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

From: Christopher Dargan

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 7:58 AM

Subject: [dq-rules] a raccoon for your player

Hi Jeffery

Here's the raccoon

RACCOON

Natural Habitat: Woods, Plains

Frequency: Common                         Number: 1‑2 (1)

Description: Raccoons are small nocturnal scavengers with grey fur and distinctive black markings.

Talents, Skills, and Magic: Raccoons have no special skills or talents. They are not tool or magic users.

Movement Rates: Running: 250

PS: 3‑5                         MD: 19‑21             AG: 13‑18                         MA: None
EN: 1‑2                         FT: 2‑3                  WP: 12‑20                         PC: 20‑24
PB: 10‑12                    TMR: 5                   NA: Fur absorbs 1 DP

Weapons: A raccoon can only attack in Close Combat with its bite (BC 80%, D10-7 damage).

Comments: Raccoons are good swimmers and have been known to lure hunting dogs into water and drown them.

 

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

From: Jeffery K. McGonagill

To: dq-rules@yahoogroup s.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:33 AM

Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Reply to questions concerning bestiary.

.

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1258 - Release Date: 4/02/2008 10:10 AM

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1258 - Release Date: 4/02/2008 10:10 AM

> I'm glad that everyone likes my interpretations of
> these beasties. :D
>
> Ok. Now to the questions and suggestions. Many
> thanks for your interest everyone.
>
> @ Jeffrey
>
> 1) Yes I would be prepared to do additions to the
> bestiary if either yourself or anyone else is
> interested in supplying me with some suggestions.
>
> 2) The vast majority of the critters in my bestiary
> are from the real or mythological world. There are
> a handful of beasties from some fantasy novels and
> others from other role playing games. I can supply
> a list of the exceptions if you wish.
>
> @ gruundhen
>
> 1) I'll try and rectify the problem with the aboleth
> as soon as possible.
>
> 2) I'm trying to rectify the grammer & spelling as
> we speak.
>
> @ Lev
>
> Loved your bit about the animal beauty contest. :D
> I think I did go a bit overboard with the PB of a
> grouper. Especially when you think that something
> like a swan is supposed to be the great beauty of
> the animal kingdom. So the question becomes what do
> you think would be a reasonable score for a
> grouper's PB? How about say 6-8?
>
> As to giraffe's PB what can I say? I'm biased. :)
> However I'm open to suggestions. What do you think
> would be a reasonable for such a critter?
>
> I know dragons can be pretty ugly [2-4 usually] but
> my kelpie has them beat PB: 0-2 :) How's that for a
> reverse miss universe?
>

> @ Everyone
> Now as to some personal recommendations. I like to
> scare my players a bit or give them mysteries to
> solve. Some of the best beasties for this, in my
> opinion anyway, are the Gamin, Night Hag, and Athol.
> These critters will give your players the willies.
>
> If you like to add a touch of wierdness to your
> adventures occasionally try beasties like the
> boabhan shee [a vampire that can become selectively
> visible to whomever it wishes]. I had one player
> who thought his character had gone insane since only
> he, out of his entire party could see this beautiful
> woman. There's the wendigo [a creature that will
> literally scare a character to death]. And the Baka
> or spirit-ghoul. It possesses a character & forces
> him to act like [and eventually resemble] a ghoul.
> Imagine a player's he or she is told their character
> has awoken from a sound sleep with a half-eaten body
> part lying next to him or her. Now that should be
> the start of an interesting adventure.
>
> Finally there are just critters that are fun for a
> GM to play. How as a GM can I not love something
> like an ingogo? A creature that not only attacks
> you but screams out personal insults while its
> trying to bite you. I have NEVER seen my players
> more satisfied with themselves than when they killed
> a pack of these beasties.

Hi Chris,

I think it is fair to say that the PB stat is supposed
to represent something akin to species norms with a
human default. It's a little buggy of course because
it gives an absolute value to an relative criteria*.

Taking the relative pathway, as one should with
Physical Beauty, I think the base-line is the humanoid
norm (4D5+3, 7-23). So use this value *within* a
species.

Using phylogentic taxonomy I would recommend something
like the following *between* species until an
equivalent is reached. Thus, using a homo sapien
sapien baseline example.

- Species: (Homo sapiens). No change to PB.
- Genus: Homo (Elves, halflings etc). -3 to relative
PB.
- Family: Hominidae (Great apes). -6 to relative PB
- Order: Primates. -9 to relative PB.
- Subclass: Placentalia. -12 to relative PB.
- Class: Mammalia (endothermic vertebrates with hair
and mammary glands). -15 to relative PB.
- Subphylum: Vertebrata (possessing a backbone). -18
to relative PB
- Phylum: Chordata. -21 to relative PB.
- Kingdom: Animalia, -24 to relative PB.
- Domain: Eukaryota (organisms which have cells with a
nucleus), -27 to relative PB.

So our fishy friends would have normal PB among other
fish of the same species, but to a human the value
would be reduced by 18 (except among piscineophiles, I
suppose), whereas the giraffe would be at -12.

Anyway, just a suggestion.. .. YDQMV.

Lev

* RuneQuest managed to do something clever in this
regard way back in second edition (maybe first, I'd
have to have another look) by applying a -10 to CHA
between sentient species. This is really just an
elaboration on that principle.

--- Christopher Dargan <imperium1@optusnet. com.au>
wrote:

> I'm glad that everyone likes my interpretations of
> these beasties. :D
>
> Ok. Now to the questions and suggestions. Many
> thanks for your interest everyone.
>
> @ Jeffrey
>
> 1) Yes I would be prepared to do additions to the
> bestiary if either yourself or anyone else is
> interested in supplying me with some suggestions.
>
> 2) The vast majority of the critters in my bestiary
> are from the real or mythological world. There are
> a handful of beasties from some fantasy novels and
> others from other role playing games. I can supply
> a list of the exceptions if you wish.
>
> @ gruundhen
>
> 1) I'll try and rectify the problem with the aboleth
> as soon as possible.
>
> 2) I'm trying to rectify the grammer & spelling as
> we speak.
>
> @ Lev
>
> Loved your bit about the animal beauty contest. :D
> I think I did go a bit overboard with the PB of a
> grouper. Especially when you think that something
> like a swan is supposed to be the great beauty of
> the animal kingdom. So the question becomes what do
> you think would be a reasonable score for a
> grouper's PB? How about say 6-8?
>
> As to giraffe's PB what can I say? I'm biased. :)
> However I'm open to suggestions. What do you think
> would be a reasonable for such a critter?
>
> I know dragons can be pretty ugly [2-4 usually] but
> my kelpie has them beat PB: 0-2 :) How's that for a
> reverse miss universe?
>
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> @ Everyone
> Now as to some personal recommendations. I like to
> scare my players a bit or give them mysteries to
> solve. Some of the best beasties for this, in my
> opinion anyway, are the Gamin, Night Hag, and Athol.
> These critters will give your players the willies.
>
> If you like to add a touch of wierdness to your
> adventures occasionally try beasties like the
> boabhan shee [a vampire that can become selectively
> visible to whomever it wishes]. I had one player
> who thought his character had gone insane since only
> he, out of his entire party could see this beautiful
> woman. There's the wendigo [a creature that will
> literally scare a character to death]. And the Baka
> or spirit-ghoul. It possesses a character & forces
> him to act like [and eventually resemble] a ghoul.
> Imagine a player's he or she is told their character
> has awoken from a sound sleep with a half-eaten body
> part lying next to him or her. Now that should be
> the start of an interesting adventure.
>
> Finally there are just critters that are fun for a
> GM to play. How as a GM can I not love something
> like an ingogo? A creature that not only attacks
> you but screams out personal insults while its
> trying to bite you. I have NEVER seen my players
> more satisfied with themselves than when they killed
> a pack of these beasties.

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

> Lev,
> The big problem I see with your table is that
> humans find other species cute. While very few
> people would find a warthog noice to look at, such
> animals as dogs, cats, monkeys, chimps, lions, etc.
> are all considered good-looking by most people.
>
> I am responding without my copy of DQ at hand but
> I think the PB is supposed to be how a human would
> see the other species. Thus the PB of the above
> good-looking creatures would be higher than the
> warthog. Elves and halflings would be higher than
> orcs, etc. Thus a general table such as yours would
> not work. The PB listing would have to be for each
> creature.
>
> Chris Cole
> The World's Tallest Dwarf
>
> Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I think it is fair to say that the PB stat is
> supposed
> to represent something akin to species norms with a
> human default. It's a little buggy of course because
> it gives an absolute value to an relative criteria*.
>
> Taking the relative pathway, as one should with
> Physical Beauty, I think the base-line is the
> humanoid
> norm (4D5+3, 7-23). So use this value *within* a
> species.
>
> Using phylogentic taxonomy I would recommend
> something
> like the following *between* species until an
> equivalent is reached. Thus, using a homo sapien
> sapien baseline example.
>
> - Species: (Homo sapiens). No change to PB.
> - Genus: Homo (Elves, halflings etc). -3 to relative
> PB.
> - Family: Hominidae (Great apes). -6 to relative PB
> - Order: Primates. -9 to relative PB.
> - Subclass: Placentalia. -12 to relative PB.
> - Class: Mammalia (endothermic vertebrates with hair
> and mammary glands). -15 to relative PB.
> - Subphylum: Vertebrata (possessing a backbone). -18
> to relative PB
> - Phylum: Chordata. -21 to relative PB.
> - Kingdom: Animalia, -24 to relative PB.
> - Domain: Eukaryota (organisms which have cells with
> a
> nucleus), -27 to relative PB.
>
> So our fishy friends would have normal PB among
> other
> fish of the same species, but to a human the value
> would be reduced by 18 (except among piscineophiles,
> I
> suppose), whereas the giraffe would be at -12.
>
> Anyway, just a suggestion.... YDQMV.
>
> Lev
>
> * RuneQuest managed to do something clever in this
> regard way back in second edition (maybe first, I'd
> have to have another look) by applying a -10 to CHA
> between sentient species. This is really just an
> elaboration on that principle.
>
> --- Christopher Dargan <imperium1@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm glad that everyone likes my interpretations of
> > these beasties. :D
> >
> > Ok. Now to the questions and suggestions. Many
> > thanks for your interest everyone.
> >
> > @ Jeffrey
> >
> > 1) Yes I would be prepared to do additions to the
> > bestiary if either yourself or anyone else is
> > interested in supplying me with some suggestions.
> >
> > 2) The vast majority of the critters in my
> bestiary
> > are from the real or mythological world. There are
> > a handful of beasties from some fantasy novels and
> > others from other role playing games. I can supply
> > a list of the exceptions if you wish.
> >
> > @ gruundhen
> >
> > 1) I'll try and rectify the problem with the
> aboleth
> > as soon as possible.
> >
> > 2) I'm trying to rectify the grammer & spelling as
> > we speak.
> >
> > @ Lev
> >
> > Loved your bit about the animal beauty contest. :D
>
> > I think I did go a bit overboard with the PB of a
> > grouper. Especially when you think that something
> > like a swan is supposed to be the great beauty of
> > the animal kingdom. So the question becomes what
> do
> > you think would be a reasonable score for a
> > grouper's PB? How about say 6-8?
> >
> > As to giraffe's PB what can I say? I'm biased. :)
> > However I'm open to suggestions. What do you think
> > would be a reasonable for such a critter?
> >
> > I know dragons can be pretty ugly [2-4 usually]
> but
> > my kelpie has them beat PB: 0-2 :) How's that for
> a
> > reverse miss universe?
> >
>

> > @ Everyone
> > Now as to some personal recommendations. I like to
> > scare my players a bit or give them mysteries to
> > solve. Some of the best beasties for this, in my
> > opinion anyway, are the Gamin, Night Hag, and
> Athol.
> > These critters will give your players the willies.
> >
> > If you like to add a touch of wierdness to your
> > adventures occasionally try beasties like the
> > boabhan shee [a vampire that can become
> selectively
> > visible to whomever it wishes]. I had one player
> > who thought his character had gone insane since
> only
> > he, out of his entire party could see this
> beautiful
> > woman. There's the wendigo [a creature that will
> > literally scare a character to death]. And the
> Baka
> > or spirit-ghoul. It possesses a character & forces
> > him to act like [and eventually resemble] a ghoul.
>
> > Imagine a player's he or she is told their
> character
> > has awoken from a sound sleep with a half-eaten
> body
> > part lying next to him or her. Now that should be
> > the start of an interesting adventure.
> >
> > Finally there are just critters that are fun for a
> > GM to play. How as a GM can I not love something
> > like an ingogo? A creature that not only attacks
> > you but screams out personal insults while its
> > trying to bite you. I have NEVER seen my players
> > more satisfied with themselves than when they
> killed
> > a pack of these beasties.
>
>

> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with
> Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

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

From: Lev Lafayette

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:06 PM

Subject: Re: Physical Beauty (was Re: [dq-rules] Reply to questions concerning bestiary.)

Hi Chris,

The table specifically takes into account species
proximity to humans and that is as close as one will
get to universal standards of attractiveness. Monkeys
and chimps rate high, cats, dogs, and lions after that
and very few people find much in common, beauty-wise,
with fish and even less with ants.

As for the comparison with the warthog, any culture
with domesticated pigs would tend to put them in the
same category as those who keep cats and dogs.
Seriously.

All the best,

Lev

--- Christopher Cole <gruundehn@yahoo. com> wrote:

> Lev,
> The big problem I see with your table is that
> humans find other species cute. While very few
> people would find a warthog noice to look at, such
> animals as dogs, cats, monkeys, chimps, lions, etc.
> are all considered good-looking by most people.
>
> I am responding without my copy of DQ at hand but
> I think the PB is supposed to be how a human would
> see the other species. Thus the PB of the above
> good-looking creatures would be higher than the
> warthog. Elves and halflings would be higher than
> orcs, etc. Thus a general table such as yours would
> not work. The PB listing would have to be for each
> creature.
>
> Chris Cole
> The World's Tallest Dwarf
>
> Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@ yahoo.com. au> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I think it is fair to say that the PB stat is
> supposed
> to represent something akin to species norms with a
> human default. It's a little buggy of course because
> it gives an absolute value to an relative criteria*.
>
> Taking the relative pathway, as one should with
> Physical Beauty, I think the base-line is the
> humanoid
> norm (4D5+3, 7-23). So use this value *within* a
> species.
>
> Using phylogentic taxonomy I would recommend
> something
> like the following *between* species until an
> equivalent is reached. Thus, using a homo sapien
> sapien baseline example.
>
> - Species: (Homo sapiens). No change to PB.
> - Genus: Homo (Elves, halflings etc). -3 to relative
> PB.
> - Family: Hominidae (Great apes). -6 to relative PB
> - Order: Primates. -9 to relative PB.
> - Subclass: Placentalia. -12 to relative PB.
> - Class: Mammalia (endothermic vertebrates with hair
> and mammary glands). -15 to relative PB.
> - Subphylum: Vertebrata (possessing a backbone). -18
> to relative PB
> - Phylum: Chordata. -21 to relative PB.
> - Kingdom: Animalia, -24 to relative PB.
> - Domain: Eukaryota (organisms which have cells with
> a
> nucleus), -27 to relative PB.
>
> So our fishy friends would have normal PB among
> other
> fish of the same species, but to a human the value
> would be reduced by 18 (except among piscineophiles,
> I
> suppose), whereas the giraffe would be at -12.
>
> Anyway, just a suggestion.. .. YDQMV.
>
> Lev
>
> * RuneQuest managed to do something clever in this
> regard way back in second edition (maybe first, I'd
> have to have another look) by applying a -10 to CHA
> between sentient species. This is really just an
> elaboration on that principle.
>
> --- Christopher Dargan <imperium1@optusnet. com.au>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm glad that everyone likes my interpretations of
> > these beasties. :D
> >
> > Ok. Now to the questions and suggestions. Many
> > thanks for your interest everyone.
> >
> > @ Jeffrey
> >
> > 1) Yes I would be prepared to do additions to the
> > bestiary if either yourself or anyone else is
> > interested in supplying me with some suggestions.
> >
> > 2) The vast majority of the critters in my
> bestiary
> > are from the real or mythological world. There are
> > a handful of beasties from some fantasy novels and
> > others from other role playing games. I can supply
> > a list of the exceptions if you wish.
> >
> > @ gruundhen
> >
> > 1) I'll try and rectify the problem with the
> aboleth
> > as soon as possible.
> >
> > 2) I'm trying to rectify the grammer & spelling as
> > we speak.
> >
> > @ Lev
> >
> > Loved your bit about the animal beauty contest. :D
>
> > I think I did go a bit overboard with the PB of a
> > grouper. Especially when you think that something
> > like a swan is supposed to be the great beauty of
> > the animal kingdom. So the question becomes what
> do
> > you think would be a reasonable score for a
> > grouper's PB? How about say 6-8?
> >
> > As to giraffe's PB what can I say? I'm biased. :)
> > However I'm open to suggestions. What do you think
> > would be a reasonable for such a critter?
> >
> > I know dragons can be pretty ugly [2-4 usually]
> but
> > my kelpie has them beat PB: 0-2 :) How's that for
> a
> > reverse miss universe?
> >
>
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > @ Everyone
> > Now as to some personal recommendations. I like to
> > scare my players a bit or give them mysteries to
> > solve. Some of the best beasties for this, in my
> > opinion anyway, are the Gamin, Night Hag, and
> Athol.
> > These critters will give your players the willies.
> >
> > If you like to add a touch of wierdness to your
> > adventures occasionally try beasties like the
> > boabhan shee [a vampire that can become
> selectively
> > visible to whomever it wishes]. I had one player
> > who thought his character had gone insane since
> only
> > he, out of his entire party could see this
> beautiful
> > woman. There's the wendigo [a creature that will
> > literally scare a character to death]. And the
> Baka
> > or spirit-ghoul. It possesses a character & forces
> > him to act like [and eventually resemble] a ghoul.
>
> > Imagine a player's he or she is told their
> character
> > has awoken from a sound sleep with a half-eaten
> body
> > part lying next to him or her. Now that should be
> > the start of an interesting adventure.
> >
> > Finally there are just critters that are fun for a
> > GM to play. How as a GM can I not love something
> > like an ingogo? A creature that not only attacks
> > you but screams out personal insults while its
> > trying to bite you. I have NEVER seen my players
> > more satisfied with themselves than when they
> killed
> > a pack of these beasties.
>
>
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>
http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with
> Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1262 - Release Date: 6/02/2008 9:13 AM

> Hi Lev
> Could you tell me where DQ says that it takes into
> account the species' proximity to humans. All I
> could find was the definition of PB where it says
> "PB is an optional characteristic representing a
> character's appearence compared to the aesthetic
> standards of his society and race" & further down
> "The PB value for monsters describes how that
> monster appears to a character, and NOT to another
> monster of the same race."
>
> Another thing to consider is that Elves are
> considered more attractive [on average] than a human
> despite the fact that they would be less likely to
> be in proximity to human beings. Just throwing out
> ideas for consideration here.
> Thanks for the help Lev & Chris. Its greatly
> appeciated.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lev Lafayette
> To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Physical Beauty (was Re: [dq-rules]
> Reply to questions concerning bestiary.)
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> The table specifically takes into account species
> proximity to humans and that is as close as one
> will
> get to universal standards of attractiveness.
> Monkeys
> and chimps rate high, cats, dogs, and lions after
> that
> and very few people find much in common,
> beauty-wise,
> with fish and even less with ants.
>
> As for the comparison with the warthog, any
> culture
> with domesticated pigs would tend to put them in
> the
> same category as those who keep cats and dogs.
> Seriously.
>
> All the best,
>
> Lev
>
> --- Christopher Cole <gruundehn@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Lev,
> > The big problem I see with your table is that
> > humans find other species cute. While very few
> > people would find a warthog noice to look at,
> such
> > animals as dogs, cats, monkeys, chimps, lions,
> etc.
> > are all considered good-looking by most people.
> >
> > I am responding without my copy of DQ at hand
> but
> > I think the PB is supposed to be how a human
> would
> > see the other species. Thus the PB of the above
> > good-looking creatures would be higher than the
> > warthog. Elves and halflings would be higher
> than
> > orcs, etc. Thus a general table such as yours
> would
> > not work. The PB listing would have to be for
> each
> > creature.
> >
> > Chris Cole
> > The World's Tallest Dwarf
> >
> > Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > I think it is fair to say that the PB stat is
> > supposed
> > to represent something akin to species norms
> with a
> > human default. It's a little buggy of course
> because
> > it gives an absolute value to an relative
> criteria*.
> >
> > Taking the relative pathway, as one should with
> > Physical Beauty, I think the base-line is the
> > humanoid
> > norm (4D5+3, 7-23). So use this value *within* a
> > species.
> >
> > Using phylogentic taxonomy I would recommend
> > something
> > like the following *between* species until an
> > equivalent is reached. Thus, using a homo sapien
> > sapien baseline example.
> >
> > - Species: (Homo sapiens). No change to PB.
> > - Genus: Homo (Elves, halflings etc). -3 to
> relative
> > PB.
> > - Family: Hominidae (Great apes). -6 to relative
> PB
> > - Order: Primates. -9 to relative PB.
> > - Subclass: Placentalia. -12 to relative PB.
> > - Class: Mammalia (endothermic vertebrates with
> hair
> > and mammary glands). -15 to relative PB.
> > - Subphylum: Vertebrata (possessing a backbone).
> -18
> > to relative PB
> > - Phylum: Chordata. -21 to relative PB.
> > - Kingdom: Animalia, -24 to relative PB.
> > - Domain: Eukaryota (organisms which have cells
> with
> > a
> > nucleus), -27 to relative PB.
> >
> > So our fishy friends would have normal PB among
> > other
> > fish of the same species, but to a human the
> value
> > would be reduced by 18 (except among
> piscineophiles,
> > I
> > suppose), whereas the giraffe would be at -12.
> >
> > Anyway, just a suggestion.... YDQMV.
> >
> > Lev
> >
> > * RuneQuest managed to do something clever in
> this
> > regard way back in second edition (maybe first,
> I'd
> > have to have another look) by applying a -10 to
> CHA
> > between sentient species. This is really just an
> > elaboration on that principle.
> >
> > --- Christopher Dargan
> <imperium1@optusnet.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm glad that everyone likes my
> interpretations of
> > > these beasties. :D
> > >
> > > Ok. Now to the questions and suggestions. Many
> > > thanks for your interest everyone.
> > >
> > > @ Jeffrey
> > >
> > > 1) Yes I would be prepared to do additions to
> the
> > > bestiary if either yourself or anyone else is
> > > interested in supplying me with some
> suggestions.
> > >
> > > 2) The vast majority of the critters in my
> > bestiary
> > > are from the real or mythological world. There
> are
> > > a handful of beasties from some fantasy novels
> and
> > > others from other role playing games. I can
> supply
> > > a list of the exceptions if you wish.
> > >
> > > @ gruundhen
> > >
> > > 1) I'll try and rectify the problem with the
> > aboleth
> > > as soon as possible.
> > >
> > > 2) I'm trying to rectify the grammer &
> spelling as
> > > we speak.
> > >
> > > @ Lev
> > >
> > > Loved your bit about the animal beauty
> contest. :D
> >
> > > I think I did go a bit overboard with the PB
> of a
> > > grouper. Especially when you think that
> something
> > > like a swan is supposed to be the great beauty
> of
> > > the animal kingdom. So the question becomes
> what
> > do
> > > you think would be a reasonable score for a
> > > grouper's PB? How about say 6-8?
> > >
> > > As to giraffe's PB what can I say? I'm biased.
> :)
> > > However I'm open to suggestions. What do you
> think
> > > would be a reasonable for such a critter?
> > >
> > > I know dragons can be pretty ugly [2-4
> usually]
> > but
> > > my kelpie has them beat PB: 0-2 :) How's that
> for
> > a
> > > reverse miss universe?
> > >
> >
>
>

> > > @ Everyone
> > > Now as to some personal recommendations. I
> like to
> > > scare my players a bit or give them mysteries
> to
> > > solve. Some of the best beasties for this, in
> my
> > > opinion anyway, are the Gamin, Night Hag, and
> > Athol.
> > > These critters will give your players the
> willies.
> > >
> > > If you like to add a touch of wierdness to
> your
> > > adventures occasionally try beasties like the
> > > boabhan shee [a vampire that can become
> > selectively
> > > visible to whomever it wishes]. I had one
> player
> > > who thought his character had gone insane
> since
> > only
> > > he, out of his entire party could see this
> > beautiful
> > > woman. There's the wendigo [a creature that
> will
> > > literally scare a character to death]. And the
> > Baka
> > > or spirit-ghoul. It possesses a character &
> forces
> > > him to act like [and eventually resemble] a
> ghoul.
> >
> > > Imagine a player's he or she is told their
> > character
> > > has awoken from a sound sleep with a
> half-eaten
> > body
> > > part lying next to him or her. Now that should
> be
> > > the start of an interesting adventure.
> > >
> > > Finally there are just critters that are fun
> for a
> > > GM to play. How as a GM can I not love
> something
> > > like an ingogo? A creature that not only
> attacks
> > > you but screams out personal insults while its
> > > trying to bite you. I have NEVER seen my
> players
> > > more satisfied with themselves than when they
> > killed
> > > a pack of these beasties.
> >
> >
>
>

> > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> >
>
>

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all
> with
> > Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>
>
>

> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1262
> - Release Date: 6/02/2008 9:13 AM
>

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

From: Lev Lafayette

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 5:33 PM

Subject: Re: Physical Beauty (was Re: [dq-rules] Reply to questions concerning bestiary.)

Hi Chris,

In most roleplaying games "race" (aka subspecies)
refers to the various humanoid types (elves,
halflings, dwarves, humans and sometimes orcs,
depending on the game system). Hence variation from
the racial norm should be considered and as well as
the aesthetic standards of the culture.

In other words, the section you've quoted from the DQ
rules concurs pretty much with what I've written.

All the best,

Lev

--- Christopher Dargan <imperium1@optusnet. com.au>
wrote:

> Hi Lev
> Could you tell me where DQ says that it takes into
> account the species' proximity to humans. All I
> could find was the definition of PB where it says
> "PB is an optional characteristic representing a
> character's appearence compared to the aesthetic
> standards of his society and race" & further down
> "The PB value for monsters describes how that
> monster appears to a character, and NOT to another
> monster of the same race."
>
> Another thing to consider is that Elves are
> considered more attractive [on average] than a human
> despite the fact that they would be less likely to
> be in proximity to human beings. Just throwing out
> ideas for consideration here.
> Thanks for the help Lev & Chris. Its greatly
> appeciated.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lev Lafayette
> To: dq-rules@yahoogroup s.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Physical Beauty (was Re: [dq-rules]
> Reply to questions concerning bestiary.)
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> The table specifically takes into account species
> proximity to humans and that is as close as one
> will
> get to universal standards of attractiveness.
> Monkeys
> and chimps rate high, cats, dogs, and lions after
> that
> and very few people find much in common,
> beauty-wise,
> with fish and even less with ants.
>
> As for the comparison with the warthog, any
> culture
> with domesticated pigs would tend to put them in
> the
> same category as those who keep cats and dogs.
> Seriously.
>
> All the best,
>
> Lev
>
> --- Christopher Cole <gruundehn@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > Lev,
> > The big problem I see with your table is that
> > humans find other species cute. While very few
> > people would find a warthog noice to look at,
> such
> > animals as dogs, cats, monkeys, chimps, lions,
> etc.
> > are all considered good-looking by most people.
> >
> > I am responding without my copy of DQ at hand
> but
> > I think the PB is supposed to be how a human
> would
> > see the other species. Thus the PB of the above
> > good-looking creatures would be higher than the
> > warthog. Elves and halflings would be higher
> than
> > orcs, etc. Thus a general table such as yours
> would
> > not work. The PB listing would have to be for
> each
> > creature.
> >
> > Chris Cole
> > The World's Tallest Dwarf
> >
> > Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@ yahoo.com. au>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > I think it is fair to say that the PB stat is
> > supposed
> > to represent something akin to species norms
> with a
> > human default. It's a little buggy of course
> because
> > it gives an absolute value to an relative
> criteria*.
> >
> > Taking the relative pathway, as one should with
> > Physical Beauty, I think the base-line is the
> > humanoid
> > norm (4D5+3, 7-23). So use this value *within* a
> > species.
> >
> > Using phylogentic taxonomy I would recommend
> > something
> > like the following *between* species until an
> > equivalent is reached. Thus, using a homo sapien
> > sapien baseline example.
> >
> > - Species: (Homo sapiens). No change to PB.
> > - Genus: Homo (Elves, halflings etc). -3 to
> relative
> > PB.
> > - Family: Hominidae (Great apes). -6 to relative
> PB
> > - Order: Primates. -9 to relative PB.
> > - Subclass: Placentalia. -12 to relative PB.
> > - Class: Mammalia (endothermic vertebrates with
> hair
> > and mammary glands). -15 to relative PB.
> > - Subphylum: Vertebrata (possessing a backbone).
> -18
> > to relative PB
> > - Phylum: Chordata. -21 to relative PB.
> > - Kingdom: Animalia, -24 to relative PB.
> > - Domain: Eukaryota (organisms which have cells
> with
> > a
> > nucleus), -27 to relative PB.
> >
> > So our fishy friends would have normal PB among
> > other
> > fish of the same species, but to a human the
> value
> > would be reduced by 18 (except among
> piscineophiles,
> > I
> > suppose), whereas the giraffe would be at -12.
> >
> > Anyway, just a suggestion.. .. YDQMV.
> >
> > Lev
> >
> > * RuneQuest managed to do something clever in
> this
> > regard way back in second edition (maybe first,
> I'd
> > have to have another look) by applying a -10 to
> CHA
> > between sentient species. This is really just an
> > elaboration on that principle.
> >
> > --- Christopher Dargan
> <imperium1@optusnet. com.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'm glad that everyone likes my
> interpretations of
> > > these beasties. :D
> > >
> > > Ok. Now to the questions and suggestions. Many
> > > thanks for your interest everyone.
> > >
> > > @ Jeffrey
> > >
> > > 1) Yes I would be prepared to do additions to
> the
> > > bestiary if either yourself or anyone else is
> > > interested in supplying me with some
> suggestions.
> > >
> > > 2) The vast majority of the critters in my
> > bestiary
> > > are from the real or mythological world. There
> are
> > > a handful of beasties from some fantasy novels
> and
> > > others from other role playing games. I can
> supply
> > > a list of the exceptions if you wish.
> > >
> > > @ gruundhen
> > >
> > > 1) I'll try and rectify the problem with the
> > aboleth
> > > as soon as possible.
> > >
> > > 2) I'm trying to rectify the grammer &
> spelling as
> > > we speak.
> > >
> > > @ Lev
> > >
> > > Loved your bit about the animal beauty
> contest. :D
> >
> > > I think I did go a bit overboard with the PB
> of a
> > > grouper. Especially when you think that
> something
> > > like a swan is supposed to be the great beauty
> of
> > > the animal kingdom. So the question becomes
> what
> > do
> > > you think would be a reasonable score for a
> > > grouper's PB? How about say 6-8?
> > >
> > > As to giraffe's PB what can I say? I'm biased.
> :)
> > > However I'm open to suggestions. What do you
> think
> > > would be a reasonable for such a critter?
> > >
> > > I know dragons can be pretty ugly [2-4
> usually]
> > but
> > > my kelpie has them beat PB: 0-2 :) How's that
> for
> > a
> > > reverse miss universe?
> > >
> >
>
>
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
> > > @ Everyone
> > > Now as to some personal recommendations. I
> like to
> > > scare my players a bit or give them mysteries
> to
> > > solve. Some of the best beasties for this, in
> my
> > > opinion anyway, are the Gamin, Night Hag, and
> > Athol.
> > > These critters will give your players the
> willies.
> > >
> > > If you like to add a touch of wierdness to
> your
> > > adventures occasionally try beasties like the
> > > boabhan shee [a vampire that can become
> > selectively
> > > visible to whomever it wishes]. I had one
> player
> > > who thought his character had gone insane
> since
> > only
> > > he, out of his entire party could see this
> > beautiful
> > > woman. There's the wendigo [a creature that
> will
> > > literally scare a character to death]. And the
> > Baka
> > > or spirit-ghoul. It possesses a character &
> forces
> > > him to act like [and eventually resemble] a
> ghoul.
> >
> > > Imagine a player's he or she is told their
> > character
> > > has awoken from a sound sleep with a
> half-eaten
> > body
> > > part lying next to him or her. Now that should
> be
> > > the start of an interesting adventure.
> > >
> > > Finally there are just critters that are fun
> for a
> > > GM to play. How as a GM can I not love
> something
> > > like an ingogo? A creature that not only
> attacks
> > > you but screams out personal insults while its
> > > trying to bite you. I have NEVER seen my
> players
> > > more satisfied with themselves than when they
> > killed
> > > a pack of these beasties.
> >
> >
>
>
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> >
>
>
http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- ---
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all
> with
> > Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>
>
>
____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>
http://mobile. yahoo.com/ ;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR 8HDtDypao8Wcj9tA cJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1262
> - Release Date: 6/02/2008 9:13 AM
>

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools. search.yahoo. com/newsearch/ category. php?category= shopping

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1262 - Release Date: 6/02/2008 9:13 AM

> 1a. Physical Beauty (was Re: [dq-rules] Reply to questions concerning be
> Posted by: "Lev Lafayette" lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au lev_lafayette
> Date: Wed Feb 6, 2008 3:49 pm ((PST))
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> I think it is fair to say that the PB stat is supposed
> to represent something akin to species norms with a
> human default. It's a little buggy of course because
> it gives an absolute value to an relative criteria*.
>
> Taking the relative pathway, as one should with
> Physical Beauty, I think the base-line is the humanoid
> norm (4D5+3, 7-23). So use this value *within* a
> species.
>
> Using phylogentic taxonomy I would recommend something
> like the following *between* species until an
> equivalent is reached. Thus, using a homo sapien
> sapien baseline example.
>
> - Species: (Homo sapiens). No change to PB.
> - Genus: Homo (Elves, halflings etc). -3 to relative
> PB.
> - Family: Hominidae (Great apes). -6 to relative PB
> - Order: Primates. -9 to relative PB.
> - Subclass: Placentalia. -12 to relative PB.
> - Class: Mammalia (endothermic vertebrates with hair
> and mammary glands). -15 to relative PB.
> - Subphylum: Vertebrata (possessing a backbone). -18
> to relative PB
> - Phylum: Chordata. -21 to relative PB.
> - Kingdom: Animalia, -24 to relative PB.
> - Domain: Eukaryota (organisms which have cells with a
> nucleus), -27 to relative PB.
>
> So our fishy friends would have normal PB among other
> fish of the same species, but to a human the value
> would be reduced by 18 (except among piscineophiles, I
> suppose), whereas the giraffe would be at -12.
>
> Anyway, just a suggestion.... YDQMV.
>
>
>
> Lev
>
>
> * RuneQuest managed to do something clever in this
> regard way back in second edition (maybe first, I'd
> have to have another look) by applying a -10 to CHA
> between sentient species. This is really just an
> elaboration on that principle.
>
>

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "J K Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net>

> Wow. I looked at that, thought to myself "Hmm, some folks like crunchy",
> shrugged and moved on. Never would have thought so many would have had critical
> thoughts about the system. (And, by "critical", I don't mean "bad", but "let's
> refine this system". Just FYI.)
>
> Is this part of the new DQ-based ruleset you were working on some time back? Is
> that project still alive? I don't remember seeing anything more about it.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
> > 1a. Physical Beauty (was Re: [dq-rules] Reply to questions concerning be
> > Posted by: "Lev Lafayette" lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au lev_lafayette
> & gt; Date: Wed Feb 6, 2008 3:49 pm ((PST))
> >
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > I think it is fair to say that the PB stat is supposed
> > to represent something akin to species norms with a
> > human default. It's a little buggy of course because
> > it gives an absolute value to an relative criteria*.
> >
> > Taking the relative pathway, as one should with
> > Physical Beauty, I think the base-line is the humanoid
> > norm (4D5+3, 7-23). So use this value *within* a
> > species.
> >
> > Using phylogentic taxonomy I would recommend something
> > like the following *between* species until an
> > equivalent is reached. Thus, using a homo sapien
> > sapien baseline example.
> >
> > - Species: (Homo sapiens). No change to PB.
> > - Genus: Homo (Elves, halflings etc). -3 to relative
> > PB.
> > - Family: Hominidae (Great apes). -6 to relative PB
> > - Order: Primates. -9 to relative PB.
> > - Subclass: Placentalia. -12 to relative PB.
> > - Class: Mammalia (endothermic vertebrates with hair
> > and mammary glands). -15 to relative PB.
> > - Subphylum: Vertebrata (possessing a backbone). -18
> > to relative PB
> > - Phylum: Chordata. -21 to relative PB.
> > - Kingdom: Animalia, -24 to relative PB.
> > - Domain: Eukaryota (organisms which have cells with a
> > nucleus), -27 to relative PB.
> >
> > So our fishy friends would have normal PB among other
> > fish of the same species, but to a human the value
> > would be reduced by 18 (except among piscineophiles, I
> > suppose), whereas the giraffe would be at -12.
> >
> > Anyway, just a suggestion.... YDQMV.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lev
> >
> >
> > * RuneQuest managed to do something clever in this
> > regard way back in second edition (maybe first, I'd
> > have to have another look) by applying a -10 to CHA
> > between sentient species. This is really just an
> > elaboration on that principle.
> >
> >
> --
> ---------
> "The only difference between saints
> and sinners is that every saint has
> a past and every sinner has a future."
> --Oscar Wilde
>
>
>
>
> 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 Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
> Individual Email | Trad itional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/join
> (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
> mailto:dq-rules-digest@yahoogroups.com
> mailto:dq-rules-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> dq-rules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

> Wow. I looked at that, thought to myself "Hmm, some
> folks like crunchy",
> shrugged and moved on. Never would have thought so
> many would have had critical
> thoughts about the system. (And, by "critical", I
> don't mean "bad", but "let's
> refine this system". Just FYI.)
>
> Is this part of the new DQ-based ruleset you were
> working on some time back? Is
> that project still alive? I don't remember seeing
> anything more about it.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
> -------------- Original message
> ----------------------
> From: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
> > 1a. Physical Beauty (was Re: [dq-rules] Reply to
> questions concerning be
> > Posted by: "Lev Lafayette"
> lev_lafayette@yahoo.com.au lev_lafayette
> > Date: Wed Feb 6, 2008 3:49 pm ((PST))
> >
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > I think it is fair to say that the PB stat is
> supposed
> > to represent something akin to species norms with
> a
> > human default. It's a little buggy of course
> because
> > it gives an absolute value to an relative
> criteria*.
> >
> > Taking the relative pathway, as one should with
> > Physical Beauty, I think the base-line is the
> humanoid
> > norm (4D5+3, 7-23). So use this value *within* a
> > species.
> >
> > Using phylogentic taxonomy I would recommend
> something
> > like the following *between* species until an
> > equivalent is reached. Thus, using a homo sapien
> > sapien baseline example.
> >
> > - Species: (Homo sapiens). No change to PB.
> > - Genus: Homo (Elves, halflings etc). -3 to
> relative
> > PB.
> > - Family: Hominidae (Great apes). -6 to relative
> PB
> > - Order: Primates. -9 to relative PB.
> > - Subclass: Placentalia. -12 to relative PB.
> > - Class: Mammalia (endothermic vertebrates with
> hair
> > and mammary glands). -15 to relative PB.
> > - Subphylum: Vertebrata (possessing a backbone).
> -18
> > to relative PB
> > - Phylum: Chordata. -21 to relative PB.
> > - Kingdom: Animalia, -24 to relative PB.
> > - Domain: Eukaryota (organisms which have cells
> with a
> > nucleus), -27 to relative PB.
> >
> > So our fishy friends would have normal PB among
> other
> > fish of the same species, but to a human the value
> > would be reduced by 18 (except among
> piscineophiles, I
> > suppose), whereas the giraffe would be at -12.
> >
> > Anyway, just a suggestion.... YDQMV.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lev
> >
> >
> > * RuneQuest managed to do something clever in this
> > regard way back in second edition (maybe first,
> I'd
> > have to have another look) by applying a -10 to
> CHA
> > between sentient species. This is really just an
> > elaboration on that principle.
> >
> >
> --
> ---------
> "The only difference between saints
> and sinners is that every saint has
> a past and every sinner has a future."
> --Oscar Wilde
>
>
>

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, igmod@... wrote:
>
> I don't see the problem.
>
> ~Jeffery~
>

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Yes, you're right. I do take a 'critical' (using your
> definition to game system design). Of course with a
> bit more further tweaking of the scale the distinction
> could be applied to other game systems as well. In
> fact I may submit it for the next issue of Grimoire
> magazine.
>
> As for the DQ-inspired game, it's been merged with a
> larger project due to be released in June this year
> (http://www.mimesisrpg.com/). The "Dragonlords"
> setting is also highly DQ-derived.
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Lev
>

>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> In most roleplaying games "race" (aka subspecies)
> refers to the various humanoid types (elves,
> halflings, dwarves, humans and sometimes orcs,
> depending on the game system). Hence variation from
> the racial norm should be considered and as well as
> the aesthetic standards of the culture.
>
> In other words, the section you've quoted from the DQ
> rules concurs pretty much with what I've written.
>
> All the best,
>
>
> Lev
>
>
> --- Christopher Dargan <imperium1@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Lev
> > Could you tell me where DQ says that it takes into
> > account the species' proximity to humans. All I
> > could find was the definition of PB where it says
> > "PB is an optional characteristic representing a
> > character's appearence compared to the aesthetic
> > standards of his society and race" & further down
> > "The PB value for monsters describes how that
> > monster appears to a character, and NOT to another
> > monster of the same race."
> >
> > Another thing to consider is that Elves are
> > considered more attractive [on average] than a human
> > despite the fact that they would be less likely to
> > be in proximity to human beings. Just throwing out
> > ideas for consideration here.
> > Thanks for the help Lev & Chris. Its greatly
> > appeciated.

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "gruundehn" <gruundehn@...> wrote:
>
> Lev, I disagree that your system is basically the same as the DQ
> rule, but that would seem to be a subjective interpetation. So, I'm
> not going to start a fight over it. I will point out that, for
> example, among fish species there are ones that are considered
> beautiful and ones that are considered ugly and the range of PB that
> the stat would cover is probably greater than allowed for by your
> table. The same with pigs I presume, I know what a warthog looks like
> and it is ugly to an extreme unlike the potbellied pig or other
> domestic swine. My point is that the variations in a group are
> probably greater than the differences between the groups. I think it
> would be easier to start with individual PB stats rather than a
> blanket group stat, since you would have to do the variations anyway.
> Now cultures, there I could see a blanket modifier to the groups; as
> in: this culture considers fish to be a gift from the gods and
> therefore more beautiful or whatever.
> However, as I said,this is something not worth starting a fight over.
>
> Chris Cole
> The World's Tallest Dwarf
>
> --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > In most roleplaying games "race" (aka subspecies)
> > refers to the various humanoid types (elves,
> > halflings, dwarves, humans and sometimes orcs,
> > depending on the game system). Hence variation from
> > the racial norm should be considered and as well as
> > the aesthetic standards of the culture.
> >
> > In other words, the section you've quoted from the DQ
> > rules concurs pretty much with what I've written.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> >
> > Lev
> >
> >
> > --- Christopher Dargan <imperium1@>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Lev
> > > Could you tell me where DQ says that it takes into
> > > account the species' proximity to humans. All I
> > > could find was the definition of PB where it says
> > > "PB is an optional characteristic representing a
> > > character's appearence compared to the aesthetic
> > > standards of his society and race" & further down
> > > "The PB value for monsters describes how that
> > > monster appears to a character, and NOT to another
> > > monster of the same race."
> > >
> > > Another thing to consider is that Elves are
> > > considered more attractive [on average] than a human
> > > despite the fact that they would be less likely to
> > > be in proximity to human beings. Just throwing out
> > > ideas for consideration here.
> > > Thanks for the help Lev & Chris. Its greatly
> > > appeciated.
>

> The issue seems to be a matter of specificity.
>
> Sure, Throg the Barbarian may have a great PC for noticing all the details
> out in the wilderness, but can he tell if Hobart Townsman is lying to him
> or trying to cheat him?

> Using Perception may be fine, or a skill that acts as a shading of PC for
> interpersonal dealings would be reasonable if that fit into the particular
> campaign or style of play. I don't think either one is absolutely
> correct.

> If you want to break down PC, you could have stock Perception and
> Interpersonal Perception, and make each one only 500 XP per point. So if
> Throg only wanted basic PC, it would be cheaper, but he'd be totally out
> of his depth in the city talking to Hobart.

> I roleplay the conversations, no dice rolling at all.

> If the player is a better conversationalist than their character, I expect
> the player the portray the character effectivly and if they don't they lose
> EP. If the Character is better than the player, I expect the player to do
> their best and modify my conversation to make it easy or hard depending on
> the characters levels of skill.

> I roleplay the conversations, no dice rolling at all.

> If the player is a better conversationalist than their character, I expect
> the player the portray the character effectivly and if they don't they lose
> EP. If the Character is better than the player, I expect the player to do
> their best and modify my conversation to make it easy or hard depending on
> the characters levels of skill.

> 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 : /dragonquest bestiary 1.doc
> Uploaded by : christopherdargan <imperium1@optusnet.com.au>
> Description : This is the bestiary a few of you have asked for. Hope you enjoy it. Please let me know any suggestions you have.

Human's idea of beauty will be entirely different from, say, a wart
hog's. A wart hog is an ugly beast, but to a lady wart hog, well
those lumps are a real turn on. As for totally alien species who
knows what they find attractive. I have enough difficulty finding out
what the members of my own species find attractive :--).

I think PB has to be for a human or other PC race (even then an orc
may value other things) with a second PB stat for members of their
own species where it matters (maybe in brackets).

David

--- In dq-rules@yahoogroup s.com, "gruundehn" <gruundehn@. ..> wrote:
>
> Lev, I disagree that your system is basically the same as the DQ
> rule, but that would seem to be a subjective interpetation. So, I'm
> not going to start a fight over it. I will point out that, for
> example, among fish species there are ones that are considered
> beautiful and ones that are considered ugly and the range of PB that
> the stat would cover is probably greater than allowed for by your
> table. The same with pigs I presume, I know what a warthog looks like
> and it is ugly to an extreme unlike the potbellied pig or other
> domestic swine. My point is that the variations in a group are
> probably greater than the differences between the groups. I think it
> would be easier to start with individual PB stats rather than a
> blanket group stat, since you would have to do the variations anyway.
> Now cultures, there I could see a blanket modifier to the groups; as
> in: this culture considers fish to be a gift from the gods and
> therefore more beautiful or whatever.
> However, as I said,this is something not worth starting a fight over.
>
> Chris Cole
> The World's Tallest Dwarf
>
> --- In dq-rules@yahoogroup s.com, Lev Lafayette <lev_lafayette@ >
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > In most roleplaying games "race" (aka subspecies)
> > refers to the various humanoid types (elves,
> > halflings, dwarves, humans and sometimes orcs,
> > depending on the game system). Hence variation from
> > the racial norm should be considered and as well as
> > the aesthetic standards of the culture.
> >
> > In other words, the section you've quoted from the DQ
> > rules concurs pretty much with what I've written.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> >
> > Lev
> >
> >
> > --- Christopher Dargan <imperium1@>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Lev
> > > Could you tell me where DQ says that it takes into
> > > account the species' proximity to humans. All I
> > > could find was the definition of PB where it says
> > > "PB is an optional characteristic representing a
> > > character's appearence compared to the aesthetic
> > > standards of his society and race" & further down
> > > "The PB value for monsters describes how that
> > > monster appears to a character, and NOT to another
> > > monster of the same race."
> > >
> > > Another thing to consider is that Elves are
> > > considered more attractive [on average] than a human
> > > despite the fact that they would be less likely to
> > > be in proximity to human beings. Just throwing out
> > > ideas for consideration here.
> > > Thanks for the help Lev & Chris. Its greatly
> > > appeciated.
>

---

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

Hullo, Mandos,

In a message of December 26th, 2007, Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

> I roleplay the conversations, no dice rolling at all.

Which is the ideal way to play it, since DRAGONQUEST is a
roleplaying game, not a roll-playing one, despite what some players
prefer. And there's enough dice rolling in combat to make up for the
social situations! :)

> If the player is a better conversationalist than their character, I expect
> the player the portray the character effectivly and if they don't they lose
> EP. If the Character is better than the player, I expect the player to do
> their best and modify my conversation to make it easy or hard depending on
> the characters levels of skill.

While this is ideal, some players just aren't very good at social
interaction in rpgs. At times like that, the dice do tend to make up
for stuff, although one needs to try and balance the two aspects of
gaming out.

...One more drink, and I'll be under the host. (Dorothy Parker)

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

---

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

>> If the player is a better conversationalist than their character, I

>> the player the portray the character effectivly and if they don't they

>> EP. If the Character is better than the player, I expect the player to do
>> their best and modify my conversation to make it easy or hard depending

>> the characters levels of skill.
>
>While this is ideal, some players just aren't very good at social
>interaction in rpgs. At times like that, the dice do tend to make up
>for stuff, although one needs to try and balance the two aspects of
>gaming out.

> Lev,
>
> It looked like I had to join a mailing list to get
> any significant
> access to that site, is that right? Or am I missing
> some slightly
> hidden link?
>
> In any case, their "About" page was interesting.
> Seems like a pretty
> ambitious project. I hope it works out. A little
> spreading the word
> might get a few new DragonQuest players, too!
> That's *always* a good
> thing.
> Let us know how it goes, okay?
>
> Thanks!
> Jim
>
> --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, Lev Lafayette
> <lev_lafayette@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > Yes, you're right. I do take a 'critical' (using
> your
> > definition to game system design). Of course with
> a
> > bit more further tweaking of the scale the
> distinction
> > could be applied to other game systems as well. In
> > fact I may submit it for the next issue of
> Grimoire
> > magazine.
> >
> > As for the DQ-inspired game, it's been merged with
> a
> > larger project due to be released in June this
> year
> > (http://www.mimesisrpg.com/). The "Dragonlords"
> > setting is also highly DQ-derived.
> >
> > All the best,
> >
> >
> > Lev
> >
>
>
>

>
> I am presently playing D&D 3.5 because it is what my group plays. I
> like DQ for many reasons but I htink D&D 3.0 & 3.5 have hit upon two
> areas that can be added to DQ and improve the game. First is the skills
> Bluff and Diplomancy. Both of these allow the player to run a character
> that has a better chance to talk his/her way out of a situation than
> the player would have. I would think these would be general skills
> along the lines of horsemanship. Second, D&D has NPC classes so that
> everyone you meet isn't a low level fighter/rogue/etc. For DQ this
> would entail creating various NPC only skill packs to cover the areas
> not covered by the skills now given in Book 3.
>
> I am building a campaign for DQ to introduce to my group and probably
> will have these additions as house rules.
>

> 1a. Re: Additions to DQ
> Posted by: "David Chappell" kaith_athanes@yahoo.com kaith_athanes
> Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:47 am ((PST))
>

> Even though many skills are oriented more towards NPCs than adventurers, I don't see the need
> in DQ to have stuff that is limited to just NPCs.

>
> --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, "gruundehn" <gruundehn@> wrote:
> >
> > I am presently playing D&D 3.5 because it is what my group plays.

> > like DQ for many reasons but I htink D&D 3.0 & 3.5 have hit upon

> > areas that can be added to DQ and improve the game. First is the

> > Bluff and Diplomancy. Both of these allow the player to run a

> > that has a better chance to talk his/her way out of a situation

> > the player would have. I would think these would be general

> > along the lines of horsemanship. Second, D&D has NPC classes so

> > everyone you meet isn't a low level fighter/rogue/etc. For DQ

> > would entail creating various NPC only skill packs to cover the

> > not covered by the skills now given in Book 3.
> >
> > I am building a campaign for DQ to introduce to my group and

> > will have these additions as house rules.
> >
>
> I tend to run my games using D&D game worlds. Mostly because there
> aren't any worlds still being published for DQ. I still use DQ

> though. I've used skills for many years that are more likely to be
> taken by NPCs, though. I've been running DQ games since the late 80s
> and have only seen a couple of PCs take the beastmaster skill. They
> all go to one when they want to buy a warhorse, though. Alchemist is
> another skill my PCs tend to not take. They'd rather spend their

> on an NPC alchemist and their EPs on something else. I've created a
> few other skills, and snatched several more off the 'net, for other
> things that are usually more NPC oriented. But I always leave them

> an option for the PCs, too. Occasionally I have a player who wants

> make his own sword, but most of them leave that to the NPC

>
> Even though many skills are oriented more towards NPCs than
> adventurers, I don't see the need in DQ to have stuff that is

> to just NPCs. In D&D they exist because of the way the skill system

> connected to levels. The most skill points you can have in a skill

> something like 3 + your class level. So you can't be a master chef

> a master merchant without gaining levels. At level 2 you'd only be
> able to have 5 skill points in cooking. A master chef that is not.

> to allow for things like that, without that chef having to also be a
> powerful fighter or rogue, they added NPC classes. In DQ, you can

> merchant to rank 10 without ever being forced to raise anything

> Adding a cooking skill to DQ would be useful, but having it as only
> available to NPCs doesn't seem necessary to me.
>
> The classes my players usually want converted to DQ skills are PC
> Prestige Classes or PC base classes that aren't covered in DQ. I

> player who really wanted to play a D&D style barbarian, so I

> Berserker skill for him. I'm currently running a DQ game set in
> Eberron and had to convert many classes and prestige classes to
> skills. Oddly enough, though, I've still never bothered making (or
> stealing) a skill to emulate the cleric class.
>
> For diplomacy and bluff type skills, I've always winged it depending
> on the situation. I've used reaction rolls modified by the way the
> player roleplayed it and how he had established his character. The
> character who had always been gruff, terse, and tactless had more
> penalties to trying to talk his way out of a situation than the guy
> who had always been a fast talking con artist. I also allowed those
> with the courtesan skill to use the seduction ability to sweet talk
> their way through situations instead of just using it for pure
> seduction. Troubador is another skill I've let characters use for
> diplomacy/buff type things.
>
> However, if your players are new to DQ and well experienced in D&D
> 3.5, having hard and fast rules for everything instead of winging it
> might make them feel more comfortable.
>

--- 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 : /dragonquest bestiary 1.doc
> Uploaded by : christopherdargan <imperium1@...>
> Description : This is the bestiary a few of you have asked for.
Hope you enjoy it. Please let me know any suggestions you have.
>
> You can access this file at the URL:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-rules/files/dragonquest%20bestiary%
201.doc
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
>
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htm
lfiles
>
> Regards,
>
> christopherdargan <imperium1@...>
>

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

From: dennisnordling

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 11:13 AM

Subject: [dq-rules] Within the "dragonquest bestiary 1.doc" file what are the 3 new stats?

I was looking over the "dragonquest bestiary 1.doc" file posted in
under "Files" for this group and find all the creatures
within "Aquatics" have three extra stats listed: PY, LC and LB.

I have looked elsewhere for explanations and have found none. What do
these statistics represent?

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.14/1425 - Release Date: 9/05/2008 12:38 PM

> I hope you like the bestiary Dennis. :D Let me know if you have any

> &/or if you would like to see any new monster included in the next

> I hope you like the bestiary Dennis. :D Let me know if you have any

> &/or if you would like to see any new monster included in the next

>
> > I hope you like the bestiary Dennis. :D Let me know if you have

> favourite monsters
> > &/or if you would like to see any new monster included in the next
> version.
>
> As an addendum to this I am slowly adding the creatures to our Wiki

>
>

>
> Mandos
> /s
>

> Moreover, I have the 2nd edition and
> multihex monsters and mounted combat are incomplete because an image
> overlaps the text. Do you have the complete rules?

> While doing this, We stumble with a couple of doubts for "normal"
> (monohex) combat.
> If a character is prone, could another character automaticly enters in
> close combat or it has to pass the repulse check?

> If a character is prone and is surrounded by 6 enemies, is he engaging
> the six (because a prone character doesn´t have facing)?

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:36 PM, darkislephil <darkislephil@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- In dq-rules@yahoogroups.com, Mornak <dmornacco@...> wrote:
>> Moreover, I have the 2nd edition and
>> multihex monsters and mounted combat are incomplete because an image
>> overlaps the text. Do you have the complete rules?
>
> You might check the Files area in either this group or the other DQ
> Yahoo groups as I did upload new PDF versions with some typo
> corrections as well as a fix for this image issue. The new PDFs also
> had bookmarks for chapters and sections. (I'm pasting the section 23
> text at the end of this message.)
>
>> While doing this, We stumble with a couple of doubts for "normal"
>> (monohex) combat.
>> If a character is prone, could another character automaticly enters in
>> close combat or it has to pass the repulse check?
>
> IMO, if the prone character is holding a weapon that was _not_ rate
> for close then he would get to repulse the close attempt as normal.
> If the prone character was holding a weapon rated for close or had no
> weapon then the close attempt would automatically succeed.
>
>> If a character is prone and is surrounded by 6 enemies, is he engaging
>> the six (because a prone character doesn´t have facing)?
>
> Also IMO, the prone character is engaged if he is in the melee zone of
> any of the surrounding characters. But the reverse isn't true
> because, as you say, he has no facing and thus melee zone.
>
> === Quoted Rules Section ===
> 23. MOUNTED COMBAT
> In mounted combat, the TMR of the figure (comprising the mount and the
> rider) is that of the mount; the rider may not move at all. A rider
> may only mount or dismount when the mount is not moving. Any action a
> figure is capable of while standing on the ground he is capable of
> while mounted with the following exceptions: (1) using a two-handed
> weapon; (2) firing any missile or thrown weapon while moving; (3)
> using more than one weapon at a time. These restrictions are lifted
> depending on the Horsemanship Rank of the rider (see 83.2). A figure
> may always use a shield and a onehanded weapon while mounted.
>
> A rider and mount will normally occupy able to attack out only one
> hex, unless the mount is a multi-hex monster. If they occupy more than
> one hex, the movement will be governed by the rules of multi-hex
> monsters (see 22). On a normal mount, the rider will not be able to
> attack out of his Front hex, only the hexes to either side of that
> hex. His Front hex may be attacked into using a spear (or similar long
> hafted weapon) or any Fired weapon (see illustration).
>
> To control a mount during combat, the Horsemanship skill of the rider
> is taken into account. An inexperienced horseman will have an
> incredibly difficult time even con-trolling his mount in a chaotic
> melee; it will be better for him to dismount and fight on foot until
> he becomes skilled.
>
> A Charge on a mount is executed in the same manner as a Charge on foot
> except the amount of movement prior to the attack will be greater and
> the Charge must be in a straight line (no facing changes allowed). Any
> act of turning the mount or stopping it during or after the Charge
> will require a Horsemanship Check (see 82.2). The Pulse following any
> mounted Charge, the momentum will take the mount past the target to
> its full TMR. Any attempt to turn or stop the mount will occur after
> that movement is terminated. A failed check will result in the mount
> continuing on its way.
>
>



--
Mornak

"A-Z affectionately,
1 to 10 alphabetically,
from here to eternity without in betweens,
still looking for a custom fit in an off-the-rack world,
sales talk from sales assistants
when all i want to do is lower your resistance,
no rhythm in cymbals no tempo in drums,
love's on arrival,
she comes when she comes,
right on the target but wide of the mark..."

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

From: Ted McKelvey

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 9:41 AM

Subject: [dq-rules] Re:Alternate Character Generation rules?

I'd be interested in seeing what you have.

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.5/1755 - Release Date: 10/29/2008 5:27 PM

> Yes, Please I would be very interested.

>I was digging around the other day and came across a draft of my changes to
>the DQ's character generation rules. While In The Day I felt that DQ's chargen
>was far superior to D&D, as time went on, I found that I disliked some elements,
>and so I set about changing them ot my taste. Essentially, I replaced the Point
>Generation Table with a point-buy system. Does anyone have an interest in seeing
>what I've monkeyed with? Or, has anyone had similar ideas they'd like to share?

>
> Posted by: "Stephen Mcginn"
> > Yes, Please I would be very interested.
>
> Someone, at some point it time, said....
> >I was digging around the other day and came across a draft of my

> >the DQ's character generation rules. While In The Day I felt that

> >was far superior to D&D, as time went on, I found that I disliked

> >and so I set about changing them ot my taste. Essentially, I

> >Generation Table with a point-buy system. Does anyone have an

> >what I've monkeyed with? Or, has anyone had similar ideas they'd

>
> I think posting them in the files section would be great....
>

See my answers below.

Had a few questions on the Spectre. They are Dark Celestial adepts, but it does not state if they have a minimum rank. What rank does a spectre cast at? Wights are listed as Rank 10 and above, and on one hand a Spectre is certainly more powerful then a Wight... Or do they just have
rank 1 in all talents/spells/rituals?

I think this is entirely dependent on how powerful you want the spectre to be: it could be a half-strength spectre (the result of some poor schmuck getting all of his EN drained), or it could be the flippin' Witch-King of Agnar.

Skills and Armor:

It states they are not weapon users, but also states they can possess the full range of human skills. So, can a Spectre wear armor? (why they would bother I do not know....just stay insubstantial and chuck Starfire...) or build a trap if he had Mechanician skill?

Frankly, I don't see why a spectre couldn't use a weapon.  I can't puzzle out a reason for this.  Maybe they keep dropping them when they go insubstantial  :D  I don't see why a spectre couldn't wear armor.  Since spectres have physical attributes (ST/MD/AG), they could conceivably build a trap or pick a lock or whatever while substantial.

Here's the stripped-down version of my point-buy rules for DQ.  I've used these rules twice with good results.

Disclaimer: You may not agree with the point values I've assigned, and that's cool.  This is tuned to the world I ran at the time, and to the players I had.  If you care to try using parts of this system, feel free to change the numbers as you see fit.

I left out rules for non-human characters because they didn't exist in my game.

If you ever use this system, or any other kind of point0buy system for DQ, post a post about how it went.

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

These rules replace the character generation rules from DragonQuest.

Players are assigned 135 Character Points (CP) to build their characters.  Character Points may be spent in the following categories:

Characteristics

Players may spend points on the following characteristics: PS, MD, AG, EN, MA, WP, PC, and PB.

No characteristic can be below 8.  The maximum remains 25.

To raise a characteristic one point costs 1 CP up through 20.  To raise a characteristic above 20 costs 2 CP per point.

Aspect

Winter, Vernal, Summer, or Autumnal Stars….     Free
Life………………………………………………...   1 CP
Sun or Moon……………………………………..    2 CP
Death………………………………………………  3 CP

Money

20 Silver Pieces…………………………………..  1 CP

Handedness

Left-handed or right-handed…………………….   Free
Ambidextrous……………………………………..  2 CP

Experience

First 200 Experience Points (XP)………………   Free
Each 50 XP above 200………………………….   1 CP

Social Status & Heritage

Social Status does not cost CPs.  While a higher social status may certainly have its advantages, they will be offset by the time requirements and rigid standards of behavior that come with it.  While a peasant may leave home forever and become a successful soldier (with a corresponding rise in social status), a child of lesser nobility will find himself tied to his family's interests and machinations all his life (or risk being disinherited, with a corresponding loss of social status).

Birth Order and Legitimacy are also free, and are considered role-playing hooks.  The player may choose a birth order and legitimacy status suitable to his character concept.