I am actually compiling a master compendium of rules. I am using the
slightly tweaked version of the second ed that has been floating
around. There was one section missing, does anyone know who was
working on it? or if it was ever completed?

--- In dq-rules@y..., dqn@b... wrote:
> Hello, list!
>
> There's been very little activity in this group for a while now.
> (This is the DQ-rules group, by the way.)
>
> To get some discussion going among everyone, I thought I'd post a
> couple questions for all. I'll post my own answers in a reply to
> this message, and hopefully some of you will do the same, and maybe
> some discussion will spring from all of this.
>
> 1)What rules are you working on right now (or what rules have you
> worked on recently)?
>
> 2) What other DragonQuest projects are you working on (have worked
> on recently)?
>
> 3) How active is your DragonQuest campaign? Are you a player or
GM
> in that campaign?

So is this a copy of the DQ Rules? without out any changes or
modifications? if so, that rocks. I am working on compiling these,
and intergrating various house rules and skills from the net (some of
you will have received email from me regarding this). I plan to
integrate Arcane wisdom, and other stuff so that the book is more
cohesive. I am thinking of doing it in Quark express, or adobe
indesign, as they are more robust than word. I can convert it to PDF
in any case.

SO for example the colleges of Runge magics, and shaping magices will
simply be in the magic section, and I will renumber the section
accordingly. I am just getting started, but I will let you know how
I progress.

If anyone has any ideas for good places to get fantasy art work, I
would appreciate it.

--- In dq-rules@y..., <dq-rules@y...> 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 : /documents/dq2e_full_rules.zip
> Uploaded by : jflowers@d...
> Description : Full 2E DQ Rules (2MB, Word97 format, may need some
minor editing)
>
> You can access this file at the URL
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dq-
rules/files/documents/dq2e_full_rules.zip
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit
>
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
>
> Regards,
>
> jflowers@d...

I have a bunch of questions about shaping magics, and I ma hoping you
guys can help me.

1) Should the College of Shaping Magics Counter spells affect invested
items? Should they remove or temporarily disable the investment?

2)Can a shaper use The Ritual of Investment (32.3 the generic one) to
invest a spell from another spell caster? from another college? What
about using his own R-6?

3) Could a string Golem know spells from more than one college? Or
would he need the magician skill?

4) I kinda need your advice my saturday. thanks!

Juanc

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 02:18:38 -0000, jcorey30@yahoo.com wrote:

>I have a bunch of questions about shaping magics, and I ma hoping you
>guys can help me.
>
>1) Should the College of Shaping Magics Counter spells affect invested
>items? Should they remove or temporarily disable the investment?

No. No.

>2)Can a shaper use The Ritual of Investment (32.3 the generic one) to
>invest a spell from another spell caster? from another college? What
>about using his own R-6?

The way I interpret things, Shapers don't even have the option of learning
the "generic" investment ritual. Why would they bother learning it, when
their own is much better, and available as General knowledge?

You can only *invest* spells that *you* know. To incorporate spells from
another College into an object, you need to Shape it (and have the other
Adept present), as per the rules. (Or, of course, the other Adept learns
Investment and *he* invests it.)

>3) Could a string Golem know spells from more than one college? Or
>would he need the magician skill?

No (that's specifically indicated in the R&S Golem description). As far as
I'm concerned, the Magician skill (I assume we're talking about the article
that appeared in Dragon magazine many years ago) is wrong, wrong, wrong, and
it has no existence in my game, so, not an issue <g>.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759
"Hey, someone turn off the fat rotating guy."
ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ

The question we were exploring is whether a Shaper with the aid of
another
mage could invest items with spells from the assisting mage's college
using
Shapers Q-4.


The arcane wisdom rules state that Shaper's Q-4 is "identical to rule
32.3,"
excepting a change in experience multiple and base chance. Rule 32.3
contains the stipulation, "A character may only invest an object with
a
spell he knows." This suggests that a shaper may invest items only
with
spells from the College of Shaping Magics if he or she uses Q-4.


However, the 2nd edition rules predate Arcane Wisdom, and this
stipulation
may really be an oversight. If you look at Arcane Wisdom, Shaping R-6
(Binding Investments), you'll see an example that suggests Shapers can
invest items with spells from other colleges if they have the aid of
mages
from those colleges (After all, shapers can do this with golems and
through
the preparation and binding rituals). The example describes an item
invested with malignant flames and a shaper's causing this investment
to
become permanent--I think it implies the original spell (malignant
flames)
may have been invested by a shaper rather than a fire mage. This, of
course, contradicts the stipulation I mentioned earlier.


I think the 3rd edition rules resolve this issue. In the 3rd Edition,
Shaping Magics Q-4 is taken as the base spell and rule 32.3 refers to
it
(rather than the other way around as in 2nd Ed and Arcane Wisdom).
In the
3rd Ed. you'll see that the investment ritual is the same as Shaping
Q-4
except that... and one of the stipulations is that "the character
must be of
the same school of magic as the spell invested." I believe this
implies
that this is not true of Shaping Q-4. And would, thus argue that
with the
aid of other mages present during the ritual, Shapers could invest
items
with spells from other colleges.


I noticed another restriction I find interesting and you might
consider
applying (1): The object invested must first have been created and
bound by
a Shaper (presumably using a preparation ritual (Q-5 to Q-11). Why
do I
like this? Because it means Sparky will have to come to Portly if he
wants
to make a ring. ;-) I'm so mean.


Here's some additional rules lawyering issues...


Why the hell is there a Ritual of Binding Investments (R-6) when
there's a
perfectly good set of Enchantment Binding Rituals (R-9 to R-22)?


Do Shapers have to apply Preparation Rituals (Q-5 to Q-11) before
casting
Q-4?


These are my thoughts. I really think this is confusing, so I
thought we
might talk (email) it out so I understood how you read the rules...


Q-4 (ritual of investment) is for spells only. R-6 (Binding
Investments)
applies only to items invested using Q-4, thus only items invested
with
spells. R-6 has a rediculously low base chance (5%) and a very high
experience multiple (500). This puts it out of reach for most PCs.
Nothing
indicates failure to cast the spell destroys the item or anything,
but the
chance of backfire with the multiple rolls it would take for success
make it
pretty risky. Anyway--it seems to me like Q-4 and R-6 go together.
(Hey, I
just looked at the 3rd Ed. rules and they're way more lenient!
Damn. See
3rd Ed. Shaping R-5.)


So on the other hand, it seems like Q-5 to Q-11 and R-9 to R-22 go
together.
They have fairly low base chances, they're open to more than
spells..., but
they take at least two months for simple investments, and they can
even zap
one's endurance permanently. What's more, they're subject to shaping
accidents.


Does this seem like a fair read to you? It's just confusing, because
on the
face of it, there doesn't really seem to be much difference, and
really no
reason for the variations, but when I dig deeper...


One other thought/question...


The rules state pretty clearly that only a counterspell known by a
namer can
dispell an invested spell. Maybe this makes sense since investments
come
through rituals rather than spells, but I still wonder if the namer's
not
just using the counterspell of the college of shaping magics--that's
what
namers do after all. It seems to me if a counterspell can destroy a
golem,
it could also destroy other investments. But maybe this is just too
powerful.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:43:49 -0700 (PDT), John Corey <jcorey30@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On the first question, Namers can use counter spells
>on invested items (32.3), shouldn't shapers as well?

IMO, no.

>If so, why not?

Because they're not Namers.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759
"Watch out for snakes!"
ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 16:27:33 -0000, jcorey30@yahoo.com wrote:

>However, the 2nd edition rules predate Arcane Wisdom, and this
>stipulation may really be an oversight. If you look at Arcane Wisdom, Shaping R-6
>(Binding Investments), you'll see an example that suggests Shapers can
>invest items with spells from other colleges if they have the aid of
>mages from those colleges (After all, shapers can do this with golems and
>through the preparation and binding rituals). The example describes an item
>invested with malignant flames and a shaper's causing this investment
>to become permanent--I think it implies the original spell (malignant
>flames) may have been invested by a shaper rather than a fire mage. This, of
>course, contradicts the stipulation I mentioned earlier.

No it doesn't -- as you state yourself. The Shaper uses the Preparation and
Binding Rituals to do this, not the Investment ritual.

>I think the 3rd edition rules resolve this issue. In the 3rd Edition,
>Shaping Magics Q-4 is taken as the base spell and rule 32.3 refers to
>it (rather than the other way around as in 2nd Ed and Arcane Wisdom).
>In the 3rd Ed. you'll see that the investment ritual is the same as Shaping
>Q-4 except that... and one of the stipulations is that "the character
>must be of the same school of magic as the spell invested." I believe this
>implies that this is not true of Shaping Q-4. And would, thus argue that
>with the aid of other mages present during the ritual, Shapers could invest
>items with spells from other colleges.

I guess that argument is valid (actually, 3rd edition states specifically
that a Shaper can use an "assistant" to invest spells in an object), if you
accept the 3rd edition's ruling on Shaping and Investing in general -- which
personally I don't. (I don't disregard 3rd edition entirely, but in
general, I believe *most* of the changes made therein were poor decisions,
and I prefer the 2nd edition rules 95% of the time.) Note that in 3rd
edition, you can't invest *anything* unless you have a specially-prepared
object created by a Shaper (as you noted) -- a dramatic change to the 2nd
edition rules on investment.

>Here's some additional rules lawyering issues...
>
>Why the hell is there a Ritual of Binding Investments (R-6) when
>there's a perfectly good set of Enchantment Binding Rituals (R-9 to R-22)?

R-6 has the *benefit* of not requiring "Preparation" -- and thus there's no
possibility of a Shaping Accident. It's also a lot quicker (hours rather
than weeks or even longer). The *restriction* on R-6 is that it only works
on a currently-invested item (and doesn't have a terrific base chance).

If you like, it's a refined form of Preparation/Binding that only works
within strict parameters (normal Preparation/Binding is much more open in
terms of effects).

>Do Shapers have to apply Preparation Rituals (Q-5 to Q-11) before
>casting Q-4?

Depends which edition of the rules you're using, doesn't it? 2nd edition,
no. 3rd edition, yes.

>The rules state pretty clearly that only a counterspell known by a
>namer can dispell an invested spell. Maybe this makes sense since investments
>come through rituals rather than spells, but I still wonder if the namer's
>not just using the counterspell of the college of shaping magics--that's
>what namers do after all. It seems to me if a counterspell can destroy a
>golem, it could also destroy other investments. But maybe this is just too
>powerful.

As you say, that's what Namers do. I think rules like this are necessary to
making Namers the important guys they're supposed to be. It's not the fact
that it's a *counterspell* that is dispelling the magic, it's the fact that
it's a *Namer* casting the counterspell. In other words, Namer
counterspells are more potent than other Colleges' counterspells.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759
"Watch out for snakes!"
ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ

Thanks to everyone who gave me insight into Shaping Magics. A lot of
things are more clear to me know.

Proposed New Optional Rule:

In place of optional rule 18.5 (don't have a book at hand at the
moment, so I'm not 100% sure that I have the exact rule number correct;
it's the optional rule for additional damage with A-class weapons based
on Rank).

New rule introduces different rules for added damage, SC bonus, and
bonus to defense. These rules would also supercede the Fencing combat
talent in Poor Brendan's Almanac.

Different schools of fencing teach different forms and styles of
combat. Some emphasize offense, others defense or use of two weapons,
or other things.

Precedent: Italian fencing vs French fencing vs Russian fencing.
Different people emphasize different things in combat, so different
fencing styles arise.

Study of a particular school of fencing provides bonuses affecting SC,
DEF, Dam. Cost to study a school of fencing is a small percentage of
cost to study weapon. Studying a particular school of fencing can be
done simultaneously with the study of the appropriate weapon, or can be
done separately at a later time.

This is not unlike studying True Names in order to improve spell cast
chances. It also allows the GM to introduce additional flavor to
combat. Any schools of fencing created by the GM need to be reasonable
and balanced. This also allows for an additional level of mastery and
distinction above and beyond basic weapon skill.

A character may learn more than one school of fencing, but each
additional school adds +25% to the experience cost. A character's Rank
in a school of fencing may never exceed that character's Rank with the
weapon.

Example:
Arolic School Fencing
This school of fencing emphasizes defense and self protection until
the opportunity to land a strike appears.
Effects: +5 + (1 per 2 Ranks) DEF; Dam +1 at Rank 4, +2 at Rank 7, +3
at Rank 9; subtract (10 - Rank) from SC.
Examples: Alphonse has Rank 3 in Rapier and Rank 2 in Arolic Fencing.
He adds +6 to his defense, does no additional damage, and subtracts -8
from his SC. Aramis has Rank 7 Estoc and Rank 7 Arolic Fencing. He
adds +9 to his defense, does +2 additional damage, and subtracts -3
from his SC.

This is just a first draft at this idea. My current gaming group is
going to playtest this once we have a working draft.

Comments? Suggestions? Like it or hate it?

What is the rationalization for having an offensive skill that
increases defense, and damage, but decreases the strike chance? If
you are fencing in a defensive manner, wouldn't damage be reduced too?
Is the damage increased because he is making "aimed" shots? if so,
how does that increase defense? I guess I just can't noodle out how
that would work, but i don't know that much about fencing.

--- In dq-rules@y..., dqn@b... wrote:
> Proposed New Optional Rule:
>
> In place of optional rule 18.5 (don't have a book at hand at the
> moment, so I'm not 100% sure that I have the exact rule number correct;
> it's the optional rule for additional damage with A-class weapons based
> on Rank).
>
> New rule introduces different rules for added damage, SC bonus, and
> bonus to defense. These rules would also supercede the Fencing combat
> talent in Poor Brendan's Almanac.
>
> Different schools of fencing teach different forms and styles of
> combat. Some emphasize offense, others defense or use of two weapons,
> or other things.
>
> Precedent: Italian fencing vs French fencing vs Russian fencing.
> Different people emphasize different things in combat, so different
> fencing styles arise.
>
> Study of a particular school of fencing provides bonuses affecting SC,
> DEF, Dam. Cost to study a school of fencing is a small percentage of
> cost to study weapon. Studying a particular school of fencing can be
> done simultaneously with the study of the appropriate weapon, or can be
> done separately at a later time.
>
> This is not unlike studying True Names in order to improve spell cast
> chances. It also allows the GM to introduce additional flavor to
> combat. Any schools of fencing created by the GM need to be reasonable
> and balanced. This also allows for an additional level of mastery and
> distinction above and beyond basic weapon skill.
>
> A character may learn more than one school of fencing, but each
> additional school adds +25% to the experience cost. A character's Rank
> in a school of fencing may never exceed that character's Rank with the
> weapon.
>
> Example:
> Arolic School Fencing
> This school of fencing emphasizes defense and self protection until
> the opportunity to land a strike appears.
> Effects: +5 + (1 per 2 Ranks) DEF; Dam +1 at Rank 4, +2 at Rank 7, +3
> at Rank 9; subtract (10 - Rank) from SC.
> Examples: Alphonse has Rank 3 in Rapier and Rank 2 in Arolic
Fencing.
> He adds +6 to his defense, does no additional damage, and subtracts -8
> from his SC. Aramis has Rank 7 Estoc and Rank 7 Arolic Fencing. He
> adds +9 to his defense, does +2 additional damage, and subtracts -3
> from his SC.
>
> This is just a first draft at this idea. My current gaming group is
> going to playtest this once we have a working draft.
>
> Comments? Suggestions? Like it or hate it?

Hello all,

I have not played in far too long a time, and many rules are just
vague memories now. While trying to refresh my memory using the third
edition, and simultaneously create a database that contains all the
spells and descriptions and particulars, I discovered a couple of
interesting questions that I could not resolve.

I seem to recall something about not being able to progress in
Special Knowledge spells/rituals until a certain number of General
Knowledge spells/rituals are known (to a certain rank) or something
like that. Am I just getting confused, or are there such rules? If
so, what paragraph?

How do people classify the following spells and rituals - General or
Special Knowledge:

Wizards Mark

Dispell (and where is this located?)

Death Curse

Ritual of Self Preparation

Ritual of Purification

Investment

Focus Ritual

Ward

Geases

Minor Curses (I added this for all colleges somewhere along the way -
the rules seem to indicate that only certain colleges can do Minor
Curses).

Major Curses

Curse Removal


If somebody already has a spell database, that would certainly make
my life easier. I thought I did my yoeman duty on the creature
database a couple of years ago.

Thanks,

Marty
--
I practice Ty-Fu, the art of slaughtering what I type.

"Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to
make them all yourself."
Unknown

There's always someone better than you, but you're never as bad as
some think you are."
Rip Torn

On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 21:21:48 -0500, Martin Gallo <martimer@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>I seem to recall something about not being able to progress in
>Special Knowledge spells/rituals until a certain number of General
>Knowledge spells/rituals are known (to a certain rank) or something
>like that. Am I just getting confused, or are there such rules? If
>so, what paragraph?

You're confused. There is no such rule.

>How do people classify the following spells and rituals - General or
>Special Knowledge:

I generally read the spell description to find out ...

>Wizards Mark
>Dispell (and where is this located?)

Don't know what these are.

>Death Curse

*Major* curse is a Special Knowledge Spell -- as indicated in the spell
description.

>Ritual of Self Preparation

You mean *Spell* Preparation.

>Ritual of Purification

These two are General Knowledge Rituals -- as indicated in their
descriptions.

>Investment

General Knowledge Ritual for Shapers, Special Knowledge Ritual for everyone
else -- as indicated in the descriptions.

>Focus Ritual

Don't know this.

>Ward

Special Knowledge Ritual -- again, as indicated in the description.

>Geases

Special Knowledge Spell -- again, as indicated in the description.

>Minor Curses (I added this for all colleges somewhere along the way -
>the rules seem to indicate that only certain colleges can do Minor
>Curses).

The rules indicate no such thing. Like the Major Curse, it's a Special
Knowledge Spell.

>Major Curses

See above.

>Curse Removal

Special Knowledge Ritual -- as per its description.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759
"Hi-Keeba!"
ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ

>I seem to recall something about not being able to progress in
>Special Knowledge spells/rituals until a certain number of General
>Knowledge spells/rituals are known (to a certain rank) or something
>like that. Am I just getting confused, or are there such rules? If
>so, what paragraph

Please forgive me, I cannot recall this exactly as my DQ book is at a
friend's house and it's probably been ten years or so since I looked at the
rule. I think you are recalling the rule that says something like, "A
character may only know a number of spells and rituals at rank 5 or below
equal to his magical aptitude. He may know an unlimited number of spells at
rank six or above. General knowledge spells count towards this total."

I believe that paragraph is somewhere in section 34 under magic (in second
edition ... I am not even sure it exists in 3rd edition). Basically, the
situation would be unique for each spell caster depending upon his MA and
the number of spells in his college, but based on this rule there could be
times he would have to get a general knowledge spell to rank 6 before he
could learn a special knowledge spell.

Sorry I couldn't be exact as to the location of the rule, but my mind is
getting foggy in my old age :-)

Clark Goble
goble@bright.net

Roger,

I often vacillate back and forth between making the combat system
more realistic and recognizing the game-speed benefits of leaving it
fairly generic. As it stands now, I think there is a great trade off
between realism and playability.

I am sorely tempted to try to adapt parts of the Harn combat system
onto DQ, specifically the rating of weapons for different types of
damage (thrusting/pointed, slashing/edged and crushing). It means
tracking three different Dmods for each weapon and three different
Protection values for each type of armor.

This usually leads me to the conclusion that it might be nice to
track hit point locations as well.

This starts to spiral downward into more and more detail, and I stop myself.

In conclusion (and to the point of this post) I recommend leaving it
alone. There is not enough differentiation between the various
weapons that specific combat style training/style will work well with
the current system.

Maybe we need a different Grevious Injury chart for each damage class
of weapon....

>Proposed New Optional Rule:
>
>In place of optional rule 18.5 (don't have a book at hand at the
>moment, so I'm not 100% sure that I have the exact rule number correct;
>it's the optional rule for additional damage with A-class weapons based
>on Rank).
>
>New rule introduces different rules for added damage, SC bonus, and
>bonus to defense. These rules would also supercede the Fencing combat
>talent in Poor Brendan's Almanac.
>
>Different schools of fencing teach different forms and styles of
>combat. Some emphasize offense, others defense or use of two weapons,
>or other things.
>
>Precedent: Italian fencing vs French fencing vs Russian fencing.
>Different people emphasize different things in combat, so different
>fencing styles arise.
>
>Study of a particular school of fencing provides bonuses affecting SC,
>DEF, Dam. Cost to study a school of fencing is a small percentage of
>cost to study weapon. Studying a particular school of fencing can be
>done simultaneously with the study of the appropriate weapon, or can be
>done separately at a later time.
>
>This is not unlike studying True Names in order to improve spell cast
>chances. It also allows the GM to introduce additional flavor to
>combat. Any schools of fencing created by the GM need to be reasonable
>and balanced. This also allows for an additional level of mastery and
>distinction above and beyond basic weapon skill.
>
>A character may learn more than one school of fencing, but each
>additional school adds +25% to the experience cost. A character's Rank
>in a school of fencing may never exceed that character's Rank with the
>weapon.
>
>Example:
>Arolic School Fencing
> This school of fencing emphasizes defense and self protection until
>the opportunity to land a strike appears.
> Effects: +5 + (1 per 2 Ranks) DEF; Dam +1 at Rank 4, +2 at Rank 7, +3
>at Rank 9; subtract (10 - Rank) from SC.
> Examples: Alphonse has Rank 3 in Rapier and Rank 2 in Arolic Fencing.
>He adds +6 to his defense, does no additional damage, and subtracts -8
>from his SC. Aramis has Rank 7 Estoc and Rank 7 Arolic Fencing. He
>adds +9 to his defense, does +2 additional damage, and subtracts -3
>from his SC.
>
>This is just a first draft at this idea. My current gaming group is
>going to playtest this once we have a working draft.
>
>Comments? Suggestions? Like it or hate it?
>
>
>
>To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

--
I practice Ty-Fu, the art of slaughtering what I type.

"Learn from the mistakes of others. You won't live long enough to
make them all yourself."
Unknown

There's always someone better than you, but you're never as bad as
some think you are."
Rip Torn

If Clark is getting old, then there is no hope for me.

Deven "Giles the Treacherous" Atkinson.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clark D. Goble" <goble@bright.net>
To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: [dq-rules] Magic Classification


> >I seem to recall something about not being able to progress in
> >Special Knowledge spells/rituals until a certain number of General
> >Knowledge spells/rituals are known (to a certain rank) or something
> >like that. Am I just getting confused, or are there such rules? If
> >so, what paragraph
>
> Please forgive me, I cannot recall this exactly as my DQ book is at a
> friend's house and it's probably been ten years or so since I looked at
the
> rule. I think you are recalling the rule that says something like, "A
> character may only know a number of spells and rituals at rank 5 or below
> equal to his magical aptitude. He may know an unlimited number of spells
at
> rank six or above. General knowledge spells count towards this total."
>
> I believe that paragraph is somewhere in section 34 under magic (in second
> edition ... I am not even sure it exists in 3rd edition). Basically, the
> situation would be unique for each spell caster depending upon his MA and
> the number of spells in his college, but based on this rule there could be
> times he would have to get a general knowledge spell to rank 6 before he
> could learn a special knowledge spell.
>
> Sorry I couldn't be exact as to the location of the rule, but my mind is
> getting foggy in my old age :-)
>
> Clark Goble
> goble@bright.net
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

This has been a (humorus) point fo contention in my campaign for a
while. The probelm is this:
you can't run on the tactical map.
The point being debated is that TMR is too low to reflect a bipeds
ability to run. In 5 seconds I can run maybe 25 yards. Profesional
atheletes can run 40 yards in about 4.5 seconds (in controlled
conditions). But if I have a TMR of 7, I can move 35 feet, or about
12 yards.
Does anyone have a any comments or suggestions?

>Does anyone have a any comments or suggestions?

We created a rule that allows players to spend a fatigue point and add 2 to
their TMR. They can only do this if they are running in a straight line and
performing no other actions. We figure the listed TMR on the character sheet
is the speed a character can run without severe fatigue loss.

Clark
goble@bright.net

BTW: >If Clark is getting old, then there is no hope for me.

Hey Devin! Good to hear from you. How's old Giles doing these days?

> >Does anyone have a any comments or suggestions?

The standard TMR also assumes standard encumberance. How fast can you move
with armor, sword, shield and a few days rations?

>
> We created a rule that allows players to spend a fatigue point and add 2

to

> their TMR. They can only do this if they are running in a straight line

and

> performing no other actions. We figure the listed TMR on the character

sheet

> is the speed a character can run without severe fatigue loss.
>
> Clark
> goble@bright.net
>
> BTW: >If Clark is getting old, then there is no hope for me.
>
> Hey Devin! Good to hear from you. How's old Giles doing these days?
>

Giles is still a retired Hero. If I ever start up as a GM he will make
appearances as an NPC.

-Deven

On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 16:00:39 -0400, "Deven Atkinson" <deven@bright.net>
wrote:

>The standard TMR also assumes standard encumberance. How fast can you move
>with armor, sword, shield and a few days rations?

Well, no it doesn't; the AG loss due to weight carried (which will, in turn,
reduce TMR) takes care of that assumption.

However, I think it would be true to say that TMR assumes basic dodging,
weaving, looking over your shoulder, and generally trying to pay attention
to what's going on around you.

>> We created a rule that allows players to spend a fatigue point and add 2 to
>> their TMR. They can only do this if they are running in a straight line and
>> performing no other actions. We figure the listed TMR on the character sheet
>> is the speed a character can run without severe fatigue loss.

I like the intent of this rule, but I think the approach that I would take
is something like: for every Pulse of extra speed the character wants to put
on, he pays the FT cost for weight carried that's normally spent per hour.
Each different category of exertion is worth an additional "x" hexes of
movement -- perhaps 1 hex for light, 2 hexes for medium, etc.

That actually solves a problem we encountered when trying to figure out how
long someone affected by the Fright Table will actually run. Based on the
normal FT-loss rules, a moderately-encumbered person could run, flat-out,
for HOURS before collapsing from exhaustion. That's clearly nonsense; the
application of the above rule (or some variant thereof) makes the flat-out
run much more fatiguing in "real" time.

I don't think it necessarily must be in a straight line, but there should be
a minimum turn rate -- you must move so many hexes forward before being
allowed to change direction, etc. Also, in a flat-out run you should be
unable to perform any other actions, other than drop things and maybe gasp
out one or two words at a time.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759
"Suddenly I have a refreshing mint flavour."
ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ

hey,

All the messages at:
http://townhall.webrpg.com/index.phtml?groupid=59
have dissappeared. I have contacted the magistrates, and I encourage
you all to urge them to repost those messages. Don't hassle them,
because i am sure there are bigger things on their minds, but I would
like to see those messages back.

thanks
Juanc

Apparently there are problems with Yahoo Groups operations for people
who originally subscribed to lists (such as this one) back when it
was eGroups, and who now wish to unsubscribe. See the article below.

As others have pointed out (and we have indicated here from time to
time, as well), if you are having trouble with your subscription, you
can contact the list owner at: (listname)-owner@yahoogroups.com to
ask them to manually remove you from the list. For this list, that
address is:
dq-rules-owner@yahoogroups.com

Hopefully this will not start a run on unsubscribe requests, and
maybe we'll even get another post or two that's on-topic. Things in
the DQ world have been slow of late.

[Note: you may get more than one copy of this message, since I will
be cross-posting it to a couple of DQ lists which I moderate.]

Thanks,

Rodger Thorm

----------------------------------------------------------
This item is quoted from a recent article on Slashdot
(www.slashdot.org):

***No Easy Way Out For Yahoo! eGroups Subscribers***

An Anonymous Coward writes: "Yahoo! Groups, who manages former
eGroups mailing lists has a strange policy on unsubscribing people
who joined eGroups via e-mail subscription before eGroups have been
taken over by Yahoo!--the only way to unsubscribe is to join Yahoo!
(giving your full details and a corect e-mail address) and then
unsubscribe using the Web interface. The e-mail unubscription
feature, although theoretically still available, does not work. Looks
like not all Yahoo! Groups subscribers are equal."

(full address for the article is: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?
sid=01/11/05/1416216&mode=thread)

And I am looking for input on how best to do these things in the
context of DragonQuest.
1) Aimed shots. This is something I always wanted to add, but
struggled with because DQ is so "realistic". There are several
issues. First off, how do you handle a grevious with an amied shot?
If the guy shoots for the head, and rolls a 01, then a grevious that
is a slasher on the primary arm does not make a whole lot of sense.
Also, what would be the cost of doing that? In game terms? Takes
twice as long to strike?

2) "Fate" points. Some games have this. In the old StormBringer
RPGm they were called elan points. The conept is basically you are
given points you can cash in when you are desperate, to save your
back side. I wonder if this would work at all in DQ. Your thoughts?

Thanks

Here's an easy way to do a called shot. Attacker must declare the exact
grievous injury he is attempting. If successful, he will get the full
benefit of the grievous and directly affecting endurance damage. The
grievous injury must be compatible with the weapon being used, within the
discretion of the GM. For example, the attacker claims that he is going to
fire his arrow, attempting the aorta - "you are quite dead" injury (11 on
the grievous table). If the attacker scores a successful hit, of any sort,
he then rolls percintile dice, and if he rolls the required 11, he has
succeeded. If he does not roll the 11, then he has simply scored a normal
blow. Even if he rolls a 01 on his initial strike chance, the attacker has
given up opportunity for any other directly affecting endurance or grievous
injury.

Additional ruling should be applied, that the chance of the grievous injury
cannot be greater than the attackers chance to cause damage directly
affecting endurance. Example, Jogo the dwarf wants to slash his opponents
primary arm with his axe (53-60), this attack has a 8% chance of success.
His modified strike chance is only 47%, meaning his chance to directly
affect endurance is only 7%. I suggest that the GM diminish the chance of
the called strikes success to the same percentile, or less than his chance
to directly affect endurance. In this case, he would need to roll between
53-59 for an effective called strike.

Optional rule: Increasing called strikes for the skilled.
After determining modified strike chance, get the grievous chance off chart
18.2 and add that % - 1 to the characters grievous/called shot roll. Using
the aorta example from above, if the attacker had a 78% modified strike
chance, he would normally score a grievous injury on a roll from 01-04.
That's a 4% chance. Subtract 1%, leaving 3% and add that 3% to the grievous
injury, in the case the 11 for the aorta. Now he must roll between an 11-14
for a successful called strike. GM should modify this as they like, by
dividing by 2 or 3 the additional modifier as he sees fit.

----- Original Message -----
From: "jcorey30" <jcorey30@yahoo.com>
To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 3:57 PM
Subject: [dq-rules] Considering some rule addtions


> And I am looking for input on how best to do these things in the
> context of DragonQuest.
> 1) Aimed shots. This is something I always wanted to add, but
> struggled with because DQ is so "realistic". There are several
> issues. First off, how do you handle a grevious with an amied shot?
> If the guy shoots for the head, and rolls a 01, then a grevious that
> is a slasher on the primary arm does not make a whole lot of sense.
> Also, what would be the cost of doing that? In game terms? Takes
> twice as long to strike?
>
> 2) "Fate" points. Some games have this. In the old StormBringer
> RPGm they were called elan points. The conept is basically you are
> given points you can cash in when you are desperate, to save your
> back side. I wonder if this would work at all in DQ. Your thoughts?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

Fate Points

I use the Hero Point system from James Bond: The Role-playing Game.  As this game was done by former SPI staffers it's rules have aspects of DragonQuest and Universe.

Basically you roll your skill roll against a modified Grievous Injury table that is now used for all skills with 4-6 levels of success. You get a Hero Point each time you roll a critical success (I think you can also buy Hero Points using experience but I don't have the rules in front of me).

Hero Points can be spent to change a roll result by one level per Hero Point.  So you can change a failure to a minimal success with one HP or into a critical success by using 4 HP.

NPCs generally do not get Hero Points but Tough enemies get Survival Points that they can use in the opposite way to reduce a player's chance of killing them.  Great for those recurring evil arch-enemies ("But we killed him last time").

I think I have the converted tables around here in word format if you are interested.

JohnR

-----Original Message-----
From: jcorey30
To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 1/5/02 1:57 PM
Subject: [dq-rules] Considering some rule addtions

2) "Fate" points.  Some games have this.  In the old StormBringer
RPGm they were called elan points.  The conept is basically you are
given points you can cash in when you are desperate, to save your
back side.  I wonder if this would work at all in DQ.  Your thoughts?

Thanks

I've been using fate points for quite some years now. Used a simple
system:
Human D3+1
Elf D3-1
Dwarf D3
1/2ling D4
Orc D3
Giant D2
SHapeshifter D2
No less then 1 per PC.

Players would use the points to affect a critical point in the game
where their characters were in emminent danger (is there any other
kind?) If a point was expended event would unfold that wouldn't kill
the character, but depending on the situation, might result in the PC
being on death's door instead having to rely on his/her companions to
then start the proccess of saving ther butt.

Hope that all makes sense.

Regards,
Paul

--- In dq-rules@y..., "jcorey30" <jcorey30@y...> wrote:
> And I am looking for input on how best to do these things in the
> context of DragonQuest.
> 1) Aimed shots. This is something I always wanted to add, but
> struggled with because DQ is so "realistic". There are several
> issues. First off, how do you handle a grevious with an amied
shot?
> If the guy shoots for the head, and rolls a 01, then a grevious
that
> is a slasher on the primary arm does not make a whole lot of
sense.
> Also, what would be the cost of doing that? In game terms? Takes
> twice as long to strike?
>
> 2) "Fate" points. Some games have this. In the old StormBringer
> RPGm they were called elan points. The conept is basically you are
> given points you can cash in when you are desperate, to save your
> back side. I wonder if this would work at all in DQ. Your
thoughts?
>
> Thanks

John R,

This sounds very interesting. In fact it sounds like a very good
system. If you could send the word doc along, I would be eternally
grateful.
jcorey30@yahoo.com

Thanks!

--- In dq-rules@y..., John Rauchert <john.rauchert@s...> wrote:
> Fate Points
>
> I use the Hero Point system from James Bond: The Role-playing
Game. As this
> game was done by former SPI staffers it's rules have aspects of
DragonQuest
> and Universe.
>
> Basically you roll your skill roll against a modified Grievous
Injury table
> that is now used for all skills with 4-6 levels of success. You get
a Hero
> Point each time you roll a critical success (I think you can also
buy Hero
> Points using experience but I don't have the rules in front of me).
>
> Hero Points can be spent to change a roll result by one level per
Hero
> Point. So you can change a failure to a minimal success with one
HP or into
> a critical success by using 4 HP.
>
> NPCs generally do not get Hero Points but Tough enemies get
Survival Points
> that they can use in the opposite way to reduce a player's chance
of killing
> them. Great for those recurring evil arch-enemies ("But we killed
him last
> time").
>
> I think I have the converted tables around here in word format if
you are
> interested.
>
> JohnR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jcorey30
> To: dq-rules@y...
> Sent: 1/5/02 1:57 PM
> Subject: [dq-rules] Considering some rule addtions
>
> 2) "Fate" points. Some games have this. In the old StormBringer
> RPGm they were called elan points. The conept is basically you are
> given points you can cash in when you are desperate, to save your
> back side. I wonder if this would work at all in DQ. Your
thoughts?
>
> Thanks

I will post them for everyone to see as soon as I get a spare moment (read that as within about a week).

JohnR

-----Original Message-----
From: jcorey30 [mailto:jcorey30@yahoo.com]
Sent: January 6, 2002 12:50 PM
To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [dq-rules] Re: Considering some rule addtions

John R,

This sounds very interesting.  In fact it sounds like a very good
system.  If you could send the word doc along, I would be eternally
grateful.
jcorey30@yahoo.com

Thanks!

John Corey recently started some discussion about aimed attacks. In
one of my replies, I came up with an off-the-cuff special attack
called Headshot. It occurs to me that there might be a handful of
other special attacks like this that could be added to the DQ combat
rules.

We already have Trip, Entangle, Restrain, Knockout, Shield Rush, and
Disarm (plus Open Attack, Set Attack, Aimed Attack, Overcut, and
Undercut in Poor Brandan's Almanac). Should there be more? Do you
regularly use any of these, or is your typical combat a pretty
straightforward exchange of blows just standing there and slugging it
out?

I'd like to work out a list of other suggested attacks for us to work
on (if there are some others to be added). I'll leave Headshot on
the
table, although I don't think my off-the-cuff version is what it
should be. I'd also like to see a Flurry attack, where the attacker
attempts to overwhelm the defender with several quick attacks (lower
BC but chance of multiple hits), but with enough penalties that it
isn't unbalancing.

Anyone can post a version of these attacks. Hopefully we'll get a
couple of different versions, and can sort out the best and come up
with a synthesis that really fits.

-- Rodger Thorm

Well it took me a little longer than a week :) An emergency website
development, a three application shoot-out, and an Open House stole
all my time away.

I couldn't find the file so I scanned and used ocr to pull the
original material from James Bond game (some adaptation is needed to
use with DQ rules).

The file is in PDF format and located here:

http://johnrauchert.brinkster.net/dq/heropoints.pdf

--- In dq-rules@y..., John Rauchert <john.rauchert@s...> wrote:
> I will post them for everyone to see as soon as I get a spare
moment (read
> that as within about a week).
>
> JohnR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jcorey30 [mailto:jcorey30@y...]
> Sent: January 6, 2002 12:50 PM
> To: dq-rules@y...
> Subject: [dq-rules] Re: Considering some rule addtions
>
>
> John R,
>
> This sounds very interesting. In fact it sounds like a very good
> system. If you could send the word doc along, I would be eternally
> grateful.
> jcorey30@y...
>
> Thanks!

i need more game info for the most part now it is the monsters
manuel part of the book ormabey get me a complete version 2nd
and or 3rd editon on the computer in pdf format i would be
greatful

Per the request of the authors of the Seagate Adventurers' Guild copy
of the rules (the file named rules.zip), we have removed the document
from the Files area.

I believe that most people who are very interested in having a copy of
this already have one. If you do not have a copy and are interested
in obtainig one, I suggest that you contact the Seagate Adventurers'
Guild directly.

-Rodger Thorm

Thanks John! these will come in very handy.

--- In dq-rules@y..., "John_Rauchert" <john.rauchert@s...> wrote:
> Well it took me a little longer than a week :) An emergency website
> development, a three application shoot-out, and an Open House stole
> all my time away.
>
> I couldn't find the file so I scanned and used ocr to pull the
> original material from James Bond game (some adaptation is needed
to
> use with DQ rules).
>
> The file is in PDF format and located here:
>
> http://johnrauchert.brinkster.net/dq/heropoints.pdf
>
> --- In dq-rules@y..., John Rauchert <john.rauchert@s...> wrote:
> > I will post them for everyone to see as soon as I get a spare
> moment (read
> > that as within about a week).
> >
> > JohnR
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jcorey30 [mailto:jcorey30@y...]
> > Sent: January 6, 2002 12:50 PM
> > To: dq-rules@y...
> > Subject: [dq-rules] Re: Considering some rule addtions
> >
> >
> > John R,
> >
> > This sounds very interesting. In fact it sounds like a very good
> > system. If you could send the word doc along, I would be
eternally
> > grateful.
> > jcorey30@y...
> >
> > Thanks!

After a seven month hiatus from my DQ game, I am now actually going
to start running my game again...
I don't have any other types of attacks to post right at this
moment... but! I have been thinking about this post for a couple of
days, and I have the following question...
Why did I ask about aimed attacks, and hero points in the first place?
I think the big reason, is that I wanted to make the game more
cinematic. DQ is very "realistic" in that characters don't come off
like Conan, jumping into the fray and killing people with one stroke
on a regular basis. And i like that about DQ. It means that you
have to think twice about entering combat. For example, we have been
playing this same game for around 2 years... And when I put the group
up against some Griffons, they had to think hard about the
consequences, before jumping in. Same group in *cough* D&D, and the
Griffons would have been an after thought.
having said that, I want an element to DQ that makes it
more "Heroic". Though I want combat to be dangerous, I want my PCs
to be able to make that one-in-a-million shot every once in a while.

John Corey

--- In dq-rules@y..., "rthorm" <dqn@e...> wrote:
> John Corey recently started some discussion about aimed attacks.
In
> one of my replies, I came up with an off-the-cuff special attack
> called Headshot. It occurs to me that there might be a handful of
> other special attacks like this that could be added to the DQ
combat
> rules.
>
> We already have Trip, Entangle, Restrain, Knockout, Shield Rush,
and
> Disarm (plus Open Attack, Set Attack, Aimed Attack, Overcut, and
> Undercut in Poor Brandan's Almanac). Should there be more? Do you
> regularly use any of these, or is your typical combat a pretty
> straightforward exchange of blows just standing there and slugging
it
> out?
>
> I'd like to work out a list of other suggested attacks for us to
work
> on (if there are some others to be added). I'll leave Headshot on
> the
> table, although I don't think my off-the-cuff version is what it
> should be. I'd also like to see a Flurry attack, where the
attacker
> attempts to overwhelm the defender with several quick attacks
(lower
> BC but chance of multiple hits), but with enough penalties that it
> isn't unbalancing.
>
> Anyone can post a version of these attacks. Hopefully we'll get a
> couple of different versions, and can sort out the best and come up
> with a synthesis that really fits.
>
> -- Rodger Thorm

Hail,

When sending a message about Arcane Wisdom on behalf of the DragonQuest
Players Association, I noticed that many, many member e-mails and sites had
broken links. I am thus sending a copy here since this is one the most
active DQ group and some of you may have DQPA broken e-mail links and
sites. (Send me your updated info !!!)

So, here's a copy of the e-mail I recently sent to all members about Arcane
Wisdom.

---

Hail to all DragonQuest fans.

You are receiving this e-mail because you are a member of the DragonQuest
Players Association.

Membership has increased quite a bit over the past year and because the
WebRPG forum archives got wiped out many of you may not know about the
great work accomplished by Craig Brain and his team (all credits on second
page of the document) for providing a revised and complete edition of
DragonQuest's The Fourth Book: Arcane Wisdom.

What is Arcane Wisdom? Well, as you know DragonQuest 2nd Ed. was released
with 3 books: Character Generation and Combat, Magic and lastly Skills,
Monsters and Adventure. Arcane Wisdom is the natural continuation of the
DragonQuest gaming system. It never was officially released since SPI when
out of business in an untimely manner for DragonQuest. A few non-official
or partial releases were floating around over the past 20 or so years.
Craig and his group put it all together and provided the DQ community with
a final non-official release. I don't know how much we can thank these guys
and gals for their efforts.

Arcane Wisdom can be downloaded from the following site. This is the only
link to the full relesase that I could find after checking all the links
out of the DragonQuest Players Association. A few sites had older or
partial copies.

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


Talking about DQPA links, I found a few broken links at the DQPA. I would
like to ask the persons that have links listed there to check your link(s)
out. Please let me know of any changes/additions/deletions by e-mailing me
at eric@iosphere.net

Also I would like you, the members, to suggest a motto for the DQPA. Here
is an example: "Let's have fun! DragonQuest lives! DragonQuest forever!"

Also, if you have any quotes for the DQPA site, please send them to me, I
have not received any in a long time.

Thank you for your interest in keeping DragonQuest alive!

Yours truly,

Eric (Snafaru) Labelle
WebMaster in interim
DragonQuest Players Association
http://www.dragonquest.org/
e-mail: eric@iosphere.net

To: DragonQuest Players' Association
Cc: do-rules@yahoo.com
17 March 2002


Dear DQPA and the body of DragonQuest Players,

Unfortunately, it cannot be said that there is a wealth of published
materials out there for DragonQuest. Most of my research shows the
last articles and adventures being professionally published in 1988,
leaving 14 long and lean years for the `Quest aficionado. Add in the
difficulty of being able to get a copy of the official Frontiers of
Alusia maps and setting materials, and it becomes a rather grim
prospect.

Since I am one to shun photocopying of copyright materials, I would
like to present a project to create a new setting. This new setting
would flow along the same concept of the DragonQuest Open Source
project, headed by a committee responsible for editing, continuity
and distribution, with the body of the work being contributed by the
DragonQuest players as a whole.

The advantages of this system include:
∙ Increased interest in DragonQuest
∙ Increased participation by the body of players
∙ A unified adventure world available to everyone, regardless of
accessibility to professionally published materials
∙ A common setting to present to conventions
∙ The opportunity to create the same sort of `historical presence' as
seen in shared fiction anthologies, massive multiplayer online role-
playing games, and the "Living City" materials run by the Role-
playing Gaming Association.

Certain steps will need to be implemented:
∙ Creation of the editing committee
∙ Establishment of rules (to include)
- determining the format of the project
- determining method of distribution
- determining method of on-line presentation
- requirements for submission
- generation of the basic environ (bare-bones world creation)
- method of approval for materials submitted
- record-keeping requirements

My recommendations would include:
1) A public discussion as to whether or not such a project is
desirable, and viable. If the body does not feel the project is
warranted then there is no need to continue.
2) If the project is considered viable, then public discussion and
nominations be considered for deciding the body of the committee.
Because this would be a project of responsibility and commitment,
self-nominations should be considered with equal merit to any other
nominations. When a nomination is made, the candidate should express
their interest to the project as well as any special skills or
resources. Desire to work should be the majority of the selection
process, but it would be nice to know if someone has special skills,
software or equipment that will enhance the project.
3) Public brainstorming sessions would be greatly desirable, and
would act as a `steering committee' for the project. There are a lot
of ideas out there (for instance, once designed, a professional
printing of the base map) that should be presented without
consideration of feasibility. It would be the responsibility of the
committee to decide, during the life of the project, the feasibility
of the ideas presented.
3) The DragonQuest Newsletter should be incorporated as the official
voice of the project. The DQN would announce updates and would be an
excellent sounding board by presenting submissions. Once the project
becomes more solidified, the DQN would be able to present scenarios,
rules and materials. Rodger has continually demonstrated his
commitment to DQN, and I would like the newsletter to succeed.

It should be noted that the committee is responsible for editing and
ensuring continuity, but the core work of creation and development
would come from the players as a whole. One avenue that the
committee could take would be to receive a submission proposal that
broadly outlines the general concept of government, terrain and
social concept. The committee would evaluate, make recommendations
to the submitter, and then `parcel' out a portion of land for that
person to develop. A standard writer/editor relationship would ensue
with the committee ensuring the development project remains balanced
and unified with the project as a whole.

In my opinion, there is a great need for such a project. Role-
playing is at least equal in its artistic, creative process as to
statistics and rules. Being able to resort to a common adventuring
environ would only bring the active playing body together, inspire
new ideas, and to allow the players an outlet for their creativity.

Thank you for your consideration.

David Vance
toganni@msn.com

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

From: toganni

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 10:16 AM

Subject: [dq-rules] Discuss - Open-Source World [long]

To:  DragonQuest Players' Association
Cc:  do-rules@yahoo.com
17 March 2002


Dear DQPA and the body of DragonQuest Players,

Unfortunately, it cannot be said that there is a wealth of published
materials out there for DragonQuest.  Most of my research shows the
last articles and adventures being professionally published in 1988,
leaving 14 long and lean years for the `Quest aficionado.  Add in the
difficulty of being able to get a copy of the official Frontiers of
Alusia maps and setting materials, and it becomes a rather grim
prospect.

Since I am one to shun photocopying of copyright materials, I would
like to present a project to create a new setting.  This new setting
would flow along the same concept of the DragonQuest Open Source
project, headed by a committee responsible for editing, continuity
and distribution, with the body of the work being contributed by the
DragonQuest players as a whole.

The advantages of this system include:
&#8729; Increased interest in DragonQuest
&#8729; Increased participation by the body of players
&#8729; A unified adventure world available to everyone, regardless of
accessibility to professionally published materials
&#8729; A common setting to present to conventions
&#8729; The opportunity to create the same sort of `historical presence' as
seen in shared fiction anthologies, massive multiplayer online role-
playing games, and the "Living City" materials run by the Role-
playing Gaming Association.

Certain steps will need to be implemented:
&#8729; Creation of the editing committee
&#8729; Establishment of rules (to include)
      - determining the format of the project
      - determining method of distribution
      - determining method of on-line presentation
      - requirements for submission
      - generation of the basic environ (bare-bones world creation)
      - method of approval for materials submitted
      - record-keeping requirements

My recommendations would include:
1)  A public discussion as to whether or not such a project is
desirable, and viable.  If the body does not feel the project is
warranted then there is no need to continue.
2)  If the project is considered viable, then public discussion and
nominations be considered for deciding the body of the committee. 
Because this would be a project of responsibility and commitment,
self-nominations should be considered with equal merit to any other
nominations.  When a nomination is made, the candidate should express
their interest to the project as well as any special skills or
resources.  Desire to work should be the majority of the selection
process, but it would be nice to know if someone has special skills,
software or equipment that will enhance the project.
3)  Public brainstorming sessions would be greatly desirable, and
would act as a `steering committee' for the project.  There are a lot
of ideas out there (for instance, once designed, a professional
printing of the base map) that should be presented without
consideration of feasibility.  It would be the responsibility of the
committee to decide, during the life of the project, the feasibility
of the ideas presented.
3)  The DragonQuest Newsletter should be incorporated as the official
voice of the project.  The DQN would announce updates and would be an
excellent sounding board by presenting submissions.  Once the project
becomes more solidified, the DQN would be able to present scenarios,
rules and materials.  Rodger has continually demonstrated his
commitment to DQN, and I would like the newsletter to succeed.

It should be noted that the committee is responsible for editing and
ensuring continuity, but the core work of creation and development
would come from the players as a whole.  One avenue that the
committee could take would be to receive a submission proposal that
broadly outlines the general concept of government, terrain and
social concept.  The committee would evaluate, make recommendations
to the submitter, and then `parcel' out a portion of land for that
person to develop.  A standard writer/editor relationship would ensue
with the committee ensuring the development project remains balanced
and unified with the project as a whole.

In my opinion, there is a great need for such a project.  Role-
playing is at least equal in its artistic, creative process as to
statistics and rules.  Being able to resort to a common adventuring
environ would only bring the active playing body together, inspire
new ideas, and to allow the players an outlet for their creativity.

Thank you for your consideration.

David Vance
toganni@msn.com




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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Paul,

Your proposal requires some serious consideration.

One cannot dismiss off-hand the amount of work that has already been
done. The overall project, from my meager inspection, is
professional and well-done. You should be commended for your work,
and I wish I had already known about this project beforehand - I may
have never made my recommendation!

I would like to also mention that I do not hold, or consider myself
to hold any sort of supervisory role. In fact, I kind of pushed this
off to John as the DQPA President. Rather, I see myself as a
catalyst, with very selfish goals of having quality product developed
and available so I can play, and to be able to maybe increase our
body of players. A game is only dead when people stop playing it.

My comments as follows are meant for discussion. I have had a lot of
negative experience dealing with lists when people assume items
brought up for discussion are actually argument. I simply want to
address some points, so please find no offense herein.

My original idea now belongs to the body as a whole with my now
having no more say than anyone else, but here would be my (admitted
small) concerns (labeled [C#]), along with potential solutions
(labeled [PS]):

[C1] Certain creative aspects have already been completed. This
removes the opportunity for others to participate in the
design work.
[PS] As you have already offered, our being assigned a seperate
continent to do with as we will would satisfy this just
fine. My envisioning of the project would require an
arbitrary definition of the land mass, then parcelling it
out for others to 'flesh out.'

[C2] The concept of the design process is to allow others freedom
of design, which would fall under an editorial body to help
shape to the overall image. This would supercede your
authority over the work - would you be willing to give that
up?
[PS] Again, the seperate continent project would satisfy this
concern as long as you are willing to grant full editorial
powers to the committee. A suggestion would be to consider
the continent "off limits" to the rest of the world until
such a time as the comittee is ready to allow integration to
the rest of the world.

[C3] The ability to create a "Living Dragonquest" (for lack of
better term at the time) was one of the primary intents of
the proposal. This would be nearly identical as C2, above.
[PS] As above.

Personally, I find the idea acceptable (especially having the
infrastructure already in place.) Other solutions that I did not
think of at the time would be to select any one of the current world
products out there and adapt it to our use. This could include Harn,
Greyhawk, Shadow World (as someone else in the DQPA uses), etc. And
as an aside about Shadow World, in case anyone doesn't know, Iron
Crown has reformed and is back in business. Shadow World is slated
for a September ICE release, and is also currently available as a
commercial product by the designer. Visit www.ironcrown.com for more
information.

Thank you so much for your input!
Best,
David

--- In dq-rules@y..., "Paul Pishnak" <sergeantp@h...> wrote:
> I agree that this is all a wonderful idea and applaud any effort to
get it underway. I offer a merger with you though ... I started an
online gaming world many years ago that has flourished and is
becoming increasingly more detailed. The place I speak of is the
World of Fargoth. DragonQuest has LONG been my gaming system of
choice and continues to be my favorite still.

[C1] Certain creative aspects have already been completed. This
removes the opportunity for others to participate in the
design work.
[PS] As you have already offered, our being assigned a seperate
continent to do with as we will would satisfy this just
fine. My envisioning of the project would require an
arbitrary definition of the land mass, then parcelling it
out for others to 'flesh out.'

Easy enough to comply with.

[C2] The concept of the design process is to allow others freedom
of design, which would fall under an editorial body to help
shape to the overall image. This would supercede your
authority over the work - would you be willing to give that
up?
[PS] Again, the seperate continent project would satisfy this
concern as long as you are willing to grant full editorial
powers to the committee. A suggestion would be to consider
the continent "off limits" to the rest of the world until
such a time as the comittee is ready to allow integration to
the rest of the world.

I have no qualms with letting folks have free reign over the continent. The
only issue I think needs to be brought up is that whatever�s created would
take into consideration existing material so that we�re not trying to fit a
square peg in a round hole. Sure it can be forced into place, but the end
result is not the seamless fit we�re going for in the project. I suppose the
bottom line is that the continent could be created as you see fit, but would
still be under limited constraints of the parts of the world already created
that could affect this new continent, and visa-versa.

This reply took so long because I was conferring with the other moderators
of my group. They have no problems at all, but wished for me to pass along
that we would all still have to work with one another because the ultimate
end result of the entire World effort is to have a setting that is logical
and can be sued by all. If this new continent creates issues that cut cross
the grain of the current material it simply won�t do. You must understand
that we�ve been working on this stuff for many, many years and hope your new
continent, if started, will only make the World setting more detailed and
exciting to use.

Regards,
Paul


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

In a fit of nostalgia, recently read "A Wizard of Earthsea". And I
was stuck by the similarities between the magic in that book, and the
College of Naming incantations. I am sure i am not the first person
to point this out. In fact, I am fairly certain Naming is directly
influenced by that book. I have been thinking about it ever since...
and I had a bunch of questions.

- How does Rune Magic fit in with Naming? it seems similar interms
of method, but has different results.
- has anyone ever run an Earthsea campaign?
- It occurs to me that you could run such a campaign, without
excluding all other colleges of magic. One way to do it might be to
have a word where members of Colleges (let's say elementals for
example) specialize in the names of certain things, like fire. Then
Naming would sort of become an "archmage" branch of magic.

Any thoughts?

I have always been confused by Close combat.
When someone is trying to enter close combat from a melee-ex, the
defender's chance to repel seems too simple (roll under your rank
with a perpared weapon). I mean don't things liek strength, agility,
and size matter?
And when trying to enter close combat from a non-adjacent ex, it is
too easy... I mean it just happens.

I was wondering if anyone has any mods out there, and to see if
anyone has "real life" examples that makes all of this ok.

thanks!

I don't have a good real world example, but I've always assumed that the intent was that if you were sufficiently skilled with your weapon, you could interpose it between yourself and your opponent.

It does seem like a bit of a simple mechanic, though.

Most of the PCs in my games have not been heavy brawler types, so I haven't had to deal with it too much. Off the top of my head, I would think that something like the Withdrawl (which might let the Defender get a free attack before their opponent can Close and Grapple), or like the Parry and Riposte (where the result depends on weapon rank) would add some of the flexibility you are looking for and still keep a DQ feel.

--Rodger

On Mon, 13 May 2002 21:06:42 -0000 jcorey30 <jcorey30@yahoo.com> wrote:

I have always been confused by Close combat.
When someone is trying to enter close combat from a melee-ex, the
defender's chance to repel seems too simple (roll under your rank
with a perpared weapon). I mean don't things liek strength, agility,
and size matter?
And when trying to enter close combat from a non-adjacent ex, it is
too easy... I mean it just happens.

I was wondering if anyone has any mods out there, and to see if
anyone has "real life" examples that makes all of this ok.

thanks!



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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Those are good suggestions Rodger, thanks.
Let me spin this another way... Suppose I had a swarm of weak
creatures... like goblins. What is to keep them from swarming the
party's axe wielding barbarian an simply bearing him down? They
could initial the attack from out side his melee zone, and force him
to drop his weapon. Seems almost too easy.

--- In dq-rules@y..., Rodger Thorm<dqn@e...> wrote:
> I don't have a good real world example, but I've always assumed
that the intent was that if you were sufficiently skilled with your
weapon, you could interpose it between yourself and your opponent.
>
> It does seem like a bit of a simple mechanic, though.
>
> Most of the PCs in my games have not been heavy brawler types, so I
haven't had to deal with it too much. Off the top of my head, I
would think that something like the Withdrawl (which might let the
Defender get a free attack before their opponent can Close and
Grapple), or like the Parry and Riposte (where the result depends on
weapon rank) would add some of the flexibility you are looking for
and still keep a DQ feel.
>
> --Rodger
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2002 21:06:42 -0000 jcorey30 <jcorey30@y...> wrote:
>
> I have always been confused by Close combat.
> When someone is trying to enter close combat from a melee-ex, the
> defender's chance to repel seems too simple (roll under your rank
> with a perpared weapon). I mean don't things liek strength,
agility,
> and size matter?
> And when trying to enter close combat from a non-adjacent ex, it is
> too easy... I mean it just happens.
>
> I was wondering if anyone has any mods out there, and to see if
> anyone has "real life" examples that makes all of this ok.
>
> thanks!
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@e...
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@e...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

I think that any kind of swarming attack needs to be addressed with new rules. The situation you mention is not covered by the man-to-man approach that DQ combat takes.

I was (briefly) in someone else's campaign many years ago where the GM had special rules for mass cavalry charge (a wall of men, steel and horses was a truly fearsome thing), unfortunately, I never got a copy of those (I don't know if it was ever anything more than in the GM's head).

There are other situations as well where the larger situation is more than just the sum of individual action. Small-unit tactics, where people have trained together and can work together would be another example (basically the same situation but in reverse).

In both cases (swarming and small-unit tactics), the activity of the group (maybe a MiliSci roll) helps to supercede straight Initiative. Both are reactive situations (swarm = offensive and small-tac = defensive) where the action of the opponent (forcing the opponent to commit to an action) sets up the action. As the goblins swarm their opponent, when he is forced to swing his sword at goblin X, goblin Y gets an opening to attack.

These would also allow for tighter than one-figure-per-hex stacking (subject to stipulations and limits).

These are just my first thoughts, but I think you've hit on something interesting here. Sounds like a good topic to work on, and here, I've been writing an article about PB...

--Rodger

On Wed, 15 May 2002 13:06:43 -0000 jcorey30 <jcorey30@yahoo.com> wrote:

Those are good suggestions Rodger, thanks.
Let me spin this another way... Suppose I had a swarm of weak
creatures... like goblins. What is to keep them from swarming the
party's axe wielding barbarian an simply bearing him down? They
could initial the attack from out side his melee zone, and force him
to drop his weapon. Seems almost too easy.


--- In dq-rules@y..., Rodger Thorm<dqn@e...> wrote:
> I don't have a good real world example, but I've always assumed
that the intent was that if you were sufficiently skilled with your
weapon, you could interpose it between yourself and your opponent.
>
> It does seem like a bit of a simple mechanic, though.
>
> Most of the PCs in my games have not been heavy brawler types, so I
haven't had to deal with it too much. Off the top of my head, I
would think that something like the Withdrawl (which might let the
Defender get a free attack before their opponent can Close and
Grapple), or like the Parry and Riposte (where the result depends on
weapon rank) would add some of the flexibility you are looking for
and still keep a DQ feel.
>
> --Rodger
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2002 21:06:42 -0000 jcorey30 <jcorey30@y...> wrote:
>
> I have always been confused by Close combat.
> When someone is trying to enter close combat from a melee-ex, the
> defender's chance to repel seems too simple (roll under your rank
> with a perpared weapon). I mean don't things liek strength,
agility,
> and size matter?
> And when trying to enter close combat from a non-adjacent ex, it is
> too easy... I mean it just happens.
>
> I was wondering if anyone has any mods out there, and to see if
> anyone has "real life" examples that makes all of this ok.
>
> thanks!

Here is the modified rules we use for close combat:


Closing
Attacker attempts to close, defender can attempt a repulse. Shields and non
Close combat rated weapons must be dropped, if an opponent closes. An
opponent cannot repulse if surprised. If no weapon in hand, unarmed rank
may be used to repulse. Once in close combat, further attempts to repulse
closers may not be made, but a withdrawal may be attempted. 3-4 characters
may engage 1 man sized figure in close combat, depending upon relative
sizes.



From Front or Flank hex

Repulse successful if d10 is <= Weapon Rank



From Rear Hex

Repulse if d10 is <= ½ Weapon Rank -1



Closing from outside Melee Range

If closing from outside the melee range, ie a charge, 1 is added to d10 roll
for repulse.



Withdrawal

An attempt to disengage from one opponent in close combat. Success results
in retreating 1 hex and being prone, or if in close combat with more than 1
opponent, pushing the opponent into an adjacent hex.

----- Original Message -----
From: "jcorey30" <jcorey30@yahoo.com>
To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 5:06 PM
Subject: [dq-rules] Close Combat


> I have always been confused by Close combat.
> When someone is trying to enter close combat from a melee-ex, the
> defender's chance to repel seems too simple (roll under your rank
> with a perpared weapon). I mean don't things liek strength, agility,
> and size matter?
> And when trying to enter close combat from a non-adjacent ex, it is
> too easy... I mean it just happens.
>
> I was wondering if anyone has any mods out there, and to see if
> anyone has "real life" examples that makes all of this ok.
>
> thanks!
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

There have been some complaints about Yahoo's service from time to
time. Recently I was introduced to weblogs, and have started a
couple of them to test out the concept. One is for the online
reference for my ongoing DQ campaign (which I've also been handling
with Yahoo Groups up to now). The other is for this group.

The URL for the DQRules weblog is:
http://dqrules.blogspot.com/

IMPORTANT: I am *NOT* terminating this Yahoo Group at this time. If
everything is so peachy and marvelous, and everything can be easily
migrated over to the weblog, I may do that with it eventually. But
right now, it's just a parallel experiment. Keep posting here, or
there, or in both places. I want to try it out and see how it works.

I think you will have to register and/or join the blog before you can
post to it. But I'm not entirely sure how it works, so let me know.
(If I end up having to approve all of you to join it, I'll do so.)
I'm not sure if I have to approve everyone who joins or not; that's
also part of the experiment.

I'd appreciate it if those of you who check it out let me know what
your experience is like. Is it easy to find and use right away, or
do you find it awkward to use? Do you think this is a better format
than the present Yahoo Groups format?

My thought with this is that it will be somewhat easier to title and
categorize items, so that the text for new rules can be more easily
found. We'll see if that turns out to be the case.

And to start off the experiment, I will post my modified PB rules on
the weblog for everyone to review and comment.

-- Rodger

On Tue, 21 May 2002 17:08:56 -0000, "rthorm" <dqn@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I'd appreciate it if those of you who check it out let me know what
>your experience is like. Is it easy to find and use right away, or
>do you find it awkward to use? Do you think this is a better format
>than the present Yahoo Groups format?

Without even looking at it, I can suggest that any web-based discussion
group is inherently less convenient than any e-mail-based one. It's a messy
process to read a web page offline. It's inconvenient to save useful
tidbits. Most web-based groups have poor thread-management capabilities.

All that being said, I acknowledge that for some people a web page is
actually *more* convenient. I'm not one of those people.

If Yahoo is really a problem, might I suggest you investigate other mailing
list options before abandoning a mailing list altogether?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"No more questions! More boobies!"
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

I'm with you!

I definitely prefer e-mail, as opposed to having to go find what I want
via a web page. If there doesn't seem to be an alternative, I have
several webhosts that include mail list software. One of my hosted
domain names is fairly appropriate, Fantasist.Net. Honestly, my web
page there is fairly lame, but I'd be happy to host an e-mail list for
DQ. (No, not for the advertising, just the love of the game!)

Just food for thought!
Thanks,
Jim

Bruce Probst wrote:

> On Tue, 21 May 2002 17:08:56 -0000, "rthorm" <dqn@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I'd appreciate it if those of you who check it out let me know what
>>your experience is like. Is it easy to find and use right away, or
>>do you find it awkward to use? Do you think this is a better format
>>than the present Yahoo Groups format?
>>
>
> Without even looking at it, I can suggest that any web-based discussion
> group is inherently less convenient than any e-mail-based one. It's a messy
> process to read a web page offline. It's inconvenient to save useful
> tidbits. Most web-based groups have poor thread-management capabilities.
>
> All that being said, I acknowledge that for some people a web page is
> actually *more* convenient. I'm not one of those people.
>
> If Yahoo is really a problem, might I suggest you investigate other mailing
> list options before abandoning a mailing list altogether?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
> Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
> "No more questions! More boobies!"
> ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

--
"The future isn't what it used to be."
-Arthur C. Clarke

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

From: Bruce Probst

To: dq-rules@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 21:12 PM

Subject: Re: [dq-rules] New DQrules Weblog

On Tue, 21 May 2002 17:08:56 -0000, "rthorm" <dqn@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I'd appreciate it if those of you who check it out let me know what
>your experience is like.  Is it easy to find and use right away, or
>do you find it awkward to use?  Do you think this is a better format
>than the present Yahoo Groups format?

Without even looking at it, I can suggest that any web-based discussion
group is inherently less convenient than any e-mail-based one.  It's a messy
process to read a web page offline.  It's inconvenient to save useful
tidbits.  Most web-based groups have poor thread-management capabilities.

All that being said, I acknowledge that for some people a web page is
actually *more* convenient.  I'm not one of those people.

If Yahoo is really a problem, might I suggest you investigate other mailing
list options before abandoning a mailing list altogether?

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst              bprobst@netspace.net.au    ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759  SCA #80160
"No more questions!  More boobies!"
ASL FAQ              http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ



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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Another vote for staying with an email list. I'm not a fan of web-based lists.


At 02:12 PM 5/22/02, you wrote:

>On Tue, 21 May 2002 17:08:56 -0000, "rthorm" <dqn@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>I'd appreciate it if those of you who check it out let me know what
>>your experience is like. Is it easy to find and use right away, or
>>do you find it awkward to use? Do you think this is a better format
>>than the present Yahoo Groups format?
>
>Without even looking at it, I can suggest that any web-based discussion
>group is inherently less convenient than any e-mail-based one. It's a messy
>process to read a web page offline. It's inconvenient to save useful
>tidbits. Most web-based groups have poor thread-management capabilities.
>
>All that being said, I acknowledge that for some people a web page is
>actually *more* convenient. I'm not one of those people.
>
>If Yahoo is really a problem, might I suggest you investigate other mailing
>list options before abandoning a mailing list altogether?
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
>Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
>"No more questions! More boobies!"
>ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ
>
>
>
>To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Jason Winter
Alarian@harbornet.net
http://www.darkrealms.com/~alarian/

DO NOT!!! Delete this yahoo group at ANY time!!

I am not currently active in any DQ or related campaigns at this time of my
life, but... may begin to be at some point in the future. I get these
mailings through absolutely no effort on my part, so the DQ crowd is never
far away, but if you went to a web based group, it is highly doubtful that I
would follow. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this situation. Don't break
us up!

----- Original Message -----
From: "rthorm" <dqn@earthlink.net>
To: <dq-rules@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1:08 PM
Subject: [dq-rules] New DQrules Weblog


> There have been some complaints about Yahoo's service from time to
> time. Recently I was introduced to weblogs, and have started a
> couple of them to test out the concept. One is for the online
> reference for my ongoing DQ campaign (which I've also been handling
> with Yahoo Groups up to now). The other is for this group.
>
> The URL for the DQRules weblog is:
> http://dqrules.blogspot.com/
>
> IMPORTANT: I am *NOT* terminating this Yahoo Group at this time. If
> everything is so peachy and marvelous, and everything can be easily
> migrated over to the weblog, I may do that with it eventually. But
> right now, it's just a parallel experiment. Keep posting here, or
> there, or in both places. I want to try it out and see how it works.
>
> I think you will have to register and/or join the blog before you can
> post to it. But I'm not entirely sure how it works, so let me know.
> (If I end up having to approve all of you to join it, I'll do so.)
> I'm not sure if I have to approve everyone who joins or not; that's
> also part of the experiment.
>
> I'd appreciate it if those of you who check it out let me know what
> your experience is like. Is it easy to find and use right away, or
> do you find it awkward to use? Do you think this is a better format
> than the present Yahoo Groups format?
>
> My thought with this is that it will be somewhat easier to title and
> categorize items, so that the text for new rules can be more easily
> found. We'll see if that turns out to be the case.
>
> And to start off the experiment, I will post my modified PB rules on
> the weblog for everyone to review and comment.
>
> -- Rodger
>
>
>
> To Post a message, send it to: dq-rules@eGroups.com
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: dq-rules-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>