element I would also not
> have the general
> run of the mill grunt utilize the evasion rule.
>
>
>
> BTW, have you considered the point that if your
> evasion results in a
> free attack you get to move one hex-side around your
> opponent, and given
> that you are almost certainly going to have the next
> attack you can move
> one more hex-side around and wallah! a rear hex. Now
> match this up with
> an ambidextrous assassin with two main-gauches,
> totally deadly.
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:dqn-list@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Ran Hardin
> Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2007 7:00 AM
> To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [DQN-list] Shield Talk (Was: Re: Shield
> Rules )
>
>
>
> In reading this discussion, one direction from which
> the shield rules
> haven't been poked (to paraphrase darkislephil) is
> genre. I mean, this
> isn't realistic combat, this is fantasy combat, and
> the two ain't the
> same. Sure, one of the finer points of DQ is its
> relative "realism,"
> but when playing an FRPG, you can't forget the `F.'
> My question is: How
> effective are shields in fantasy literature?
>
> (And I certainly realize that there are some who
> could give a rat's
> behind for genre considerations, but I think it's
> worth throwing out
> there, anyway.)
>
> I'm limiting my question to 20th-21st century
> literature and movies (if
> you use DQ to play a classical mythology game, well,
> I got nothin' for
> you). Seems to me few enough fantasy heroes even
> bother with shields -
> they're just not very heroic. Further, when the
> heroes are cutting
> through swathes of soldiers, guards, etc., all the
> shields in the world
> don't slow them down. (Now, if you play DQ with the
> heroic/unheroic
> dichotomy, which I do - but plenty don't - the
> soldiers are all
> unranked with their shields anyway.)
>
> I think this colors the reason shields weren't made
> more potent in DQ.
> If you increase the potency of a shield, they become
> de rigeur, and
> everyone has them. A barbarian wielding a great axe
> or a two-handed
> sword may be more colorful and true to the genre,
> but he's at a distinct
> disadvantage compared to the guy wielding a broad
> sword and toting a
> kite shield. Why would anyone ever use a two-handed
> weapon, when you
> can double or triple your defense at the cost of a
> point or two less
> damage you're inflicting?
>
> Secondarily, the idea of some adventurer toting
> around a kite shield or
> - ye gods! - a tower shield is pretty silly.
> They're huge! It's the
> defensive equivalent of toting around a pike or a
> halberd - these items
> are for massed combat, not adventuring.
>
> Darkislephil also mentioned toying with the idea of
> splitting weapon
> ranks into offense and defense. I played this way
> for awhile, and it
> worked out well. I got the idea after playing
> Champions, where you can
> have skill ranks in combat that can be added to your
> offense or defense.
> Our group played with laminated action cards, where
> the players
> indicated their actions before the start of the
> Pulse with dry-erase
> marker and handed them in to me. It was easy enough
> to change the cards
> to include an spot for offensive/defensive rank
> breakdowns, and off we
> went.
>
> Frankly, I like the idea that a skilled swordsman is
> more capable of
> defending himself than the average schmuck, and the
> only way DQ
> addresses this is the Evade action. Whenever I ran
> a character with a
> good rank with a weapon, I'd almost always choose
> Evade - your defense
> goes up, and with a bit of luck, you get those tasty
> Ripostes, followed
> by a clean shot at an unarmed opponent. However,
> this does make combats
> rather boring, and the adjustable ranks rule we used
> gave each fighter
> more of an individual feel.
>
>
>
>

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

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Bouch" <ianbouch@...> wrote:

>
> I agree, the evade rule is central to this discussion, and to the use of
> shields given that it is a defensive stance using a defensive weapon.

The Evade rule [13.2] has nothing to do with shields. No extra defense
above the normal for having a prepared shield is gained. It is a
defensive stance but the extra defense gained from the stance is for
Rank with a prepared weapon.

> The rest of the talk has been increasing the effectiveness of a shield
> without consideration of whether it is being used defensively or not.
> This I believe is a mistake.

Actually the discussion was all about the defensive use of the shield.
One distinction that we didn't fully explore was active versus
passive shield defense.

Just having a shield equipped and having some rank with shield gives
you a passive defense. The character need do nothing more than stand
there with it equipped. There is only the one active defensive action
involving the shield and that is the Defensive Withdrawal [13.3].

> <snip> Now match this up with
> an ambidextrous assassin with two main-gauches, totally deadly.

I'm curious as to what you believe would be the benefits from that.

Hullo, Phil,

In a message of March 22nd, 2007, darkislephil 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.

Yes, I know... I used the numbers in the example to give the
average Joe in DQ a bit of a fighting chance. Part of the problem that
will be incurred if we change the Shield rules too much to reflect
reality is that the DEF stat becomes somwhat redundant if a character
has an AG of 15 with a Shield Defense of 16% as well. Unless an
acceptable balance can be found in this regard, it will just unbalance
the system even more.

...If at Faust you don't succeed, take Demonology 101 again.

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

Hullo, Mandos,

In a message of March 29th, 2007, Mandos Mitchinson wrote.

> In our game anyone who is likely to get into a fight carries a shield and
> the only people who don't are generally the pure mages. The reason for this
> is that defence is vital in any fight to stop you getting pulverised.

While I agree with your point here, I wonder, how do the players
in question get around the weight aspects of carrying the shields around
given the Encumbrance rules, and the fact that shields reduce one's MD?
Or are they all carrying around light shields?

> But having said that I think the main reason that shields do not have a huge
> amount of defence is that it is a game, it is supposed to be fun and a long
> protracted combat with neither side hitting each other is boring as hell.

I agree with this. Increasing the shields' defensive capability
will certainly make combat longer.

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

Hullo, Lev,

In a message of March 22nd, 2007, Lev Lafayette 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).

The problem is that while game mechanics today share something of
what came before with their gaming predecessors, there are too many
different models of game mechanics now to compare to what had been done
with DRAGONQUEST when the game came out. DRAGONQUEST took a very
simulationist approach to the concept of a fantasy rpg, something that
didn't work out very well in retrospective, despite the numbers of
players and GMs out there still running the game.

As for the DQ Aspect system, well, let's just say that a lot of
players simply ignored that back in the day, as it wasn't all that well
defined in terms of, "Okay, I'm Summer Stars aspected. What does that
*mean* to me as a roleplayer?" The dice implications were pretty clear,
however.

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

Of course they should have, if for no other reason to partially
evolve with the sensibility of gamers.

>> 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.

That's not all that low for Substance. By today's standards, since
you did compare the book to games of today, DQ had no substance per se,
and the lack of the game world was one of the factors that would turn a
lot of potential GMs from running the game in today's market.

>>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.

True, but in today's game market where a price tag of $39.99 is not
all that unusual, players equate quantity with substance. More pages
doesn't equate with quality, that's for sure.

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

Only to some degree. Small print makes for density of material,
but doesn't necessarily mean quality, merely quantity. Scope of
application is another subject entirely, as it depends on the genre that
the game is meant to be about, and whether the rules are adaptable
enough for various settings and the like in the genre in question. As
for the "workmanship in the game system", I'm not sure what you mean by
that term.

>>>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.

However, for the most part many if not all CoC adventures and
scenarios are dependent on the players putting a series of clues and
evidence together in order to find out what's going on, learn about
things, and so forth. In CoC, much of this is depenedent on the luck of
the die roll, and that's where INT comes in. The same is true for any
rpg or game where mystery and clue solving are important or relevant,
and...well, never mind. Agree to disagree and all that stuff.

>>>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.

Perhaps, but this is something that developmental psychologists and
other specialists in such endeavours have been debating for years.

>> Okay, in that case, be constructive: How would
>>you alter DQ in this regard? <evil g>
>
> Harsh call man, I'm workin' on it. :-)

Well, we want results *now*, not five years from now! :)

> 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).

Hmm, there's potential in both methods, but I think the DC HEORES
3rd Edition game is not a good example of this sort of thing, since the
tables there are exponential, unless you mean the Action and Result Tables?

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

Same here. :)

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

Hullo, Rodger,

In a message of March 24th, 2007, rthorm wrote,

> Hi, everyone! Rodger Thorm here.

Good to see that you're still here... Hadn't seen a post from you
in a bit. :)

> 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.

<snippety, snippety>

> 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.

I think in essence, that this means that the lists should function
as to what they are all about. DQN should now be the main discussion
and chat forum for the game, since that is what it evolved into. DQ
Newsletter should be for posting the newsletters and stuff, but also to
discuss the newsletter content and the like. And DQ-rules should be
about rules revisions and new rules n conjunction wtih Open Source.

> 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.

All good points. :)

> 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.

Agreed. :) Thanks for your thoughts on this. :)

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

 

 

> To give that heroic fantasy element I would also not have the general

> run of the mill grunt utilize the evasion rule.

 

Good point.  I agree.

 

> BTW, have you considered the point that if your evasion results in a

> free attack you get to move one hex-side around your opponent, and given

> that you are almost certainly going to have the next attack you can move

> one more hex-side around and wallah! a rear hex. Now match this up with

> an ambidextrous assassin with two main-gauches, totally deadly.

 

LOL!  My old ambidextrous, rapier-and-main-gauche assassin character couldn't agree more.

 

"Voila!" is what you're looking for there…  :)

 

> While I agree with your point here, I wonder, how do the players
> in question get around the weight aspects of carrying the shields around
> given the Encumbrance rules, and the fact that shields reduce one's MD?
> Or are they all carrying around light shields?

They don't weigh that much, most people when generating a character tend to
choose their primary weapon and then ensure they have a few spare MD so they
can use the shield.

The penalties on AG for armour are far more serious that the MD penalties
given that mobility in combat is one of the most important aspects.

Just about every character created in our game is created with their combat
abilities thought through fairly carefully all it takes is a few points of
MD and a strengh of around 13+ and most of the shields are available
although buckler and the round shields are the most common. Many characters
will carry a shield just for the defense while carrying no offensive weapons
and relaying on magic and other more combat capable characters to get them
through.

To put it into perspective we play every week and in a 13 week 'adventure'
there will generally be 2-3 combats at least so even the least combat
oriented player will tend to have the think through their combat options
quite carefully, particularly since characters in the game have longevity.
My primary character for example has been played for 17+ years pretty much
every week and so will have been in over 60 combat situations. (Noting he
doesn't use a shield).

On the gear topic it is also worth remembering that players often forget
that they would drop their packs before going into a fight, so you can carry
much more gear than you think without harming your combat abilities. If you
lose and have to run you admittedly can lose a lot of stuff but it is worth
it.

Mandos
/s

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

> >> 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).
>
> The problem is that while game mechanics today
> share something of
> what came before with their gaming predecessors,
> there are too many
> different models of game mechanics now to compare to
> what had been done
> with DRAGONQUEST when the game came out.
> DRAGONQUEST took a very
> simulationist approach to the concept of a fantasy
> rpg, something that
> didn't work out very well in retrospective, despite
> the numbers of
> players and GMs out there still running the game.

Yes, this is indeed recognised. But your claim (and
correct me if I'm incorrect) is that you can't compare
games written in the 1980s with games written today
because rule designs have changed so significantly
it's like comparing "apples and oranges".

Well, apart from the fact that apples and oranges are
both fruit <g>, I don't think RPG design really has
changed that much; such there's been different
emphases, but there's certainly nothing inherently
wrong with taking a simulationist approach.

> > Now perhaps one *can* make a case that game
> systems
> > should have improved over time and in many cases
> that
> > is true.
>
> Of course they should have, if for no other
> reason to partially
> evolve with the sensibility of gamers.
>
> >> 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.
>
> That's not all that low for Substance. By
> today's standards, since
> you did compare the book to games of today, DQ had
> no substance per se,
> and the lack of the game world was one of the
> factors that would turn a
> lot of potential GMs from running the game in
> today's market.

The inclusion or lack of a gameworld makes no
difference to the substance rating that this reviewer
gives.

The inclusion of a good game world with provide
positive substance, a bad one negative and an average
one, well, a neutral one.

A seriously interesting and cool and evocative one
will get a point in style, whilst a awfully dull one
will receive a negative point.

The absence of one? Not a huge issue. Of course, if
worthwhile notes are included that say "this is a
fantasy game which means these genre conventions" etc
that's kudos. But a world itself is not a necessity;
many GMs love crafting their own world and I remember
many would-be RuneQuest GMs not wanting to game in
Glorantha - a notion unfathomable to me given that it
is still one of the richest and deep fantasy
environments in gaming *and* literature.

> > Density of material, scope of application and
> > workmanship in the game system, now they're
> important.
>
> Only to some degree. Small print makes for
> density of material,
> but doesn't necessarily mean quality, merely
> quantity.

I don't mean print-size; I mean efficiency of writing.

GURPS Religion, which I just reviewed is a case in
point. It is vague and ambigious about critical
questions and presents the trivially obvious as facts
worth elaborating on. Little wonder it ends up being
176 pages of total fluff.

> Scope of
> application is another subject entirely, as it
> depends on the genre that
> the game is meant to be about, and whether the rules
> are adaptable
> enough for various settings and the like in the
> genre in question.

Yes, that's right.

> As
> for the "workmanship in the game system", I'm not
> sure what you mean by
> that term.

A consistent game *system* that works; AD&D1e is an
example of a game with negative workmanship ("every
rule is a special rule").

> > Well the primary factor is opportunity. The
> secondary
> > factors are intelligence and motivation.
>
> Perhaps, but this is something that
> developmental psychologists and
> other specialists in such endeavours have been
> debating for years.

*nods* Dewey, Piaget, Ferire and Bruner all have
accessible spots on my bookshlef :-)

> Hmm, there's potential in both methods, but I
> think the DC HEORES
> 3rd Edition game is not a good example of this sort
> of thing, since the
> tables there are exponential, unless you mean the
> Action and Result Tables?

True, the tables are exponential - but I did like how
they recommended conversions; i.e., look at the
probable results and then derive a figure, rather than
the other way around.

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

Another scaling issue (which I'd completely forgot)
which bugs me in DQ is Fatigue and TMR. There just
doesn't seem to be a formula that makes any sense to
derive the two.

All the best,


Lev



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

At the risk of asking you to bother explaining or repeating yourself,
I have no idea what your point is.

You stated that the Evade rule was central to the discussion of the
defensive benefits of the shield. A rule which isn't affected by the
presence or absence of a shield unless you are talking about some
house rules you are using.

If the defensive benefits of the shield need to be improved but not by
actually improving the defensive benefit but by providing an incentive
in the form of a benefit received while in a defensive stance exactly
what is it that you are suggesting?

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Bouch" <ianbouch@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> If you refer to a previous listing I made you would see my point. It
centers
> around having the evasion bonus for two prepared weapons, and only being
> able to claim the evasion bonus for the second weapon if you are either
> ambidextrous or have a prepared shield. I stated previously that the
> defensive benefits of the shield need to be improved but not by simply
> improving the defensive bonus but making it more attractive to utilize a
> shield in a defensive stance.
>
>
>
> I should have explained myself better, but I really couldn't be bothered
> repeating myself, my bad.
>
>
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dqn-list@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf
> Of darkislephil
> Sent: Friday, 30 March 2007 8:20 AM
> To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [DQN-list] Shield Talk (Was: Re: Shield Rules )
>
>
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroup <mailto:dqn-list%40yahoogroups.com>
s.com, "Ian
> Bouch" <ianbouch@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree, the evade rule is central to this discussion, and to the
use of
> > shields given that it is a defensive stance using a defensive weapon.
>
> The Evade rule [13.2] has nothing to do with shields. No extra defense
> above the normal for having a prepared shield is gained. It is a
> defensive stance but the extra defense gained from the stance is for
> Rank with a prepared weapon.
>
> > The rest of the talk has been increasing the effectiveness of a shield
> > without consideration of whether it is being used defensively or not.
> > This I believe is a mistake.
>
> Actually the discussion was all about the defensive use of the shield.
> One distinction that we didn't fully explore was active versus
> passive shield defense.
>
> Just having a shield equipped and having some rank with shield gives
> you a passive defense. The character need do nothing more than stand
> there with it equipped. There is only the one active defensive action
> involving the shield and that is the Defensive Withdrawal [13.3].
>
> > <snip> Now match this up with
> > an ambidextrous assassin with two main-gauches, totally deadly.
>
> I'm curious as to what you believe would be the benefits from that.
>

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

>
> > Well, apart from the fact that apples and oranges are
> > both fruit <g>, I don't think RPG design really has
> > changed that much; such there's been different
> > emphases, but there's certainly nothing inherently
> > wrong with taking a simulationist approach.
>
> As much as I have tried to stay out of this pissing match, I think
> there has been a definite and easily traceable evolution of RPG
> design. In the early days, a d20 was used for combat and other dice
> for damage. In the late 70's and early 80's d100 was used for combat
> and other dice for damage. Nowadays, a d20 is used for combat and
> other dice are used for damage.
>
> Clearly some sort of evolutionary process at work - could be market
> forces, could be nostalgia, could be something else.
>

Resolution mechanics for creative agenda wasn't really the scale of
the debate, but still... Really it doesn't matter too much if d100 or
d20 is used - but of course it *does* matter if 3d6 is used instead
due to the scaling effects of modifiers (e.g., a -3 modifier for d20
is equivalent to -15%; but with a 3d6 system -3 can be highly variable
in what it actually means).

I can add another component which has been introduced in contemporary
games which wasn't common on older games; the use of conflict
resolution rather than task resolution. However, I still don't think
that this innovation substantially changes what roleplaying games are
about.

(cf., http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html#4)

Lev Lafayette wrote:

>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroup s.com <mailto:dqn-list%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Martin Gallo <martimer@.. .> wrote:
> >
> > > Well, apart from the fact that apples and oranges are
> > > both fruit <g>, I don't think RPG design really has
> > > changed that much; such there's been different
> > > emphases, but there's certainly nothing inherently
> > > wrong with taking a simulationist approach.
> >
> > As much as I have tried to stay out of this pissing match, I think
> > there has been a definite and easily traceable evolution of RPG
> > design. In the early days, a d20 was used for combat and other dice
> > for damage. In the late 70's and early 80's d100 was used for combat
> > and other dice for damage. Nowadays, a d20 is used for combat and
> > other dice are used for damage.
> >
> > Clearly some sort of evolutionary process at work - could be market
> > forces, could be nostalgia, could be something else.
> >
>
> Resolution mechanics for creative agenda wasn't really the scale of
> the debate,
>

Yes ... I might have said this less elegantly, something along the lines
of ... huh? what does that have to do with anything or similar impolite
response.

>
> but still... Really it doesn't matter too much if d100 or
> d20 is used - but of course it *does* matter if 3d6 is used instead
> due to the scaling effects of modifiers (e.g., a -3 modifier for d20
> is equivalent to -15%; but with a 3d6 system -3 can be highly variable
> in what it actually means).
>

Normalized probabilities aside if games had changed so that the probability
distributions were actively controlled... Say allowing someone to be more
careful and get less extreme results or be more wild and get more extreme
that might have been a progression of some sorts...
(d12 + 4) = (d10 + 5) = (d8 + 6) = (d6 + 7) = (d4 + 8)

That said... how much player control/choices have an impact on play
might have developed some.
Even within the big bad D&D strategic choices are massively more
significant now than yester year
these changes have been buried in Feats in order to modularize them.

But a D&D fighter can shift his damage, his armor class , his to
accuracy , his number of hit opportunities around
from round to round very adaptively changing he can decide he needs to
concentrate on defense or
get a fight over quick and various other things. Of course A cleric
still can't decide whether to cast a heal greater
wounds or lesser wounds based on a verbal description of the wounds
from the Dungeon Master ;-)

>
>
> I can add another component which has been introduced in contemporary
> games which wasn't common on older games; the use of conflict
> resolution rather than task resolution. However, I still don't think
> that this innovation substantially changes what roleplaying games are
> about.
>

What roleplaying games are about ... "lets pretend with rules /
structure" may never change
But if we look under the hood at that structure what questions might be
asked
Are GM's and Players fulfilling the same roles? ... There have been
games that answered no to this but ...
Are the rules themselves now adaptable to handle differing degrees of
focus or interest by the players? There have been games that answered
yes to this but ...
etc...

The major BUT to most changes seem to be that few of them are
predominant out there.

Hi all,

I was delighted to find the old "Jack Of All Trades" adventure
downloadable here in digital form, and would like to run it with my
group this summer.

Now, it seems that the file you are hosting is incomplete:
The maps of the adventure are missing.

Could anyone be so friendly and send me a scan or put upload the files
to this group? - I surely could draw my own maps based on the
information in the article, but that would ruin me the nostalgia
feeling. :)

Yours,

Rafael

Attachments :

I got the original at home.

When I back on monday I send to you. OK?

Regards.

Gabriel.

________________________________

De: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com en nombre de r_san_miguel_thurn
Enviado el: jue 03/05/2007 13:31
Para: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Asunto: [DQN-list] "Jack of all Trades" Maps missing



Hi all,

I was delighted to find the old "Jack Of All Trades" adventure
downloadable here in digital form, and would like to run it with my
group this summer.

Now, it seems that the file you are hosting is incomplete:
The maps of the adventure are missing.

Could anyone be so friendly and send me a scan or put upload the files
to this group? - I surely could draw my own maps based on the
information in the article, but that would ruin me the nostalgia
feeling. :)

Yours,

Rafael

I have added the two missing map tifs to zip archive.

JohnR, Co-Moderator DQN-list

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

>
> I got the original at home.
>
> When I back on monday I send to you. OK?
>
> Regards.
>
> Gabriel.
>
> ________________________________
>
> De: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com en nombre de r_san_miguel_thurn
> Enviado el: jue 03/05/2007 13:31
> Para: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> Asunto: [DQN-list] "Jack of all Trades" Maps missing
>
>
>

> Now, it seems that the file you are hosting is incomplete:
> The maps of the adventure are missing.
>

Hi Gabriel, Hi John,

Thank you very much for your help! :-)

"Jack..." is one of the best one-round-adventures I have seen so far,
and I hope to present it to my gaming group soon!

Yours,

Rafael