Hi, Martin...

> Where did the 'factor of 6' for cats come from?

Searching through Google.com , with the keywords:
cat "night vision" -goggles -device -telescope -cameras,
I found on the site: http://www.szgdocent.org/cats/a-cat1.htm , The following:

Night vision: A cat's eye is adapted primarily to hunting in low light. It comprises mostly of rod
cells which provide greater detail in low light but don't provide colour vision. In contrast, we
have more cone cells. Cats have cone cells too, but fewer and sensitive mainly to green and blue.
A cat also has another night adaptation, the tapetum lucidum. This reflective mirror-like layer at
the back of the eye bounces light back to the eye sensors for a second round of processing. It
also gives the cat its typical "glow-in-the-dark" eyes. A cat’s night vision is 6 times better
than ours because it has vertical pupils, while we have round pupils. In the dark, vertical pupils
can open to allow 3 times more light into the eye, and in the daytime, it closes to slits which
better controls light entering the sensitive eye.

> Are cats eyes generally able to see 6 times
> farther away than humans? Or is it that with
> altitude (sitting in a tree, etc) they have a
> less obstructed view. Perhaps just adding an
> extra value of, say, 6 to 20 hexes (depending on
> the size of the cat or other conditions) to their
> vision range would be more appropriate.

Cat vision isn't more accurate than human's at daylight; it just gets more light at night. Also,
they are almost unsensitive to red.

> I have not studied night vision or IR goggle for
> a while, but it seems to me that the range of
> this type of apparatus is dependant more on the
> conditions (relative difference in size and
> temperature difference between heat source and
> background for IR and actual ambient light
> available (for scatter) and reflectivity of the
> target for night vision). Thus for IR a hot tank
> stands out from farther away because it is much
> hotter than its surroundings and is large.

Agreed.

Best regards... Arturo

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com

Hi, Martin...

> Where did the 'factor of 6' for cats come from?

Searching through Google.com , with the keywords:
cat "night vision" -goggles -device -telescope -cameras,
I found on the site: http://www.szgdocent.org/cats/a-cat1.htm , The following:

Night vision: A cat's eye is adapted primarily to hunting in low light. It comprises mostly of rod
cells which provide greater detail in low light but don't provide colour vision. In contrast, we
have more cone cells. Cats have cone cells too, but fewer and sensitive mainly to green and blue.
A cat also has another night adaptation, the tapetum lucidum. This reflective mirror-like layer at
the back of the eye bounces light back to the eye sensors for a second round of processing. It
also gives the cat its typical "glow-in-the-dark" eyes. A cat’s night vision is 6 times better
than ours because it has vertical pupils, while we have round pupils. In the dark, vertical pupils
can open to allow 3 times more light into the eye, and in the daytime, it closes to slits which
better controls light entering the sensitive eye.

> Are cats eyes generally able to see 6 times
> farther away than humans? Or is it that with
> altitude (sitting in a tree, etc) they have a
> less obstructed view. Perhaps just adding an
> extra value of, say, 6 to 20 hexes (depending on
> the size of the cat or other conditions) to their
> vision range would be more appropriate.

Cat vision isn't more accurate than human's at daylight; it just gets more light at night. Also,
they are almost unsensitive to red.

> I have not studied night vision or IR goggle for
> a while, but it seems to me that the range of
> this type of apparatus is dependant more on the
> conditions (relative difference in size and
> temperature difference between heat source and
> background for IR and actual ambient light
> available (for scatter) and reflectivity of the
> target for night vision). Thus for IR a hot tank
> stands out from farther away because it is much
> hotter than its surroundings and is large.

Agreed.

Best regards... Arturo

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com

Arturo,

Very cool, thanks!

Marty

hey all i am looking for someone who hase the palace of
onticel and or the enchanted woods game moduals in a pdf
format that they would bee willing to send me

Okay, I admit it, I've been reading the d20 Modern rules. I'll do a
penance, I promise! But, it got me thinking about DQ and
modernization. Has anyone tried this? Are there any rules for the
equivalent of a d20 Modern game with DQ as it's core?

Just curious...
Thanks,
Jim

I wrote a whole game called Spacequest (SQ) uisng the DQ rules. Lots of
electronic files if u r really interested. Set in 2299 in this solar
system...mankind hasnt got very far. Guess that is post-modern rather than
modern. (Also ported the whole lot to d20 system, but will keep that one
quiet!! Doh)

JohnD

>From: "ryumaou01" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net>
>Reply-To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
>To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [dq-rules] Modern Weapons Rules?
>Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:41:29 -0000
>
>Okay, I admit it, I've been reading the d20 Modern rules. I'll do a
>penance, I promise! But, it got me thinking about DQ and
>modernization. Has anyone tried this? Are there any rules for the
>equivalent of a d20 Modern game with DQ as it's core?
>
>Just curious...
>Thanks,
>Jim
>

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Actually, yes, I'd love to see it. I'll probably never actually *use*
it for play, but I'd love to see how you handled modern combat with DQ
combat rules.

Thanks,
Jim

davis john wrote:

> I wrote a whole game called Spacequest (SQ) uisng the DQ rules. Lots of
> electronic files if u r really interested. Set in 2299 in this solar
> system...mankind hasnt got very far. Guess that is post-modern rather than
> modern. (Also ported the whole lot to d20 system, but will keep that one
> quiet!! Doh)
>
> JohnD
>

--
"It's better to light one candle
than to curse the darkness."
-Chinese Proverb and The Motto of the Christophers
http://www.christophers.org

While laying in bed last night trying to figure out how to resolve my
lifes latest disaster, I mentally wandered to DQ. I got this idea. I
have not developed it very far, and am not playing ANY RPG right now
so have no true way to test the idea, but here goes...

I am thinking about completely changing the turn sequence. Players
will still roll for initiative as before, but now when an engaged
figure activates, the combat for both characters is resolved. If the
acting or non-acting character wishes to withdraw and still have half
an action, that is fine. If both fight, that is it for the pulse for
both of them. My reasoning is that time is a little more interwoven
that way. It may not kake a difference, but I found it idly curious.

I am also thinking of changing combat so that defense includes a
modification for the weapon. I was looking at adding something to
every weapons BC and then granting a defensive modifier for each
weapon that would be multiplied by rank and added to defense.

These changes seem to satisfy my 'craving' for realism without
overburdening the game system. I hope to someday get to test it out,
and I have not figured out the defensive values for each weapon. I
know that weapons like rapiers are not very defensive, but a good old
broadsword can defend pretty well (not quite like a shield, but
some). I may even add an offensive bonus for shields since some of
them are used more offensively (bucklers) than others (towers).

Feel free to try and talk me out of this. It may just be a sleep
deprived vision of madness (and I am pretty angry today).
--


"If you haven't got your health, at least you have something to talk about."

"They say that everything happens for a reason. I am just tired of
that reason being to make me unhappy or embarrassed."

"You can't make a baby in a month using nine women, but it sounds
like it would be fun to try!"

"Does it ever occur to women that maybe it is their butts that make
their pants look big?"

The idea of a defense bonus for certain weapons is a good one, I
think, but not new. You can find a link to some defensive weapon
bonus ideas here:

http://www.iosphere.net/~eric/dq/wds186.htm

I only allow defensive weapon bonus in certain instances, as an
extension to evading, or after a character has reached at least rank
4 with his weapon through standard training... then I allow a
character to gain the benefit of an attack as well as a defensive
bonus with the weapon in the same pulse. Characters have to spend
seperate experience points and additional training time and money
(with someone already skilled in Defensive Weapon Skills with that
weapon) to acheive Defensive Weapon Skill ranks with each weapon,
beyond the standard training required.

I only allow defensive weapon bonus to be acheived with certain
weapon classes (doesn't make sense with a bow or sling, for example,
or grenado) and in certain situations (against melee attacks, in
general, not in ranged or close combat).

The Defensive Weapon Skill acheived with a given weapon can never
exceed the standard weapon skill acheived.

I've also included some limitations for my characters based on MD
and ST ratings above the required rating for their weapon....a
character can only receive a defensive bonus (defensive weapon rank)
equal to 2x the # of ability points they are above the minimum
requirement for a weapon. For example, if a given weapon requires a
MD of 12 to wield and the character has a MD of 14, I'll allow them
to acheive rank 4 with that weapon in Defensive Weapon rank, after
they've reached at least Rank 4 with the weapon as an offensive
instrument via standard training and experience point expendature.

As for adding an 'offensive' bonus for shields, note that DQ rules
already allow for such a 'bonus' by way of attacking with two
weapons in the same pulse with penalties (primary vs. secondary
hand). So, I allow characters to attack with their sword in a
primary hand as well as a shield bash from the secondary hand in the
same pulse, but give them negative modifiers both to Strike Chance
and initiative (the attacks won't necessarily happen
simultaneously). I do, however, allow the attacks to have a
cummulative effect on the target for purposes of determining whether
or not the attacker has stunned the target. I'm a EMT by
profession, and I think this makes sense in most cases.

It's an intriguing idea, however, to add some seperate rules for
buckler. I'll run it by my player group here, see what everyone
thinks.

Get to playing, amigo! The DQ universe needs active thinkers.

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, Martin Gallo <martimer@m...> wrote:
> While laying in bed last night trying to figure out how to resolve
my
> lifes latest disaster, I mentally wandered to DQ. I got this
idea. I
> have not developed it very far, and am not playing ANY RPG right
now
> so have no true way to test the idea, but here goes...
>
> I am thinking about completely changing the turn sequence. Players
> will still roll for initiative as before, but now when an engaged
> figure activates, the combat for both characters is resolved. If
the
> acting or non-acting character wishes to withdraw and still have
half
> an action, that is fine. If both fight, that is it for the pulse
for
> both of them. My reasoning is that time is a little more
interwoven
> that way. It may not kake a difference, but I found it idly
curious.
>
> I am also thinking of changing combat so that defense includes a
> modification for the weapon. I was looking at adding something to
> every weapons BC and then granting a defensive modifier for each
> weapon that would be multiplied by rank and added to defense.
>
> These changes seem to satisfy my 'craving' for realism without
> overburdening the game system. I hope to someday get to test it
out,
> and I have not figured out the defensive values for each weapon. I
> know that weapons like rapiers are not very defensive, but a good
old
> broadsword can defend pretty well (not quite like a shield, but
> some). I may even add an offensive bonus for shields since some of
> them are used more offensively (bucklers) than others (towers).
>
> Feel free to try and talk me out of this. It may just be a sleep
> deprived vision of madness (and I am pretty angry today).
> --
>
>
> "If you haven't got your health, at least you have something to
talk about."
>
> "They say that everything happens for a reason. I am just tired of
> that reason being to make me unhappy or embarrassed."
>
> "You can't make a baby in a month using nine women, but it sounds
> like it would be fun to try!"
>
> "Does it ever occur to women that maybe it is their butts that
make
> their pants look big?"

Hi, Martin...

> Martin Gallo <martimer@mindspring.com> Wrote:

...

> I am thinking about completely changing the turn sequence. Players
> will still roll for initiative as before, but now when an engaged
> figure activates, the combat for both characters is resolved. If the
> acting or non-acting character wishes to withdraw and still have half
> an action, that is fine. If both fight, that is it for the pulse for
> both of them. My reasoning is that time is a little more interwoven
> that way. It may not kake a difference, but I found it idly curious.

...
In the party I manage, engaged figures go first if their initiative is the greater one with the
weapon they want to use (i.e. a character may have init 27 with sword, but 24 with shield and 30
with UnarmedCbt) and ONLY if they will be attacking the foe in their melee zone. Otherwise, they
will use the non engaged inititative and act with their partners as a non-engaged figure. So, a
PASS action for an engaged figure always loses init.
Hope this helps. Best regards... Arturo


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com

Hi everyone,
I just joined the group and am very pleased with all it has to offer. DQ is an
absolutely fantastic game, and this board is going a good job to keep it
supported. I particularly appreciate the high-quality PDFs of Arcane Wisdom
and the other 30+page house rules supplement.

I have always greatly preferred the 1st edition combat system because the
AP system promotes tactical play and, in particular, improves the value of the
Evade manouver. If you only have one action in a Pulse, you will think twice
before defending yourself with Evade. However, if you have a pool of action
points permiting a sequence of several actions, and Evade is one of the
cheapest around, you will amost certainly fight defensively against someone
who gets the jump/reach on you. I greatly prefer the dynamic this produces in
melee combat. However, I do think the disarm/riposte mechanic is a little
wonky; disarms need to be a less common outcome to a successful parry.

Hi, folks...
I have some trouble with spells and rituals that need concentration to be cast and/or maintained.
One rule says that the magic-user has to do pass actions, in order to mantain the spell going.
On the other hand, another rule says that concentration is only broken if the character is
stunned or inconscious. And if he is failing the concentration check.
Also, with the long running rituals that need concentration, sleeping doesn't break concentration.
How do you cope with these situations?
Best regards... Arturo


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com

My interpretation of concentration for spells is that once the spell is cast, the caster can then perform other actions. This includes casting other spells. I read the rules to mean that concentration does not have to the caster's only action. It is more like a thought in the back of his mind. But, once the caster is damaged, etc., he would need to make a concentration check to maintain his concentration.

If I remember correctly, the rules are a bit vague on this subject. M reasoning stems from the notion that concentration spells, such as web, would be worthless if they required pass actions.

Thats my take. Hope it helps.

Stephen

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

---

There�s never been a better time to get Xtra JetStream!

See responses to the questions below each question.

--

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

DATE: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:28:54

From: "dylan stephens" <dizza_dylan@hotmail.com>

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Cc:

Hi I'm relativly a newcomer having played for only a year and a bit and being surrounded by people who have played the same character for over 5 years in some cases. My latest creation is a stealth guru who wears very light stealth ranked armour and is intended to attack from behind in combat. My questions are;

1) Is there anything to stop me just running up behind someone in combat and attacking from behind providing they are already engaged at the front?

Nope, have at it!!

2) You can throw three darts a round as an attack. Do these all get thrown at once or one by one? I find this significant because if its one by one then presumably I don't need to spend another round preparing my next three darts due to the fact I can draw and throw in the same round. Whereas if its all at once then I guess I do need to spend an action to rearm.

Different GMs play this differently. The way I have always seen it is throwing darts (and Shuriken, for those who have developed Oriental weapons) are sort of a two handed weapon. You hold the darts in one hand and use the other hand to do the actual throwing, one-by-one. Some GMs believe that it reasonable to throw all three darts using one hand, all at the same time, and actually have a chance at accuracy. My logic meter says no freakin' way, but you will have to talk with the other players in your game.

If you use the former system, you will have to take a pulse to rearm, if you use the latter system, then you should be able to arm and throw like crazy every pulse but you need to remember every dart that hits and does ANY damage reduces the target's AG by 3. Just think about that for a second, if you throw three darts a pulse, (SIX if you are ambidextrous!!) you could effectively reduce your target's AG by 9 per pulse. (or 18/pulse, if Ambi!!). Why would anybody NOT use darts? You could effectively render an opponent defenseless in one pulse unless they take a pass action to remove all the darts. You could knock a double-action (AG>25) opponent back to single-action. Your party compadres will LOVE you. 

3) Although the rules seem to state I can parry and evade and do every other fancy manouver with any weapon of my choice does logic hold sway over this and say I can't block a giant glave with my throwing darts or garotte?

I should hope common sense and logic would prevail here but once again consult with the other members of your group since the rules do not explcitly rule this out.

With thanks,

                  Dylan

---

There�s never been a better time to get Xtra JetStream!

To Post a message, send it to:   dq-rules@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages.

I came up with this proposal for a characters wish to become a shaper.

L exp

0 3500
1 7000
2 14000
3 21000
4 28000
5 35000
6 42000
7 49000
8 56000
9 63000
10 70000

TOTAL: 388,500 exp for level 10

Rank 0: Instantly learn what any magic item does.

Rank 1: May destory item to learn how it can be made (although does
not grant the ability to remake it.) Just grants knowledge
The pieces remaining are considered destroyed and are not
reuseable

Rank 2: Grants Witch talent for creating amulets and potions. Always
works. IE BC=100 but for rank dependant effects = double
rank in this skill

Rank 3: Same as Binder investment ritual. Always successful and level
dependent effects count as double rank in this skill. May
"invest" any talent or spell.

Rank 4: May invest skills in an item using the same methods as rank 3.

Rank 5: May "shape" an item by placing in a spell or talent at a cost
in sp equal to the exp required to obtain the current
level in the spell or talent. Ie if the EM is 1000 and the
current level being invested is 10 then the cost is 10,000.
Since that is what is required to get rank 10 from 9. This
would "shape" one charge in which can be used once per day.
BC=2*MA + 5% per rank. Half materials are wasted if you fail.
May shape level/3 (round up) effects into a single item.

Rank 6: May "shape" a skill into an item. Only one level of the skill
can be invested per "shaping". IE cure headaches and cure
would both have to be invested seperatly. Must have the skill
to be invested.

Rank 7: May "shape" own ideas. Base chances not effected by more than
twice level. Damage and protection not effected by more than
rank/3 round up. Attributes not effected by more than rank/2.
Armourer and weaponsmith upgrades may be included either as
per the normal skill or as a "shaping" but you cannot gain the
same advantage by doing it both ways. Ie. Only the highest
protection bonus counts for any single item.

At each rank after 7 you may pick one ability from the list.

1:) Learn how to make something without destroying it.

2:) May teach this ability to another PC.

3:) always pays lower FT costs. (5 Fatigue per rank)

4:) May shape effects enhanced by enhance enchantment

5:) May shape an extra effect into each item


General rules:

level 0 costs 4 FT. Each other ability costs 5-10 FT per rank which
must all be paid at once. This can lower you to as low as negative
half your FT. But no further. This makes many of the abilities
impossible to use unless you can find ways around this restriction.

Costs of construction of truely shaped items (rank5+) should be high
but not prohibitive. I'd recommend that you make it about 9 times the
cost you'd value the item at and divided by the rank in this ability.
Technicaly at rank 10 you could make a living via this but then again
I'm sure you could do it much earlier given supply and demand. This
is costs for magical materials and there should be at least one
ingredient that is quested for or bargained for. Never give out large
amounts of this ingredient as the idea is not to start mass
production. Lesser shapings don't need to be to hard but certainly
powerful ones and master works should be almost impossible to
reproduce.

Reccomended that any rank 9/10 masterwork produced for going up a
level either be confiscated to the guild vaults or destroyed in the
adventure. These are epic level shaped items and would unbalance the
game. If they don't then they aren't worthy of the kind of masterwork
needed to gain these levels.

All items created are at the GM's discretion and so is their final
cost and fatigue requirement.

I'd really appreciate any feedback and any possible ways to make this
skill harder to use. I was considering a philosophy cap with some
rules along the lines of:

This skill cannot be higher than your rank in philosophy and you must
have the Shaping realm(non standard). To find necesary ingredients
you make a philosophy check at difficulty of hard. This will tell you
where or how to obtain the ingredients necesary which may still
require a quest. The "required materials" field reduces difficulty by
one and a sub field of the effect generated will lower difficulty of
the philosophy check by another level. IE to make a flying carpet
would require a carpet, the ritual materials and an extra ingredient
determined by a hard philosophy check. It would be standard if I had
the "required materials field" and easy if I had the "shaping flight"
sub field.

This whole skill is a first draft and granted via a wish granted by a
deity. I'd love feed back on it. Both positive and negative but try
to give advice on how to fix problems rather than just criticise.
Also I'd love suggestions on level 8+ abilities to choose from and
suggestions for different abilities at low levels. 1 to 4 seem a
little weak and boring to me.

Dylan

Dylan,

I'm not familiar with "Philosophy". Is this a skill you created or is it from a source? It would help me to evaluate your skill. Thanks.

Stephen

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

Hello,

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

File : /rules.zip
Uploaded by : dizza_dylan <dizza_dylan@hotmail.com>
Description : Dylans Rules

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/files/rules.zip

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

dizza_dylan <dizza_dylan@hotmail.com>

I added the rules I use to the e-group under files. Please note these
are not my personal rules and I claim no rights to them. They are
just the rules we play by in NZ.

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, hollywood314@j... wrote:
>
> Dylan,
>
> I'm not familiar with "Philosophy". Is this a skill you created or
is it from a source? It would help me to evaluate your skill.
Thanks.
>
> Stephen
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

A GM has granted me the extension to the mime ability that will let
me have 100 word-concepts that I can mime successfully to anyone no
matter what language they speak. I think this is a cool concept
although I'm not really sure where to start picking my words. I was
thinking about starting with maybe 50 and then adding more as I need
them.

Prehaps have a word for not/un. As in "not" good. Which gives me a
lot of opposites at the cost of a single word. Prehaps for numbers I
could use a variant of binary and just take 1,2,4,8 and 0. Then I
should be able to make most numbers out of them. I've never come
across non base 10 in dq but I guess it is possible in which case
numbers might be a problem but I guess I'll deal with that when I
come to it. Prehaps a word-concept indicating a question. Kind of
like a mimed "?" or the japanese word "ka". I think a word for
religion might be good and some word that sums up "Huge big nasty
monster thing". "Run" is always a favourite. How about "behind you"?
Anyway I'm not really sure I can come up with even 50 words. Theres
about 20 or so vital ones then its just to hard to narrow down the
other 500 that might be important.

Any advice appreciated.

Dylan

This file has been deleted as we have had a previous request by the
producers not to circulate it.

Reproduced Below is the Request that we received:

"I received an email from a member of the Seagate Adventurers'
Guild asking that copies of their draft rules not be circulated:

==================================================================
I recently joined your dq-rules group looking for ideas to help
enhance our dq campaign. While checking out the file area, I noticed
that an early copy of our in-house rulebook had been put in (file dq-
rules.zip). Our front cover is 'The Adventurer's Guild of Seagate'
surrounding a circular crest with the inside page giving the list of
contributors and the edition history (we're up to `1.4 now).

Some members of our committee has expressed concern about copies
existing on the web as it is believed that the DQ copywrite still
exists and. if the current holders decide to sue, that several of
our members would be at professional risk - i.e. of losing their
jobs over a lawsuit because of the profession that they're in.

Hence I have been instructed to ask, with respect, that the file in
question be removed.

I still think that the idea of collecting all the dq rules variants
together is a good one and, if I the committee agrees to allow an
unmarked version of our rulebook that protects the author's
identities then I'll arrange to send it in.

Thanks for your consideration of this request."


John F. Rauchert, Co-Moderator

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, dq-rules@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the dq-rules
> group.
>
> File : /rules.zip
> Uploaded by : dizza_dylan <dizza_dylan@h...>
> Description : Dylans Rules
>
> You can access this file at the URL
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/files/rules.zip
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit
>
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
>
> Regards,
>
> dizza_dylan <dizza_dylan@h...>

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "dylan stephens" <dizza_dylan@h...>
wrote:

> "1) Is there anything to stop me just running up behind someone in

combat and attacking from behind providing they are already engaged
at the front?"

Your conscience and the overall tatical situation.

"2) You can throw three darts a round as an attack. Do these all get
thrown at once or one by one? I find this significant because if its
one by one then presumably I don't need to spend another round
preparing my next three darts due to the fact I can draw and throw in
the same round. Whereas if its all at once then I guess I do need to
spend an action to rearm."

The rules you are playing state that to make a fire action with a
thrown weapon (section 3.9) that weapon has to be prepared. So, you
prepare up to three darts in one action and throw them in the next.

Darts look like sexy weapons because of the number you can throw and
being a critical based rules system getting a large number of attacks
is good. Sometimes.

Unfortunatly the rules bite back too.
Darts are a thrown weapon with a SC of 40. Every hex beyond the first
drops your SC by 3. They have no damage modifier so they are only
really usefull against soft targets. If you try double shooting, even
if ambidextrous you must suck another -10 modifier.

So they're good against chaff and/or if you're lucky.

"3) Although the rules seem to state I can parry and evade and do
every other fancy manouver with any weapon of my choice does logic
hold sway over this and say I can't block a giant glave with my
throwing darts or garotte?"

Again the rules have some built in logic. A Giant Glaive starts of
with a SC of 65. It's really easy to score hits if you can use the
damn things. A garrote has a max rank of 3 so your evade bonus with a
small piece of string is 22. Furthermore with a Giant Glaive having a
max rank of 9 compared to a garrote's 3 makes attempting a riposte a
dicey proposition.
So folks, don't try this at home.

Most GMs will only let you gain a melee evasion bonus with a melee
rated weapon. Darts are out.

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "dizza_dylan" <dizza_dylan@h...>
wrote:

> I came up with this proposal for a characters wish to become a

shaper.

Which character and which GM Dylan?
Please submit both names so that their termination can be processed
with a minimum of fuss :.-)

In any event shaping is something I'ld strongly recomend giving into
the hands of players. While the act of shaping covers the making of
every artifact from a magic hairbrush to the One Ring it is still
something that always should be in the hands of the GM. That way they
get total control over the amount of wierdness they want in their
campaign.

However, if you trust your players (and they are all evil scrotes :.-
) then it does not look so bad. For further reference look at the
enchantment rules for GURPS.

William

I am working on skills for samurai, archer and ninja. I have posted
them on the files section of this site. Please review and provide
assistance.

Thank you.

I received this message from Mandos Shadowspawn.

"Hi John,

I run the dragonquest.org.nz site where we do now actully publish
the ruleset of the NZ variant online after discussions with Hasbro's
legal staff. It is now OK to link to the new rules or have them on
the site but due to legal concerns by a few of the members we prefer
if you link to our site (www.dragonquest.org.nz) as we have the
disclaimers and the Email from Hasbro confirming it is ok.

Mandos"

I have put a link to this site under Links on the group Website.

John F. Rauchert, Co-Moderator

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "lukeon58" <lukeon58@y...> wrote:

> I am working on skills for samurai, archer and ninja. I have posted
> them on the files section of this site. Please review and provide
> assistance.
>
> Thank you.

These look like great additions to the game, but I suspect they are a little over-
powered. One of the temptations I always feel when toying with house rules
for Dragonquest is the urge to 'boost' the fighting abilities of combat oriented
characters. Perhaps this is because it is easy to max-out ranks in a favored
weapon early in a capaign, after which your only way to improve is through
stats. However, I think it might not be a good idea in the long run. One of the
great strengths of Dragonquest is that it has a relatively realistic 'feel' to
combat, toughness of monsters, etc. I think it is actually o.k. that a highly
skilled, high-stat human has no shot against an armed troll, grizzly bear,
elephant, whatever, in hand to hand combat. This balance would be badly
torqued if combat-oriented characters had a skill that acted like a sort of 'get
out of jail free' card. The play balance would start to look more like D+D or
any of a number of other cinematic RPG's. This is naturally fine if it is what
you are after, but you might find none of your players want to be regular
fighters anymore. One rule of thumb you could hold these up against is the
following: A Samurai should have some interesting skills, but not be
enormously more dangerous than a western figher with max skills and great
stats; a ninja should not totally outclass a person with similar ranks in Spy,
Assassin and a weapon.; etc.

My two cents.

Thank you for your input. They do seem a little over powered, but
then this was a wish list for these skills. I will look at toning
them down.

>

--- LarsDangly <larsdangly@yahoo.com> wrote:

> These look like great additions to the game, but I
> suspect they are a little over-
> powered. One of the temptations I always feel when
> toying with house rules
> for Dragonquest is the urge to 'boost' the fighting
> abilities of combat oriented
> characters. Perhaps this is because it is easy to

[snip]

One of my current GMs has a pretty good rule of thumb
on modifications to games, i.e., should I add or
change spells, items, skills, etc. He just asks
himself the following two questions. One, is this the
kind of thing that everybody would want? If yes, then
it is too powerful. Two, is this something that
nobody would want? If yes, then it is too weak. Many
otherwise powerful things have been excluded on the
basis of this rule, and many existing things modified
so that they are no longer ignored. These two
questions are pretty simple criteria, but they seem to
work awfully well.

Mort


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Hello,

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

File : /documents/Quick Ref for web.doc
Uploaded by : dbarrass_2000 <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>
Description : Quick reference for Magic, Skills and Races

You can access this file at the URL

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/files/documents/Quick%20Ref%20for%20web.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

dbarrass_2000 <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>

I find this useful and I hope you will too. My style is probably not
to everyone's taste, but I hope it all makes sense.

I've done it to be compatible with AW, the magic section replacing the
spell list section [96.] I've posted it as a word doc rather than a
pdf so you can edit it to your own requirements

Please tell me if you find any mistakes or differences from the Bantam
version (I only have the SPI 2nd edition)

David

81. MONETARY MATTERS

The GM needs to maintain a balanced economy to provide an interesting
environment for adventure. The following table provides an outline
for the range of income levels and costs of living for various social
classes:

Class Annual Income Monthly Upkeep
Peasant <500 Sp n/a
Subsistence 1000 Sp 100 Sp
Yeoman 1500 Sp 125 Sp
Soldier/
Mercenary 4000 Sp 200 Sp
Tradesman 7500 Sp 300 Sp
Adventurer/
Merchant 10000 Sp 500 Sp
Hero/Lesser
Noble 50000 Sp 1000 Sp
Greater
Noble/Royalty 100000 Sp 1500 Sp
Merch Prince 200000 Sp 2000 Sp

The upkeep listed for each class is the amount needed for a moderate
lifestyle for that level. Typical income levels and monthy upkeep
costs for Mercenary, Adventurer, and Hero level characters are also
noted.

Monthly upkeep includes the costs for food and drink, shelter,
clothing and other ordinary expenses. Costs for training, ability
improvement, and the like are not included in these expenses. The
included costs needed to maintain a Skill are also not included in
upkeep costs (with some exceptions as noted below). All adventuring
gear should be calculated separately from the upkeep costs. Likewise,
the costs for the purchase of any specific item should be treated
separately from upkeep costs.

Some characters may apply a portion of the cost of maintaining their
skills towards their monthly upkeep costs. A Merchant can credit the
value of one week per month of their appearance upkeep cost towards
upgrading their lifestyle above the base level of moderate. Half of a
Courtesan's annual upkeep can be credited towards monthly upkeep and
upgrading lifestyle.

[81.1] The Silver Penny (Sp) is the standard unit of money, with
copper, gold,
and truesilver currency also in circulation.

Coin Abbrev. Value Weight
Truesilver Guinea TsG =21 GS 1/2oz 14.2g
Gold Shilling GS =12 Sp 1/4oz 7.1g
Silver Penny Sp =4 cf 1/6oz 4.7g
Copper Farthing cf 1/8oz 3.5g

A Platinum Shilling (PS =1.5 GS or 18 Sp and weighing 1/4oz) may be
found in
some areas. There are also coins such as the ha'-penny (=2 cf; 1/12oz),
threepence (=3 Sp; 1/2oz), and sixpence (=6 Sp; 1 oz). Cut coins are also
commonly found in some areas, while in other regions, they are
prohibited by
law. Weights and values for these other coins can be extrapolated
from the
list above.

[81.2] The Adventurer's Guild provides safe storage of valuables among
their range of services for their members. Non-members typically will
have to pay double the listed rate for any Guild service.

Safekeeping of money or valuables -- 1 Sp/mo for up to 500oz (31.25
pounds)
Banking/letter of credit -- 1 Sp/mo for up to 36000 Sp
Postal service (delivery to Guildhouse) -- 1 Sp up to 500 miles
Guild preparation of contract -- 10-100 Sp
Guild arbitration of contract -- 50 Sp/hour

[81.3] Improved Basic Goods List (table)

(footnotes to 81)
1 Poor Trash = Peasant
2 Impoverished Gentlefolk = Subsistence
4 Burgher or Farmer = Yeoman
6 Merchant
10 Merchant Prince
5 Craftsman or Adventurer = Tradesman or Adventurer
8 Bandit or Pirate
5 Lesser Nobility
10 Greater Nobility

Note, also, that not every character will necessarily be living at the
specified level their class normally affords. There are plenty of
individuals of noble birth who are living at more modest levels than
their station may call for.

Alternate text: "A comfortable lifestyle is 1.5 times the base cost.
An expensive lifestyle is double the base cost, and an extravagant
lifestyle is triple the base cost (or more)."

For reference and comparison, here is some information I found on
ancient Roman coinage (looking at the silver denarius as a close
approximation of the silver penny). Also, for comparison, I have
included information on current US coinage. Canadian coinage is close
enough in size to US coinage to serve as an example, too.

Roman Coinage
Gold Aureus 7.75g
Silver Denarius 4.5g
Silver Quinarius 2.25g
Silver Sestertius 1.125g
Brass Sestertius (2.5g)

1 aureus was equal to 25 denarii in value. The quinarius was worth
half of a
denarius. The sestertius was worth a quarter denarius.

US (and Canadian) Coinage
Quarter 5.675g
Dime 2.25g
Nickel 5g
Penny 2.5g

And remember that 28.35g = 1oz

A very interesting site (Historical Coinage Cheatsheet) for some
additional
reference information:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/history/coin.html

This is cross-posted from the DQN-list, so many of you have seen it,
already.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Rather than put together some kind of manifesto to explain what I am
proposing to do, I'm just going to start it. The best way to explain
this is by example. Having done a bit with money in DQ recently, I
have produced a first draft for a rewritten rule 81 Money Matters. It
can certainly use some further work, but it is a beginning.

Some months back, I talked about a new canon for DragonQuest.
Reception to this proposal was mixed, perhaps rightly so. Rather than
try to force a consensus, I am going to concentrate my energies on
creating a new and improved version of DragonQuest.

A better metaphor for what I want to do is found in the Linux
community. If SPI's Second Edition DragonQuest is UNIX; I'm proposing
to create DQ's Linux.

SPI's kernel is the basis (the starting point) for what I am doing,
but my ultimate aim is to create a free and open set of game rules
that are based on DragonQuest, but completely rewritten in order to
create a rule system document that is entirely free of copyright
questions. It is my intention that these rules will ultimately be
released under a Creative Commons license.

I am not a copyright lawyer. But I think all of us have become at
least somewhat acquainted with contemporary intellectual property law
as we have struggled to understand the ownership and rights issues
concerning DragonQuest. It is my understanding that game rules cannot
be copyrighted, only the expression of those rules can be copyrighted.

To keep this project legally clean with respect to the original
DragonQuest, I am proposing to rewrite all of the rules of Second
Edition. The concepts and workings of the game will be the same. It
will be compatible and interoperable with original DQ. But it will be
a new version, and free to be revised and improved by anyone.

I prefer to think of this as another flavor of DQ, just as Linux has
different flavors (RedHat, Mandrake, Debian, etc.), rather than as a
break with the DragonQuest community. There will probably be forkings
and schisms within this project as well. But I hope that this will
put us on the path to new opportunities with DragonQuest.

I suppose this ended up being a bit of a new manifesto, after all.
But this demonstrates the basic concept of rewriting the existing
ruleset to create a new and open version of the game.

I'm going to post these rules over in the DQ-rules
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/) group. I am starting with a
preliminary draft for rule 81 Money Matters.

I look forward to your comments.

--Rodger Thorm

PS On a more personal note, I have second son as of Monday.
Otherwise, this might have been posted a little bit sooner.

This is cross-posted from the DQN-list, so many of you have seen it,
already.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Rather than put together some kind of manifesto to explain what I am
proposing to do, I'm just going to start it. The best way to explain
this is by example. Having done a bit with money in DQ recently, I
have produced a first draft for a rewritten rule 81 Money Matters. It
can certainly use some further work, but it is a beginning.

Some months back, I talked about a new canon for DragonQuest.
Reception to this proposal was mixed, perhaps rightly so. Rather than
try to force a consensus, I am going to concentrate my energies on
creating a new and improved version of DragonQuest.

A better metaphor for what I want to do is found in the Linux
community. If SPI's Second Edition DragonQuest is UNIX; I'm proposing
to create DQ's Linux.

SPI's kernel is the basis (the starting point) for what I am doing,
but my ultimate aim is to create a free and open set of game rules
that are based on DragonQuest, but completely rewritten in order to
create a rule system document that is entirely free of copyright
questions. It is my intention that these rules will ultimately be
released under a Creative Commons license.

I am not a copyright lawyer. But I think all of us have become at
least somewhat acquainted with contemporary intellectual property law
as we have struggled to understand the ownership and rights issues
concerning DragonQuest. It is my understanding that game rules cannot
be copyrighted, only the expression of those rules can be copyrighted.

To keep this project legally clean with respect to the original
DragonQuest, I am proposing to rewrite all of the rules of Second
Edition. The concepts and workings of the game will be the same. It
will be compatible and interoperable with original DQ. But it will be
a new version, and free to be revised and improved by anyone.

I prefer to think of this as another flavor of DQ, just as Linux has
different flavors (RedHat, Mandrake, Debian, etc.), rather than as a
break with the DragonQuest community. There will probably be forkings
and schisms within this project as well. But I hope that this will
put us on the path to new opportunities with DragonQuest.

I suppose this ended up being a bit of a new manifesto, after all.
But this demonstrates the basic concept of rewriting the existing
ruleset to create a new and open version of the game.

I'm going to post these rules over in the DQ-rules
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/) group. I am starting with a
preliminary draft for rule 81 Money Matters.

I look forward to your comments.

--Rodger Thorm

PS On a more personal note, I have second son as of Monday.
Otherwise, this might have been posted a little bit sooner.



To Post a message, send it to:   dq-rules@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains - Claim yours for only $14.70/year

In principle, yes its a great idea, but the time needed!

Just supposing we had the time (I'm re-reading this and the tone of
this post is coming out more negative than I feel, like I said its a
great idea in principle)

I'd like to discuss some fundamentals first

What is this new DQ to be called, presumably DragonQuest itself is
TMed up to the hilt

I really love that stats in DQ, I don't propose changing them, but
some of the names may have to change to protect the innocent, ie - us.
I'm thinking mainly of PS, MD and MA, the rest are obveous names for
the stats so we should be OK

What units are to be adopted? OK most players are in the US, but the
rest of us are now metric (even if reluctantly so in Britain (but our
pints are diferent from US anyway)). The feel of Feet, Pounds etc is
nice and I'll be sorry to lose them, but I don't know if they mean
much to the various NZs, and Europeans. Perhaps feed back from some
of them would be good

I think these should be sorted before going on to specific rules so
we're all taking the same language (although the money is a good
example of what we could acheive, so thanks for that)

David

> --Rodger Thorm
>
> PS On a more personal note, I have second son as of Monday.
> Otherwise, this might have been posted a little bit sooner.

Congratulations, I guess you have even less time now ;--)

dbarrass_2000 wrote...

> In principle, yes its a great idea, but the time needed!
>
> Just supposing we had the time (I'm re-reading this and the tone of
> this post is coming out more negative than I feel, like I said its a
> great idea in principle)

In theory though that's the advantage of doing it open source however.
Presuming it works out, which is a serious question actually.

> I'd like to discuss some fundamentals first
>
> What is this new DQ to be called, presumably DragonQuest itself is
> TMed up to the hilt

Good Point, the means a new name for it.

> I really love that stats in DQ, I don't propose changing them, but
> some of the names may have to change to protect the innocent, ie - us.
> I'm thinking mainly of PS, MD and MA, the rest are obveous names for
> the stats so we should be OK

While correct it's not that big a deal to change the names.

> What units are to be adopted? OK most players are in the US, but the
> rest of us are now metric (even if reluctantly so in Britain (but our
> pints are diferent from US anyway)). The feel of Feet, Pounds etc is
> nice and I'll be sorry to lose them, but I don't know if they mean
> much to the various NZs, and Europeans. Perhaps feed back from some
> of them would be good

While a valid point, perhaps it would be better to provide the metric
equivalents?

> I think these should be sorted before going on to specific rules so
> we're all taking the same language (although the money is a good
> example of what we could acheive, so thanks for that)

I suggested this elsewhere, but it might make better, cleaner, sense to write
a core set of mechanics that allow later development/customization. FoEx in
magic don't write the specific spells into the core rules. Create the
mechanics for creating new ones and how they're used/resolved and THEN, using
those rules, "duplicate" the Colleges in the Book. Thus providing both the
appropriate colleges and an example of how build new ones if someone wants to.
AnEx don't put specific skills in the core mechanics but how skills are defined
and resolved, then define/build the skills from the book so that people can add
new ones.



Stephen

This is a general reply to everyone's comments thus far.

For now, I'm still calling it DragonQuest. I may need to come up with
a change later on, but the name refers to what it is, so for now I'll
stick with it. I should probably add an identifier to differentiate
this from other versions and projects.

This isn't entirely a new idea, either. I'd say that the New Zealand
campaign has effectively done this some time ago. So there are a
couple different versions of DragonQuest out there already. And the
New Zealand group has heavily modified a lot of the rules as well.

David points out the time factor. Certainly an issue, but not
insurmountable. Especially since the project is to reverse engineer
something that is existing, and where we are able to examine the
'source code.' I wrote up my draft of Monetary Matters in just a
couple of hours. Re-explaining things shouldn't be all that hard.
Look at what Edi did with the weapons tables. If there's a section of
the rules that you're passionate about, write it up and add it to the mix.

While we could (and may still at some point in the future) change the
names of the stats, if you are refering to 'strength,' there are only
so many things that you can reasonably call it. Renaming it to
'Buffalo Points' is both confusing to existing players and mislabeling
what the stat really refers to. Strength is strength. As it is, PS
is named differently from the STR stat used by the Lake Geneva
Behemoth. But I think it is fair to keep the term PS, but rewrite the
description in different words.

Stephen suggested:
"FoEx in magic don't write the specific spells, create the
mechanics for creating new ones and how they're used/resolved.
THEN, using those rules, "duplicate" the Colleges in the Book.
Thus providing both the appropriate colleges and an example of
how build new ones if someone wants to."

This already exists in Arcane Wisdom. See 92. MAGICAL RESEARCH AND
SPELL CONSTRUCTION. Personally, I don't care for it. And though I
haven't gone through and checked, I believe that many spells in the
existing colleges don't work out when you run their numbers through
this system.

Another point to consider is that other players may want to swap in
entire new magic systems. A few months ago there was some discussion
of a campaign of orcs, based on someone's novels, which had a
different magic system. I think that one of DQ's attractions is its
modularity, and I want to make this version even more so; so that if a
GM wants to run a campaign with different magic, they can write that
system up and go.

--Rodger

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Johnson" <HeadsUpNow@w...>
wrote:

> dbarrass_2000 wrote...
>
> > I'd like to discuss some fundamentals first
> >
> > What is this new DQ to be called, presumably DragonQuest itself is
> > TMed up to the hilt
> Good Point, the means a new name for it.
>

In fact, as best I have been able to determine, the trademark for
DragonQuest referring to a role-playing game has lapsed. Trademarks
are much more volatile than copyrights, and must be actively used and
defended in order to remain valid.

This is, in my opinion, why TSR produced a board game called
"DragonQuest" a few years after they published the 3rd Ed of DQ. They
wanted to keep the name, but they shifted it to another product.
Close enough that no one else could produce a game called DragonQuest,
but taking the 'real' DragonQuest off the market.

I've done some research on the "DragonQuest" trademark, as well.
Again, let me be clear that I am not a lawyer, and my research has not
been exhaustive. But I have used the database of the USTPO, and all
that I have found seems to indicate that the trademark is dead.

Not only has nothing been done by Hasbro/WotC/TSR with the name
"DragonQuest" for many years, but, the people who *have* been trading
using the name "DragonQuest" are people like myself with DragonQuest
groups and the Newsletter and JohnR (who registered dragonquest.org)
and the like. We of the DragonQuest community are the active users of
the name "DragonQuest."

Read the attached bit about trademark attached to the end of this. It
has certainly been more than ten years since there was any use of
"DragonQuest" to represent a role-playing game. Even TSR's
"DragonQuest" board game (released in 1992) was most likely out of
catalog by 1994. It's quite clear to me that no one else holds a
competing claim to the DragonQuest trademark.

--Rodger Thorm

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office.

A trademark may be defined as a word, letter, device, or symbol, as
well as any combination of these, that is used in connection with
merchandise and that points distinctly to the origin of the goods.

Certificates of registration of trademarks are issued under the seal
of the Patent and Trademark Office and may be registered by the owner
if he or she is engaged in interstate or foreign commerce. Federal
jurisdiction over trademarks arises under the commerce clause of the
Constitution. Effective Nov. 16, 1989, applications to register may
also be based on a "bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce."
Trademarks may be registered by foreign owners who comply with U.S.
law, as well as by citizens of foreign countries with which the United
States has treaties relating to trademarks. American citizens may
register trademarks in foreign countries by complying with the laws of
those countries. The right to registration and protection of
trademarks in many foreign countries is guaranteed by treaties.

General jurisdiction in trademark cases involving Federal
Registrations is given to federal courts. Adverse decisions of
examiners on applications for registration are appealable to the
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, whose affirmances and decisions in
inter partes proceedings are subject to court review. Before adopting
a trademark, a person should make a search of prior marks to avoid
unwittingly infringing upon them.

The duration of a trademark registration is ten years, but it may be
renewed indefinitely for 10-year periods, provided the trademark is
still in use at the time of expiration.

The application fee for registering is $325 per class.

(http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0002115.html)

rthorm wrote:

> In fact, as best I have been able to determine, the trademark for
> DragonQuest referring to a role-playing game has lapsed. Trademarks
> are much more volatile than copyrights, and must be actively used and
> defended in order to remain valid.
>
> This is, in my opinion, why TSR produced a board game called
> "DragonQuest" a few years after they published the 3rd Ed of DQ. They
> wanted to keep the name, but they shifted it to another product.
> Close enough that no one else could produce a game called DragonQuest,
> but taking the 'real' DragonQuest off the market.
>
> I've done some research on the "DragonQuest" trademark, as well.
> Again, let me be clear that I am not a lawyer, and my research has not
> been exhaustive. But I have used the database of the USTPO, and all
> that I have found seems to indicate that the trademark is dead.
>
> Not only has nothing been done by Hasbro/WotC/TSR with the name
> "DragonQuest" for many years, but, the people who *have* been trading
> using the name "DragonQuest" are people like myself with DragonQuest
> groups and the Newsletter and JohnR (who registered dragonquest.org)
> and the like. We of the DragonQuest community are the active users of
> the name "DragonQuest."
>
> Read the attached bit about trademark attached to the end of this. It
> has certainly been more than ten years since there was any use of
> "DragonQuest" to represent a role-playing game. Even TSR's
> "DragonQuest" board game (released in 1992) was most likely out of
> catalog by 1994. It's quite clear to me that no one else holds a
> competing claim to the DragonQuest trademark.
>
> --Rodger Thorm

While that all looks good in theory, I'm fairly certain that the first
time you try to actually sell or market an RPG by the name of
"DragonQuest", Hasbro lawyers will eat you alive. Not that I've had any
personal experience in that regard, but I've known several corporate
lawyers over the years and, well, that's what they *do*. I mean, it's
their bread and butter.

I like the idea of using the mechanic in a "new" game, but when it gets
close to "go time", I suggest that you change the name.

Thanks,
Jim

--
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food
and clothes.
- Desiderius Erasmus

Hey all,

I thought I would chime in.
I have three thoughts, one sort of addressing the conversation.
Someone pointed out that we need to change the name before we publish.
No one is seriously considering selling this are they? I would think
this would just be for us, and we could give it away online to attract
new people. Perhaps it does not make a difference in terms of
trademark. I am not a lawyer.
As far as what i think...
It is great i am in. I just had a baby (well my wife did), and started
a new job. but if given specific tasks, I think I can help out.

Also, the one thing DQ has never had that makes me CRAZY is a decent
index. This is a great opportunity make a good one

John C.

rthorm wrote...

> Stephen suggested:
> "FoEx in magic don't write the specific spells, create the
> mechanics for creating new ones and how they're used/resolved.
> THEN, using those rules, "duplicate" the Colleges in the Book.
> Thus providing both the appropriate colleges and an example of
> how build new ones if someone wants to."
>
> This already exists in Arcane Wisdom. See 92. MAGICAL RESEARCH AND
> SPELL CONSTRUCTION. Personally, I don't care for it. And though I
> haven't gone through and checked, I believe that many spells in the
> existing colleges don't work out when you run their numbers through
> this system.

My understanding is that Arcane Wisdom was reverse engineered from what they
stuck into 1st Ed. That was my point though, build the system for creating
spells and the like and THEN build the spells and such so that they match the
mechanics.

> Another point to consider is that other players may want to swap in
> entire new magic systems. A few months ago there was some discussion
> of a campaign of orcs, based on someone's novels, which had a
> different magic system. I think that one of DQ's attractions is its
> modularity, and I want to make this version even more so; so that if a
> GM wants to run a campaign with different magic, they can write that
> system up and go.

I can certainly agree with this! In fact it fits with what little fiddling I
did with DQ.



Then Esko Halttunen wrote...

> > I am not a copyright lawyer. But I think all of us have become
> > at least somewhat acquainted with contemporary intellectual
> > property law as we have struggled to understand the ownership
> > and rights issues concerning DragonQuest. It is my understanding
> > that game rules cannot be copyrighted, only the expression of
> > those rules can be copyrighted.
> Afaik, this is true. If it were not, it would be impossible for
> there to be al these game companies other than TSR making all those
> myriad supplements to the D20 system.

The D20 thing is very specifically crafted by the WotC legal team to do some
very specific things. See after WotC took over TSR the accounting and finance
types went through everything and determined that pretty much everything TSR
has put out, pretty much since it's founding, and especially since the first
ever Players Handbook (PHB from now on) was a sales driver to the one thing the
company made serious, for TSR, money from - selling the PHB! All the boxed
sets, the Monster Manual, DMs Guide, all the magazines, supplements and so on,
all of it didn't really make TSR any money. Selling the PHB was, and in their
current business model is, what makes TSR money, everything else just drove
demand for the PHB.
Thus the D20 concept, and then that nasty D20 License, to off load all the
stuff that doesn't make TSR money. The supplements, campaigns and other stuff,
onto the fanbase and let them kill themselves pumping it out into the market to
drive demand for the PHB. Which is what makes TSR money, it's really a
brilliant bit of commercial thinking in a way. Get your customers to go crazy
promoting your product for you.
But that D20 License is not open source, and it's restrictive in other ways as
well. I have a friend who's putting out some D20 books and some of the stuff I
hear about what it does and does not allow... ::Shudder:: Remember, it was
crafted by corporate lawyers to protect the corporate profit center and thus
it's a legal bear trap. In fact it's so bad from what I've heard that many of
the publishers that put out D20 stuff are now looking to create a separate logo
and organization to move their customer base away from the PHB and WotC.
So keep in mind that D20 is NOT Open Source, something even WotC has backed
off of saying BTW.



Then J. K. Hoffman wrote...

> While that all looks good in theory, I'm fairly certain that
> the first time you try to actually sell or market an RPG by
> the name of "DragonQuest", Hasbro lawyers will eat you alive.
> Not that I've had any personal experience in that regard, but
> I've known several corporate lawyers over the years and, well,
> that's what they *do*. I mean, it's their bread and butter.

Agreed, completely. Right now nothing is being done with DragonQuest that
either makes money or threatens Hasbro/WotC/TSR IP, Trademarks or revenue. As
such we're not worth the time of bothering with, we're flying under their radar
STS. The moment you put a DragonQuest titled product on the market you appear
on their radar, and IME the first thing any big company does when a new product
appears in their marketspace is research it. And trust me, when one of their
lawyers discovers that they own IP and Trademarks to a prior game titled
DragonQuest... ::shrug:: This is what these lawyers are being paid a salary
to do, to sue the crap out of the competition to remove them from the
marketspace if they can.
Even if the Trademarks can be legitimately disputed, which I suspect it might
well be. The problem isn't the law it's how deep are your pockets in
comparison to Hasbro/WotC/TSR? These folks can and will drag out a case for
years in order to financially break whomever is bringing this to market. It's
a nasty fact of business that many small companies with great ideas and better
products than the established brands get broken in the courts by the legal fees
of defending themselves from frivolous lawsuits brought by big companies. So
what they get slapped with fees, fines and the like, it's just the cost of
doing business and protecting their turf.
Sorry, the name is going to have to change.



Stephen

OK so I was being parranoid over the TM, lets carry on calling it
DragonQuest, we can always change it later

I have a dragonquest index, I spent ages doing it and came to 3
conclusions
1) life is too short to index a book, do it at the time of writing
2) I indexed by page numbers, indexing by section numbers would have
been better
3) I'm no good at indexing :--(

This is why I have never finished it, I have all the index cards, but
only got half way through "D" before deciding it was futile

David

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "J. Corey" <john@d...> wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I thought I would chime in.
> I have three thoughts, one sort of addressing the conversation.
> Someone pointed out that we need to change the name before we publish.
> No one is seriously considering selling this are they? I would think
> this would just be for us, and we could give it away online to attract
> new people. Perhaps it does not make a difference in terms of
> trademark. I am not a lawyer.
> As far as what i think...
> It is great i am in. I just had a baby (well my wife did), and started
> a new job. but if given specific tasks, I think I can help out.
>
> Also, the one thing DQ has never had that makes me CRAZY is a decent
> index. This is a great opportunity make a good one
>
> John C.

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "rthorm" <rthorm@c...> wrote:

> Another point to consider is that other players may want to swap in
> entire new magic systems. A few months ago there was some

discussion

> of a campaign of orcs, based on someone's novels, which had a
> different magic system. I think that one of DQ's attractions is its
> modularity, and I want to make this version even more so; so that

if a

> GM wants to run a campaign with different magic, they can write that
> system up and go.
>
> --Rodger

I think Rodger hit the nail on the head here. Everyone has a
different taste or style when it comes to DQ. (That is what makes
the game great: it can be whatever you want.) Therefore, it would
make the most sense to recreate the original rules, thereby allowing
players to swap in or out their own rules, etc.

-Steve F.

Just a thought here, but with all the talk about taking the DQ Rules through a
porting process to make them open source. Does anyone have a copy of the rules
in a text, rich text, word or other file in which they can be easily worked
with?



Stephen

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Dragonquestfiles/



--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Johnson" <HeadsUpNow@w...>
wrote:

> Just a thought here, but with all the talk about taking the DQ

Rules through a

> porting process to make them open source. Does anyone have a copy

of the rules

> in a text, rich text, word or other file in which they can be easily

worked

> with?
>
>
>
> Stephen

      Just a thought here, but with all the talk about taking the DQ Rules through a
porting process to make them open source.  Does anyone have a copy of the rules
in a text, rich text, word or other file in which they can be easily worked
with?



Stephen



To Post a message, send it to:   dq-rules@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger

I would be happy to try and take this on. Since we are doing
re-writing, now seems like the time

John C.

On May 24, 2004, at 3:32 AM, dbarrass_2000 wrote:

> OK so I was being parranoid over the TM, lets carry on calling it
> DragonQuest, we can always change it later
>
> I have a dragonquest index, I spent ages doing it and came to 3
> conclusions
> 1) life is too short to index a book, do it at the time of writing
> 2) I indexed by page numbers, indexing by section numbers would have
> been better
> 3) I'm no good at indexing :--(
>
> This is why I have never finished it, I have all the index cards, but
> only got half way through "D" before deciding it was futile
>
> David
>
> --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "J. Corey" <john@d...> wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I thought I would chime in.
> > I have three thoughts, one sort of addressing the conversation.
> > Someone pointed out that we need to change the name before we
> publish. 
> > No one is seriously considering selling this are they?  I would
> think
> > this would just be for us, and we could give it away online to
> attract
> > new people.  Perhaps it does not make a difference in terms of
> > trademark.  I am not a lawyer.
> > As far as what i think...
> > It is great i am in.  I just had a baby (well my wife did), and
> started
> > a new job.  but if given specific tasks, I think I can help out.
> >
> > Also, the one thing DQ has never had that makes me CRAZY is a decent
> > index.  This is a great opportunity make a good one
> >
> > John C.
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to:   dq-rules@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
> dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <image.tiff>
> <image.tiff>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> • To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/
>  
> • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> dq-rules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
> • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>

I've a re-written DQ source that was the base of a two year game down under.
I'll stick it up on the web ASAP and let everyone have a gander...

(the re-write is currently underway after using about 30 play-testers on
the original. The main guts of this version is the actual campeign setting,
which I had in a modular format so I won't annoy everyone with those bits,
I'll just past the rules)

Net-Noddist

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

From: Stephen Johnson

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 8:54 AM

Subject: [dq-rules] Does anyone have...

      Just a thought here, but with all the talk about taking the DQ Rules through a
porting process to make them open source.  Does anyone have a copy of the rules
in a text, rich text, word or other file in which they can be easily worked
with?



Stephen



To Post a message, send it to:   dq-rules@eGroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com

An index is definitely part of what I hope to have in the new version.
It seems to me a little bit 'cart before the horse' to do the index
now, however. But it is helpful to keep indexing in mind from the
outset. And to that end, I have been thinking about a new numbering
system.

Some time ago there was some discussion about a new numbering system
for the DQ rules. I tried to find the discussion, so I could see what
had been suggested. If someone could help dredge that up, I'd like to
take another look at the suggestions that were discussed.

I've come up with my own version, which (I think) draws on some of
what was previously suggested, but, again, I don't recall exactly.
What I am trying to set up with this is something like the Dewey
system for cataloging a library. This would allow new rules to be
added and appear in sequence, so that the rules would hold together
and make sense, no matter which rules were added or subtracted. (The
Poor Brendan's numbering problem.)

This draft uses the same main categories as the SPI version. But
rather than having sequentially numbered rules, I am instead using a
three digit rule number. Paragraphs of a rule would be lettered,
rather than having a point number, allowing for up to 26 rule
paragraphs to a rule, rather than 9.

So the main categories would be:

0 - License
1 - How to Play the Game
2 - Game Terms
3 - Character Generation
4 - Combat
5 - Magic
6 - Skills
7 - Monsters
8 - Adventure

Rule numbering would follow the form:
8-255-a
for example to refer to the currency conversion rule [2nd Ed 81.1]

Alternatively, keep roman numerals for the categories, then a three
digit number for the rule, and then a letter for the paragraph:
VIII-255-a or even VIII255a

Though on looking at it, I think using numbers for the categories is
cleaner.

Translation between editions could also be facilitated by keeping
reference to the old rule number in place of the letter. For example,
8-255-[81]. We shouldn't use this for individual cases (where the
lettered paragraphs are used), but just in the Table of Contents or
other cross-referencing materials.

--Rodger

Quoting "J. Corey" <john@dragonquestadventures.com>:

> I would be happy to try and take this on. Since we are doing
> re-writing, now seems like the time
>
> John C.
> On May 24, 2004, at 3:32 AM, dbarrass_2000 wrote:
>
> >
> > I have a dragonquest index, I spent ages doing it and came to 3
> > conclusions
> > 1) life is too short to index a book, do it at the time of writing
> > 2) I indexed by page numbers, indexing by section numbers would have
> > been better
> > 3) I'm no good at indexing :--(
> >
> > This is why I have never finished it, I have all the index cards, but
> > only got half way through "D" before deciding it was futile
> >
> > David
> >
> > --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "J. Corey" <john@d...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, the one thing DQ has never had that makes me CRAZY is a

decent

> > > index. This is a great opportunity make a good one
> > >
> > > John C

John Rauchert wrote...

> There are partial versions floating around.

Most in pdf, which is fine for presentation but if we're going to work with
these rules it would be a heck of a lot easier if they're in some form of word
processing file.

> Here is a small sampling of the material I have accumulated.
>
> http://johnrauchert.brinkster.net/dq/archive/books/

Cool, thanks for the link I just download everything... But from what you're
saying you have other DragonQuest material perchance? :)

> Available for limited time only (until Friday)

Many thanks for what you provided then.



Stephen