First things first:
"This seems like JohnR's project"
This group [dq-rules] is for discussion and distribution of Dragon
Quest rules, variants and revisions.
There are currently 17 members of the discussion group and of the 79
messages I have posted 24 (30%), JohnC has posted 22 (28%), and John K
has posted 16 (20%) [just looking at these stats you might think it's a
John project].
Officially as part of DQOS, I am working on Section IV, Character
Generation seven and a bit pages of a total of 147 pages of rules and I
sit as a normally non-voting member [I get a vote as "tie-breaker"] on
the oversight committee.
I also see that I am listed as the Overall Project Leader, which was
not my original intent, but I was going to talk to Rodger about that
when he gets back from the weekend (he may or may not want that
responsibility with his pending arrival of a bundle of joy).
I can see how it might look like "my project" since to date I have
posted documents on how we might organize the project and how we might
approach the rules. It should be noted that I use the word "might"
since what I have put forward so far are my commments only that I have
posted for discussion [the stated purpose of this group].
"What I really want to do as GM is compile my Rulebook."
It is entirely my own thought that we may want to produce something
here that is more than just a rules supplement of new skills and new
magical colleges (which quite rightly can be done outside of this
project as Poor Brendan's Almanac illustrates). It is my thought that
we might want to create the framework that lays out the ground rules
for making additions/changes to DQ to ensure that these
additions/changes are consistent with the spirit of DQ and work with
the existing system. This is in part so that GMs CAN create their own
rulebooks, but done in a manner that allows everyone to create their
own rulebooks by selecting those pieces they want add, so that DQ isn't
just the rulebook one particular person, group or way of thinking.
I basically see JohnC's concerns as a debate between two different
approaches:
JohnR's approach (rules coring concept):
When I started to think about what I call "rules coring", I took ideas
from two sources. The first is the work that has been done on 3ed D&D
(horrors). The approach the design team took was to go through the
rules, rule by rule, and identify what were to them sacred cows of the
D&D system in order to preserve those things that give D&D its
particular flavour (regardless of what we feel of that flavour). The
second was the work done on the Linux system (or at least my
understanding of it) where people are free to add to the System
surrounding an stable kernel which can only be modified by Linus
Torvalds.
What I proposed is that we identify which rules make up that core
system, what modifications if any (like changing the starting value of
perception) we would make, add any clarifications and come up with a
process for making changes to these rules in the future. Then we take
the rules that are left over and say ok these are the open part of our
open source project. Here we would take a look at the representative
sample of these rules and see what makes them tick and write a set of
guidelines on how a GM could create their own rules. My major concern
here is that these "non-core rules" or "plug-ins" should not make major
alternations to the core system that we have identified. As an example,
if I wrote a skill, say Magical Theory, that states that just by taking
3rd Rank in this skill I get +2 bonus to my Magical Aptitude, then that
skill would effect a whole host of other rules. The basic idea is that
a GM should be free to pick and choose which Races, Skills, and Magical
Colleges that he/she wants in a campaign and not worry about the effect
that that has on the overall rules system.
By the way, this approach is not necessarily a new one in DragonQuest
as the following quote illustrates:
"A third concept in mind during the design process was to maintain the
game's flexibility, and allow the GM and players to expand on the
original rules. The modular presentation of skills and magic colleges
makes the introduction of new ideas easy; adding a new skill or college
does not necessitate changing the original ones." from the 2ed
DragonQuest Introduction.
True this does not comment on leaving rules out but the principle is
the same if I don't want to use a particular race or skill or magical
college I should be able to drop it without "breaking" the system.
The rules coring concept also does not stop the use of variant core
rules (I mentioned in another post the
set of core rules could also include modular variants that act in the
same manner. For example, it may be possible for a 1st edition
Enthusiast to develop an Action Point variant that replaces Tactical
Movement Rate in Combat with guidelines on converting monster TMR to
AP). The caution I would have there is that these variants should also
not "break" the core game system.
JohnC's approach (rules clarification concept):
Based on the following quotes, I will present what I think is JohnC's
approach (of course only JohnC can do so correctly).
"I think everyone could use the 'rules clarification', a set of
clarifications that run parallel to the rule book, and clear up a lot
of the pesky rules problems."
"And why would I want a rewritten set of DQ rules? The rules are GREAT,
they just have a few
weak spots."
"I would keep all of the base rules!"
This approach strikes me as similar to one found mostly in literature
and religious studies called "Commentaries", defined as a systematic
series of explanations or interpretations (as of a writing).
[totally off topic: I found one on the net that is particularly
interesting, The Star Wars Technical Commentaries
http://www.theforce.n
et/swtc/]
Commentaries are particularly important in the discussion and
interpretation of the Bible since it is viewed as the revealed word of
God and by cannot be rewritten by strict injunction (although that
hasn't stopped people from trying). Since the word can not be changed
the only recourse for examination is done through the commentaries.
Commentaries are often rich and thought provoking documents, but they
always tied directly to the Canonical Text. The danger of this approach
when taken to extremes is that no rule within the DragonQuest Canon (a
sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works) is open to
change. The game system stagnates and the only growth comes from
voluminous debates and apocrypha (material that is non-canon fan
developed rules).
If the only reason reason for JohnC's departure is disagreement with me
over the above concepts, then I would hope he would continue to
participate and the group can discuss the ultimate approach we want to
take, which may be neither one the above.
We are just getting warmed up, I think there will be much more
contentious issues in the months ahead. The First Ecumenical Council
of Nicea in AD 325 by all accounts was fairly ruckus affair too.
One of things I said around the concept of rules coring that I should
clarify because it seems to have gotten people a bit steamed up.
"Why would i want to get a version of the rules where the core for
character generation was "humans only". Sure there would be plugins for
other races. but those races are in the DQ game I already know and
love, why would we strip them out of the core rules?"
When I was looking at Character Generation I got to the section on
non-human races. I got to thinking about DQ games I have been in over
the years which have excluded, added, or changed non-human races.
Then I applied my core/noncore concept, if you dropped all the
non-human races as they are currently written what would happen to the
game system?
As it turns out, not much purely in terms of game mechanics (in terms
of the flavour of the overall game system maybe alot). Humans are left
in core because they are necessary to run the rest of Character
Generation (and I have never run in a game where humans didn't exist).
Just because non-humans under this way of thinking are considered
noncore it does not mean we remove them from the rules. It maybe we
would have to write a section outlining how to add additional races
(which MAY involve rewriting 6.3 and including separate Heritage Tables
for each race).
JohnR