--- In
dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@...> wrote:
>
> --- darkislephil <darkislephil@...> wrote:
>
> > I do however have a number of quibbles with the
> > review. (And please,
> > please run it through a spell-checker and grammar
> > checker. There are a
> > number of misspelled words, sentences with words
> > missing and/or
> > doubled and some that just don't make sense.)
>
> That's a fair call; I actually do run them through a
> brief check, but when one is trying to write a review
> a day, sometimes it's less than perfect.
I guess that provides some insight into the review as a whole then.
> > > Neither the cover art nor the interior art was
> > ever
> > > anything special.
> >
> > While John Garcia's illustrations are just so-so,
> > the 3rd Edition did
> > include several Timothy Truman illustrations which
> > are very good.
>
> They're not "very good", they are OK at best and there
> certainly isn't enough of them to make a difference in
> the style rating.
That's funny. Let's see, staff artist with both TSR & SPI, an
influential comic artist in the early eighties at the beginning of the
boom for independent comics, has continued to write and illustrate
comics up until now and is currently working on the Dark Horse Conan
comic. Yeah. His art is just ok.
> > > All editions come without a page-numbered table of
> > contents or an index.
> >
> > Every rule is numbered in the ToC and in the book.
> > Pretty much no
> > difference from looking it up by page number.
> >
> > An index certainly would have been nice but they
> > weren't a common
> > feature in rule sets written in the late 70's and
> > early 80's before
> > PCs came along.
>
> The AD&D DMG had an index (1979). RuneQuest had an
> index (ditto). Indexes are *very* useful in a
> rules-heavy game.
Right. You come up with 2 examples out of hundreds of possible titles,
one of which is undoubtedly the #1 seller for the time and the other
probably in the top 5. How many pages did the DMG have? Twice as many
pages?
Rules-heavy? Compare the PG, MM and DMG of AD&D to DQ's 148 pages
total. Most peoples complaints are that there aren't rules for every
conceivable situation and you yourself are bemoaning the lack of an
intelligence characteristic.
As I said, an index would have been nice but not really needed and you
proved the point on how it wasn't common to have them. If you were
reviewing a current release then I would be behind you 100% but DQ is
nearly 30 years old and a little perspective concerning the state of
the industry when it was published is appropriate.
> > > Note the lack of a general "Intelligence" stat.
> > > Apparently players provide their own intelligence
> > and
> > > no NPC can be smarter than the GM.
> >
> > I don't think it was the first game to leave out an
> > Intelligence
> > attribute and it certainly wasn't the last. Remember
> > the 'RP' in RPG
> > stands for role-playing.
>
> How are you meant to roleplay an NPC's (or a PC's)
> intelligence if you don't have a reference point?
The reference point is when you design the NPC and you note that Bob
the Blacksmith is not very educated but is a shrewd bargainer and will
never sell at less than 90% of asking price (and perhaps you assign
him a Rank in Merchant).
An Intelligence stat and a couple die rolls isn't going to create
meaningful interactions between NPCs and PCs. That is up to the GM.
> > In any case many of the skills are knowledge-based,
> > or have
> > knowledge-based abilities as you noted later in the
> > review and that
> > would fall under the domain of intelligence in most
> > games.
>
> Right; and their default ability is?
Whose default ability? The skills? As is obvious from a quick perusal
of the rules, Perception is the characteristic typically used to
determine if the character knows something or is able to reason
something out (Astrologer, Merchant, Military Scientist & Navigator)
but some, like Alchemist & Mechanician, just use Rank in the skill.
So even though there isn't a specific Intelligence characteristic the
rules do provide mechanisms for determining what a PC or NPC knows, or
can reason/intuit for themselves.
I guess you missed your Perception check when reading the rules.
> > > Characteristic modifiers are significant; for
> > example a
> > > halflings PS is reduced by 6.
> >
> > That is only in the 3rd edition. The 1st & 2nd ed
> > modifiers where half
> > those in the 3rd and many DQ players I know consider
> > that change to be
> > a bad one (as were most of the changes in the 3rd
> > ed).
>
> See the words "For example"? Personally, I consider
> the -6 modifier to be a *good* rule.
In several places in your review you note the differences between the
different editions but in this case you made an unqualified statement
that isn't accurate or true for any but the 3rd edition.
When you specifically note that some rules vary by edition but do not
apply this qualification to other statements the reader can only
assume that you mean it is true for all editions.
> > > An excellent optional rule is the inclusion of
> > "aspects",
> >
> > Aspect isn't an optional rule (any more than any
> > other rule is).
>
> 7 Aspects (Optional) (3rd ed, p9)
Once again an unqualified statement that only applies to the 3rd
edition but you didn't make the distinction.
Given that the DQ rules are not available except through 2nd-hand
markets like eBay or through one of the PDF scans of the 2nd edition
rules floating around the net a little accuracy in your statements
wouldn't have been out of line.
> > > The combat system assumes the use of hex maps,
> > with a
> > > variety of maneuvers, which mostly work quite well
> > and
> > > would probably work better if the monsters section
> > was
> > > more careful with some of its figures.
> >
> > Meaning what?
>
> Meaning that it scales badly. e.g., two average-strong
> humans have a even chance of preventing a *bear* from
> breaking from a grapple, and an absolute chance of
> preventing a *boar*.
So you were actually talking about the scalability of the
characteristics of the various creatures (or the relative accuracy of
the estimation of a creatures attributes) with regards to one specific
maneuver, Restrain. You can always withdraw from Close Combat on a
roll of 10 on a D10 unless Restrained.
Again it isn't so much that your observation was wrong as that it
lacked clarity and accuracy.
> > > Attacks are resolved on d100 with modifiers due to
> > the
> > > weapon's base chance, the character's skill, minus
> > defense
> > > and the usual modifiers. Missing means the target
> > may have
> > > performed a Parry and Riposte,
> >
> > No. This only applies if the target had specifically
> > taken an Evade
> > action.
>
> That is correct; however the statement isn't wrong
> (missing *does* mean the target *may* have performed a
> parry and riposte) but it is incomplete (*if* they
> have performed an evade).
Or it could mean that the target is on the other side of a wall.
You capitalized the words Parry & Riposte for some reason and pretty
much the only logical conclusion is that you were specifically
referring to rule [17.4].
> > > Shields, it must be added, are particularly
> > pathetic and
> > > armour isn't that great either.
> >
> > Adding 10%-30% to your defense is pathetic?
>
> Adding 3-6% at rank 1 certainly is. A untrained person
> can pick up a shield and they *will* improve their
> capacity to be protected by blow *far* more than DQ
> indicates.
Says you.
You don't even point out the most glaring problem with Shields in DQ
and that is that the rules don't say what to do with Rank 0. I think
that you would agree that once you had 1 rank out of the 5 possible
that some defense should be conferred to the wielder.
Given that shield is one of the cheapest of skills to advance in,
anyone that runs around with only 1 rank in it and then complains
about the low defense deserves whatever fate befalls them.
> > As for armor, Chain is going to completely negate
> > 50% of hits from
> > daggers and 20% or more from typical swords. The
> > damage reduction is
> > quite significant but still leaves the very
> > dangerous nature of combat
> > intact. Other armor protects to a greater or less
> > degree and a
> > character in improved plate and a big shield is a
> > freaking tank.
>
> You must acknowledge that 20% negation is
> significantly below average for armour systems which
> use a damage reduction method, surely?
Sigh. That isn't 20% negation it is 20% of the time it does total
negation.
Let's take a broadsword example. D10+4 damage with an average of 9.5.
The possible damage rolls are 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14.
Against chain that is 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8. The total is 36
divided by 10 for an average damage of 3.6 for broadsword against
chain. A reduction of (9.5 - 3.6)/9.5 or roughly 62%. (Ignoring strike
chance and criticals.)
For improved plate you get 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 and a 2.1
average. A reduction of 78%.
So, no, it isn't anywhere near as bad as your off-the-cuff
guestimation makes it out to be and it also ignores the dynamics of
the overall DQ combat system which is, in a word, deadly. Neither PCs
nor NPCs get appreciably more "hit points" as they advance. (Something
you didn't point out in the review.) This isn't a game for players who
expect to wade into a horde of humanoids and come out unscathed. An 01
always does Endurance Damage and for all but the most minimal of
Strike Chances it is also a Grievous Injury. One of those is often
enough to kill or incapacitate a foolish player's character.
> > > Magic is learned in colleges, with exclusive
> > knowledge -
> > > one cannot know spells from the College of Fire
> > Magics and
> > > Earth Magics at the same time which to say the
> > least is a
> > > little unreasonable and arbitrary.
> >
> > Unreasonable because in the real world anyone can
> > throw spells from
> > any college?
>
> I don't accept the argument that a magic system can be
> arbitrary in its rules on the lack of direct
> simulationism. For starters, it doesn't match the
> historical examples of those who studied the occult
> arts and secondly, and much more importantly, it
> simply isn't fun to play.
Well since you have yet to show that it is arbitrary or that it
contradicts "historical examples of those who studied the occult arts"
(Read as nutjobs that believed magic was real) clearly you didn't have
any basis for your position.
And the 3rd edition that you are so fond of referencing includes
justifications and explanations of the colleges as well as their
literary and historical sources.
> > It's perfectly reasonable as it fits in exactly with
> > the magic system
> > as it is constructed. It was hardly an arbitrary
> > decision and magic
> > spell research was actually provided for in Arcane
> > Wisdom.
> > Unfortunately TSR chose not to publish that section
> > of it when they
> > added the other parts to the 3rd edition.
>
> I am reviewing rules as they are written.
Rules that aren't in publication but that you suggest can be found on
the net where a player would also find a copy of Arcane Wisdom.
And, as mentioned above, the 3rd edition did include an explanation of
the inspirations for the various colleges.
> > > There is also a serious power-gamer problem with
> > the
> > > abilities available to Rag & String Golems.
> >
> > Only for Monty Haul GMs that let the players run
> > roughshod over them.
>
> As above.
From the introduction:
"In every adventure, situations will arise in which the GM will be
called up on to interpret or add to the rules. This may seem to be an
obvious statement to those readers who are veteran role players, but
for those to whom this game is a first experience, it is a concept not
to be glossed over."
You really should read the Introduction.
> > > Whether successful or not, spells cost FAT, and
> > serious
> > > spell failure (30% above casting chance, which is
> > common
> > > enough at low ranks) cause backfires, many of
> > which are
> > > quite serious.
> >
> > First it is 30% while in combat and 40% if out of
> > combat.(2nd ed)
>
> A minor difference.
Not to an adept it isn't.
> There are many other ways of preventing spell-casting
> PCs from "becoming gods" apart from crippling them for
> weeks at a time.
After almost 27 years of playing and GMing DQ I can safely say that I
have never had one crippled for weeks at a time. Inconvenienced and/or
incapacitated for a day or two and even killed once (see #46-50) but
crippled for weeks? No.
> > Note that NPC adepts have the same risks.
>
> Do you roll for your NPC spell-casters out of play to
> see whether they've miscast any spells?
My NPC adepts suffer from the same effects that PC adepts do but as a
GM I write the stories not the dice. I have had NPC adepts suddenly
leave the field of battle after a particularly bad backfire or
surrendering when they have gone blind. Sometimes it happens because
that is what I plotted and other times it is because I just rolled
that result.
I don't make NPCs roll for backfires off camera any more than the
rules require PCs to roll for backfires when learning or practicing
spells.
RPGs are about storytelling not dice rolls.
> > Magic is tricky and often unreliable. Make sure you
> > have a Healer in
> > the party. It only takes a Rank 1 Healer to remove
> > the majority of
> > backfire effects.
>
> The majority of backfire effects are miscast spells,
> which won't matter whether there is a healer or not. A
> rank 1 healer has the ability to cure infection,
> disease, headaches and fever. Some of the 61+ backfire
> effects of these may be cured by a rank 1 healer, but
> certainly a minority.
True it does take a Rank 2 healer to get the rest.
> > Which clearly acknowledges that other skills exist.
>
> Some examples would have been very nice.
Because someone with a high-school education wouldn't be able to come
up with farmer, blacksmith, cobbler, baker, etc.?
It was a pointless observation made even more so because the rules did
cover it.
> > > with a significant number of Pleistocene beasts.
> >
> > What an odd comment and three is a significant
> > number?
>
> Three specific to the period is a significant number
> of the natural mammals to the period (which is pretty
> small - most of the book are fantastic creatures).
It is less than 5% of the natural creatures which make up about 45% of
all the creatures listed. Seeing as sabretooth tigers, mammoths and
cavemen (Neanderthals) are staples in fantasy fiction their inclusion
is hardly noteworthy. It was an odd comment to make and you have only
dug yourself in deeper attempting to justify it.
> > DQ certainly has its issues but many of the comments
> > in your review
> > seem to come from a incomplete understanding of the
> > actual rules.
>
> You may indeed think that. I however, suggest that it
> is not the case.
Well I can only go by what you have written.