After generating the character's race and social background using the expanded
table from DQN, I ask my players to write a small account of what the character
did before starting adventuring, and based on that I give him/her a certain
amount of weapons levels, skills, items, spells, etc.
All my characters begin with Rock Rk 2 (every kid knows how to throw a rock).
Usually, my characters begin with 2 levels of one skill, or 1 level of two
skills. Dwarves and elves usually get Ranger skill. These skills are not
counted against the first skill bonus, i.e. the 100 SP cost & no time required
is applied on the first skill the player chooses.
Warriors get Rk 2 with one weapon or Rk1 with two weapons, and usually Rk 1
with a shield. They get the weapons they are skilled into, leather armor and a
shield (usually buckler) at no cost. Mages get one weapon (usually a dagger),
and 1 or 2 Special Spells, usually at rk 1, depending on the character's MA.
Specially well written backgrounds get inherited items from parents, for
example a truesilver dagger, a horse or pony, etc.
Then they use the money and XPs they got to further enhance their initial
character.
The rationale behind all this is that a beginning warrior that gets 20 XP and
30 SP from the beginning, as it may occur with the standard rules, doesn't have
any chance to prevail even in front of a rabbit.
New characters that enter a running group, don't get more levels. They have to
survive the first adventure, usually protected by the other members of the
party, and then get enough money and XPs to quickly develop. Usually, a new
character promotes itself to adventurer level after 2 adventures, within a
party of adventurers.
I hope this helps. Best regards... Arturo

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

--- john_kahane <jkahane@comnet.ca> wrote:

> This is, to me, one of the strengths of
> DRAGONQUEST, that one can
> actually see some of the origins of the various
> Colleges of Magic in
> literary and mythological sources, and it's what
> makes the Colleges
> so realistic in many ways. One of the Colleges that
> I worked on for
> some time (although I found someone else's variant
> of that College,
> and revised my own to work in some of its elements)
> was that of
> Mirror Magics. Magical mirrors are so common in
> mythology and
> fantasy literature, and it was a variant that I
> really wanted to do
> something with, so I did. I've only had a couple of
> Mirror Mages
> over the years, but they brought a whole new
> dimension to the game;
> heck, some of the stuff you can do with mirrors is
> kind of neat. :)

There was a two-book series by Stephen R. Donaldson
that featured a magic system based entirely on
mirrors, "The Mirror of Her Dreams" and "A Man Rides
Through". On reflection (no pun intended), the system
featured in those books had a lot in common with
Lesser Summoning. Whatever image was fixed in a mirror
at its creation could be summoned by a mage at will.
Larger objects/creatures required larger mirrors, so
it wasn't the most... portable magic I've read about.
However, there were some other applications of the
base idea (mirrors in their universe looked out
onto/into other universes/times/places and could call
through whatever they saw) that you might find useful.
-If- you like the man's writing style, you might find
them an interesting read.

Mort

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Don Hawthorne wrote:

> J.K.:
>
> Sounds like your game group might have a bad munchkin-infestation problem.
>
> :-)
>
> Don

Actually, I'm not actively playing these days. No time. Less money.
But, munchkins are like termites in Texas. Once you've had them, you're
always worried that they'll show up again! ^_^

And, I have to admit, I was a munchkin once, too. I got older and grew
out of it!
Cheers!
Jim
--
"It's better to light one candle
than to curse the darkness."
-Chinese Proverb and The Motto of the Christophers
http://www.christophers.org

Hi, John. I tried the "warrior option" out for a couple of campaigns
during my career. I think the reasoning in that article was that it was
often easier for a mage to get to Adventurer status more quickly than a
non-mage. Therefore, the theory goes, earlier in the campaign he would
start gaining double the experience points that a fighter-type would
earn. Most mages have at least eight spells which they can get to Rank
4 at a relatively low cost, whereas a fighter needs to get his primary
weapon and often his primary skill up to higher ranks as quickly as
possible. Of course, he could jack up the cheapest 8 weapons and skills
to Rank 4, but he will have diluted his effectiveness, and in practice
players just don't do it.

I have seen the theory in the article prove true with a couple of
players. Mages can indeed get to Adventurer status surprisingly
quickly, if 1) they are members of a large party and don't need to
actually cast a lot of spells to survive, or 2) they are lucky
dice-rollers.

BUT most of the new mages in the game, in my experience, spend a great
deal of time blind, senile, and searching for an NPC wizard with a high
rank in the Remove Curse ritual. Unskilled spellcasters are often
handicaps to their parties. As a GM, the backfire table alone is enough
to keep me playing DQ. I cannot mask my glee when a pc backfires, or my
disappointment when he suffers a mere waste of additional Fatigue
points.

Anyway, after testing the theory for myself, I don't think that giving
more starting XPs to non-mages is warranted. It just had the effect of
discouraging people from playing mages.

However, I have for years given all brand-new characters a few thousand
XPs at the beginning of a brand-new campaign. The players have more fun
when they can start with competence with a weapon, or at least one spell
with which they have a 50% chance to cast.

-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Kahane [mailto:jkahane@comnet.ca]
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 6:21 AM
To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Character Creation EXPs

Hullo, Bruce,

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:11:17 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>> One of the questions that I want to place into the FAQ files is
>>one that relates to Experience Points alloted when creating
characters.
>> How many Experience Points do folks give out when creating characters
>>of the various levels (ie., Mercenary, Adventurer, and Hero level)?
>
>Not sure I'm following you. I never permitted character creation of
>higher-than-mercenary level, so beginning characters always got the
>"same" amount of XP (used the same table to roll them, that is).

Hmm, well the table in DQ, 2nd Edititon, page 11, gives out a
very basic amount of XPs, based on the character's Order of Birth, and
nothing more, since there were no EXP Multipliers given in that
edition. (This seems to have been something that was added in the
Social Status expansion that appeared in Dragon Magazine.) How does
one create a starting character group to take on a total of five orcs,
when the characters will have anywhere between 10 and 250 Experience
Points to allot to abilities and all? That's not a lot, and talk
about your *bare* starting character.

>>Do you treat Mages and non-Mages differently in this matter?
>
>Most assuredly not. I always believed that anyone who thought mages
and
>non-mages should get different amounts of XP didn't understand the game
>system properly. (There was that article in "Dragon", wasn't there,
about
>the guy who claimed that non-mages should get a bonus 1000 XP or
something
>like that? Grr, that made me so mad when I read it!)

Ah, another person after my own heart in this regard, as I always
hated that article (I believe that was "The Warrior Alternative" or
some such?). I agree with you about the allotment of EXPs to mages and
non-mages. Let's see what some of the other folks around here have to
say on the matter...

.....Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal disease.

JohnK
e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane






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

Don Hawthorne wrote:

> Weighing in:
>
> Frankly, some people simply do not enjoy playing mages. And I don't
> think you've had very many run-ins with the Backfire Table if you
> seriously advocate everybody playing one. Unless your players actually
> enjoy scratching together coin for silvered-everythings and generating
> new characters every few months to replace the casualties inflicted by
> the Backfire Table and by enemies with a non-Adept's Magic resistance
> bonus. On the other hand, if players simply get all the money they need
> and are allowed to do anything with no negative consequence, then these
> are not concerns. Go ahead and run the game anyway you like, but it's
> certainly not necessary to advocate any change to the rules. That's the
> beauty of DQ's flexibility.

Nope, I still disagree. There are definite benefits to being a
non-spell casting mage. For one, I can always shed the armor and cast a
spell, if I need to do so. For another, investment. For a third,
talents. Sure, there are drawbacks, but they are more than out-weighed
by the benefits. However, someone pointed out a solution to the balance
issue I see. I'll comment on that in a reply to that message.

[Snipped for brevity.]

> While DQ certainly has a *lot* of number crunching, it really isn't
> about balance. It never was.

I disagree. The Colleges are all about balance. In fact, they balance
each other as well as anything in a magic system I've ever seen.
However, DQ is *realistic*. By that I mean that life if rough. You
start out at a disadvantage and fight your way to the top, or you die.
That is what I love about the game. To me, balance is about all the
starting characters having the same, or a similar, chance of survival.

[Snipped for brevity.]

> It isn't my job as the GM to design a wizard's stronghold the
> players can "beat". It's my job to design one that the *wizard himself*
> would design, one in which he feels secure, and which, hopefully,
> intruders *cannot* "beat", whether or not those intruders happen to be
> player-characters. I don't put in A-Class-weapon-immune monsters if I
> know the players are all armed with bows and rapiers, because the
> game-world is full of other creatures who use all kinds of weapons.
> It is the players' job to *figure out a way to beat the design*, and
> my further responsibility to help them have fun doing it.

No, you're right, it's not. However, it is your responsibility to
understand what your players expect. It didn't sound like they were
having fun. (Of course, your campaign *might* have been suffering from
a bout of munchkin-itis! ^_^ )

> DQ is based on the concept that nothing comes without a price. And
> sometimes that price is having to do without. Player characters in DQ
> can do *anything*, but just as in the real world, they cannot do
> *everything*.
>
> That's what RuneQuest and D&D are for.
>
> Don Hawthorne
>

Actually, I disagree. Given enough time, and enough characters, they
can do *everything*. It just takes a much, much, much longer time.
And, is more fun and more realistic along the way! ^_^

Cheers!
Jim

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

D. Cameron King wrote:
[Snipped for brevity.]

> I actually wrote a letter to Kim Mohan, the editor of Dragon at
> the time (and even got a reply back), in which I called the author
> "an imbecile." I probably shouldn't have been so vituperative,
> but I felt pretty strongly about it.
>
> The main thing "The Warrior Alternative" seems to overlook is
> that the first thing a non-Adept's player does is put a 5 in the
> Magical Aptitude box on his character sheet, freeing up--on
> average--10 characteristic points for other things like Physical
> Strength, Agility, and Endurance. Those 10 points alone are
> worth around 50,000 XP (a little less if more than one goes
> into EN) according to the Experience Point Cost Chart [87.8].
> That alone makes being a non-Adept worthwhile.
>
> But non-Adepts also have better Magic Resistance, don't
> have to use silvered (or even more expensive) weapons and
> armor, or spend precious XP raising Ranks in somewhat-lame
> General Knowledge Spells just so they can learn actually-
> useful Special Knowledge ones.
>
> No, "compensating" PCs who opt not to become Adepts is
> a rule favored only by those who either (1) have house-ruled
> their game to the point that the assumptions made by the
> game designers are no longer true, or (2) don't understand
> the DQ system very well. Sorry if that offends anyone out
> there, but that's how I see it.
>
> -Cameron King
>

Whoa! It never occurred to me to use that rule, in the inverse, at
character creation time! Damn good idea!!
Taking that into account, my sense of balance is satisfied. Of course,
unless one of you are "Gerard" C. Klug or Eric Goldberg, we have no way
of knowing if this is a "house rule" or if the designers intended it to
be used that way. (Pardon the jab, but c'mon, get off your "I follow
the exact rules" horse. And, you're not sorry if anyone's offended.
You're in the middle of a debate about rules! If anyone is offended,
they shouldn't be accessing e-mail without mommy or daddy holding their
hand! ^_^)

Anyway, thanks for the clarification. It's a better argument than,
"because!". It's been too damn long since I've played this game. Like
I mentioned somewhere else, no time and less money!

Cheers!
Jim

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

davis john wrote:

> Hmm, not sure I like the idea of any new character starting from scratch if
> they are to be in a highly advanced party.... You wouldnt see a 'dream
> team' hire on a complete rookie, so u wouldnt in an adventure. Like you say
> you wouldnt wanna rely on any new stranger to save your skin, you'd at least
> interview them, see there guild credentials, listen to their tavern tales,
> see their callused hands, battle wounds etc. I cant see grizzled
> adventurers taking on some snotty nosed kid straight out of enchantment
> school....
>
> JohnD

So, how do you handle a situation like this?

Thanks,
Jim

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

Hawthorne - well spoken sir!

That is why I make up my own monsters, and, when necessary, make
minor alterations to existing ones - there is no mystery and not much
suspense when someone says oh that's a so-and-so with the following
abilities...

When people actually role-play, the session IS an adventure.

I must agree with another proposition that was brought up - that a
group of RPGers are never entirely grown up (never mind if it is
valid or not, I like it!).

With that in mind, I'd like to add this to it: one is a mature RPGer
if his concern is for generating a character's character rather than
a collection of numerical advantages.

Hats off, to the person who, for example, gets the lower rated weapon
because that matches the persona that he has in mind. Although, I
can bet that all of us are 'guilty' of doing that. :)

I think that the first step in generating a character should be to
visualize what role you want to play. As a GM I disregard the race
roll when I can be assured that one would "play the part" - I don't
care if it is a giant or a shape-changer.

For myself, as a player, I would play a giant or a shape-changer, but
I pretty much don't because I'd rather role-play a half-Elf, Dwarf,
or Hobbit (ok - Halfling, if you like).


As for balance vs. a beginning PC in an experienced party, my
opinion, as a player, is to start from scratch every time. As a GM,
whatever the player prefers. For a beginning party, I generally
allow each PC to start with the maximum possible experience points.

As for advantages for an adept vs. a non-adept, so what? In the
course of their adventure(s)*, one of them would wish that they were
the other, or be glad that they're not (depending on the situation).
Although, at the risk of breaking my own 'ruling', I think that a non-
adept with adept-like skill abilities is very advantageous (though
still dependent on the situation).


* Singular or plural here, folks - depending on how long they
survive! :)


DQ is for RPGers, D&D (and the like) is for NPGers (Number-Play
Gamers).

Hmmm... I suppose that the converse is also has a tendency to be
true: DQ is not for NPGers

- Greg W.

I personally vouch for Loki's sadistic tedencies toward PC adepts.


X (
)
O (


In fact, I think my character(s) had gotten all of those maladies
(and more) mentioned below.

Hi Loki!

- Greg W.

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Loki Freyr" <loki@f...> wrote:
> Hi, John. I tried the "warrior option" out for a couple of
campaigns
> during my career. I think the reasoning in that article was that
it was
> often easier for a mage to get to Adventurer status more quickly
than a
> non-mage. Therefore, the theory goes, earlier in the campaign he
would
> start gaining double the experience points that a fighter-type would
> earn. Most mages have at least eight spells which they can get to
Rank
> 4 at a relatively low cost, whereas a fighter needs to get his
primary
> weapon and often his primary skill up to higher ranks as quickly as
> possible. Of course, he could jack up the cheapest 8 weapons and
skills
> to Rank 4, but he will have diluted his effectiveness, and in
practice
> players just don't do it.
>
> I have seen the theory in the article prove true with a couple of
> players. Mages can indeed get to Adventurer status surprisingly
> quickly, if 1) they are members of a large party and don't need to
> actually cast a lot of spells to survive, or 2) they are lucky
> dice-rollers.
>
> BUT most of the new mages in the game, in my experience, spend a
great
> deal of time blind, senile, and searching for an NPC wizard with a
high
> rank in the Remove Curse ritual. Unskilled spellcasters are often
> handicaps to their parties. As a GM, the backfire table alone is
enough
> to keep me playing DQ. I cannot mask my glee when a pc backfires,
or my
> disappointment when he suffers a mere waste of additional Fatigue
> points.
>
> Anyway, after testing the theory for myself, I don't think that
giving
> more starting XPs to non-mages is warranted. It just had the
effect of
> discouraging people from playing mages.
>
> However, I have for years given all brand-new characters a few
thousand
> XPs at the beginning of a brand-new campaign. The players have
more fun
> when they can start with competence with a weapon, or at least one
spell
> with which they have a 50% chance to cast.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M. Kahane [mailto:jkahane@c...]
> Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2003 6:21 AM
> To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Character Creation EXPs
>
> Hullo, Bruce,
>
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:11:17 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:
>
> >> One of the questions that I want to place into the FAQ files
is
> >>one that relates to Experience Points alloted when creating
> characters.
> >> How many Experience Points do folks give out when creating
characters
> >>of the various levels (ie., Mercenary, Adventurer, and Hero
level)?
> >
> >Not sure I'm following you. I never permitted character creation
of
> >higher-than-mercenary level, so beginning characters always got
the
> >"same" amount of XP (used the same table to roll them, that is).
>
> Hmm, well the table in DQ, 2nd Edititon, page 11, gives out a
> very basic amount of XPs, based on the character's Order of Birth,
and
> nothing more, since there were no EXP Multipliers given in that
> edition. (This seems to have been something that was added in the
> Social Status expansion that appeared in Dragon Magazine.) How does
> one create a starting character group to take on a total of five
orcs,
> when the characters will have anywhere between 10 and 250 Experience
> Points to allot to abilities and all? That's not a lot, and talk
> about your *bare* starting character.
>
> >>Do you treat Mages and non-Mages differently in this matter?
> >
> >Most assuredly not. I always believed that anyone who thought
mages
> and
> >non-mages should get different amounts of XP didn't understand the
game
> >system properly. (There was that article in "Dragon", wasn't
there,
> about
> >the guy who claimed that non-mages should get a bonus 1000 XP or
> something
> >like that? Grr, that made me so mad when I read it!)
>
> Ah, another person after my own heart in this regard, as I
always
> hated that article (I believe that was "The Warrior Alternative" or
> some such?). I agree with you about the allotment of EXPs to mages
and
> non-mages. Let's see what some of the other folks around here have
to
> say on the matter...
>
> .....Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal disease.
>
> JohnK
> e-mail: jkahane@c...
> web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

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

--- "John M. Kahane" <johnk-thinkpad@comnet.ca> wrote:

> Hullo, folks,
>
> Well, I have some new questions for the FAQ
> files that need to
> be addressed by folks, and was wondering what folks
> might think of
> this stuff. Any answers that folks want to toss
> into the mix on
> these are more than welcome...

> 4. What is the "Adventurers' Guild"? How does it
> operate and what
> does it do for me?

I'll go ahead and get the ball started with my two
cents.

I want to start this by saying what an interesting
concept I find to be locked up in these three words:
The Adventurer's Guild. It seems to say a very great
deal about the kind of world your players are in.

Adventurers, by nature, tend to be outcasts in society
of one sort or another. Misfits who couldn't or
wouldn't accept the more standard lives of the
craftsman, the farmer, the noble son. They are
necessarily an iconoclastic and independent bunch, and
not likely to be held in high-regard by any
"civilized" society (until an individual performs
deeds so heroic people have to acknowledge him or
her). So, one aspect of an Adventurer's Guild is that
it is a society within society for these outcasts.

The other intesting aspect of its existance is that it
can exist at all. There has certainly never been
anything like an Adventurer's Guild in our medieval
history (some argument could be made for mercenary
troups or buccaneer societies, but it's not quite the
same thing). What kind of world -needs- an
Adventurer's Guild, where dangers exist that a city
guard/king's army/mercenary troups/etc. can't or won't
deal with? A world where dragons, demons, evil
wizards, vampires, etc. are real and tangible threats,
of course. I personally just love the way the Guild
immediately implies "This ain't Kansas anymore."

What does the Guild do for player characters? I think
it's primary function for characters is the Guild
contract. This ties in with some of the recent
discussion about what to do when new characters want
to join established parties. How do you get around
the issues of character trust?

Consider when an adventuring party first forms. Of
course the -players- know they are sitting at the
table with the intention of working together. Trust
usually isn't an issue (btw, I know of groups where
even this isn't true, thankfully none I've been
in...). In the world of the player characters,
however, you should justify this mutual acceptance.
Here you have a group of people of typically very
diverse background and nature coming together for a
single purpose, usually making money in an insanely
dangerous way. Unless the characters have some
personal history together, why do they trust each
other with their lives so readily? Why should they?
In a similar vein, consider the well-established party
a newcomer wishes to join. How does the new guy know
the old vets aren't gonna abandon him or her if the
going gets tough. How do the old vets know the new
guy won't betray them or run at the first sign of
danger? In the end, how does any group know it won't
end up at each other's throats when the treasure is
before them? The answer: the Standard Guild Contract.

At this point, I'd like to point out what the implied
consequences of violating party trust and a standard
contract would be. From rule [79.2] 2nd ed, "A
blacklisted person may not hire from the Adventurer's
Guild, and there is a 2000 Silver Penny reward for the
incarceration in the Guild dungeon." Consider that
phrase, "the Guild dungeon". I think that's the
coolest. It reminds one that this is an organization
that has the resources of a very large number of
adventurers, many of very high accomplishment, that
can come crashing down on recalcitrant players. I
think its also worth pointing out that this is a Guild
in the medieval sense, and medieval guilds operated by
a set of business practices that, although perfectly
acceptable to the morality of the times, is found
today chiefly in organized crime.

Ultimately, the Adventurer's Guild is the mechanism
that allows many adventuring parties to exist. It is
the refuge of last, and probably harsh, justice.

The Guild should also be the source for all those
services that Adventuring parties inevitably need:
healing, curse removal, spell casting (that the party
mages can't do), commissioning of magic items,
training by higher Rank people, etc. Call it one-stop
shopping, I suppose. This combined with tithing is
also a guarantee of the Guild's on-going funding.
It's the place where paid jobs can be found and the
more "respectable" aspects of society can contract
party services without having to associate too
intimately with "riff-raff". It's a home when many
low-level adventurers don't yet have their own, room
and board always available. Its also the place where
the rumor mill is always running and adventurers can
hobnob with others in their "profession". Finally,
it's a Guild, and Guilds above all else protect their
members from the rest of society's whims.

Although this would probably vary from campaign to
campaign, I would also expect the Guild's high members
to have considerable influence as advisors and
counselors to the ruling authority of any land. These
people would be, after all, the heroes of reknown in
the land. Depending on the nature of your campaign,
that could be an important aspect of the operation of
the Guild.

Well, that was long. But, those are just a few ideas
I have about what an Adventuring Guild is, how it
operates, and what service (monetary or social) it
provides. I hope this seeds a little discussion. I'd
love to know what the Guild has been like in other
people's campaigns.

Mort

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

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

From: J. K. Hoffman

To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 9:31 PM

Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Re: Character Creation EXPs

Don Hawthorne wrote:
> J.K.:
> 
> Sounds like your game group might have a bad munchkin-infestation problem.
> 
>      :-)
> 
> Don

Actually, I'm not actively playing these days.  No time.  Less money.
But, munchkins are like termites in Texas.  Once you've had them, you're
always worried that they'll show up again! ^_^

And, I have to admit, I was a munchkin once, too.  I got older and grew
out of it!
Cheers!
Jim
--
"It's better to light one candle
   than to curse the darkness."
-Chinese Proverb and The Motto of the Christophers
                      http://www.christophers.org



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

3.  What are True Names, and how do they work?

In order to spark discussion here is my take on True Names (basically)

Before Creation there was Silence (or maybe Total Sound without Form).  Then the Creator Gods spoke and gave form to the sound and the sound gave way to form.

All things made in the "Divine Creation" in a DragonQuest world were given a Generic True Name at that time (The GM should decide whether this was done by a supreme being or by the first Namer. This name is in an ancient language, and the translation into the Common tongue would yield such terms as Man, Elf, Tiger, Oak, Bee, Rattlesnake, Granite, Rose, etc).

The word causes the essence of a thing (or the divine spark that all things are created with) to resonate and return to its true form for the word and the essence are one.

All such names when uttered in their ancient form by a Namer give the namer power to control the object.  A thing cannot hide its true form from the word, so that all spells of seeming and illusion fall before its true naming.  Likewise true magics of changing and shaping are broken when the true name of a thing is uttered.

The date and time of birth of a sentient entity will have a small, but significant, effect upon the course of his/her life. Some mana is invested by one of the Great Powers into the soul, or life-force, of every being born into a DragonQuest world.

Therefore all sentient entities (player character races, dragons, mermen, nagas, etc.) are given an Individual True Name upon reaching maturity; this name is either given to them by the aforementioned supreme being or the local Namer and it resonates to that extra mana that is theirs alone beyond merely that of their Generic form.

JohnR

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

From: J. K. Hoffman

To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 9:53 PM

Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Character Creation EXPs

davis john wrote:
> Hmm, not sure I like the idea of any new character starting from scratch if
> they are to be in a highly advanced party....  You wouldnt see a 'dream
> team' hire on a complete rookie, so u wouldnt in an adventure.  Like you say
> you wouldnt wanna rely on any new stranger to save your skin, you'd at least
> interview them, see there guild credentials, listen to their tavern tales,
> see their callused hands, battle wounds etc.  I cant see grizzled
> adventurers taking on some snotty nosed kid straight out of enchantment
> school....
>
> JohnD

So, how do you handle a situation like this?

Thanks,
Jim

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



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

Not in the Tactical Phase, you can't. Not before the fight is over, one way or the other. And it's doubtful anyone will offer a seocnd invitation to go adventuring to any mage who spends his time taking his armor off while his comrades are getting chopped into bits.

 

For another, investment.  For a third,
talents.  Sure, there are drawbacks, but they are more than out-weighed
by the benefits.  However, someone pointed out a solution to the balance
issue I see.  I'll comment on that in a reply to that message.

I kind of can't shake the feeling that you are focusing on playing the rules here, rather than playing the game.

>     While DQ

certainly has a *lot* of number crunching, it really isn't

> about

balance. It never was.

I disagree.  The Colleges are all about balance.  In fact, they balance
each other as well as anything in a magic system I've ever seen.

 

You have to look at the system as a whole -- combat, weapons, monsters, skills -- not just the Colleges, to see that there is no real regard for "balance". Simply because there is no such thing in the real world. Hence, there was no strong incentive to simulate it in the DQ world.

However, DQ is *realistic*.  By that I mean that life if rough.  You
start out at a disadvantage and fight your way to the top, or you die.
That is what I love about the game.  To me, balance is about all the
starting characters having the same, or a similar, chance of survival.

They do have the same, or a similar, chance of survival. It begins with avoiding outright combat whenever possible. The fact is, some players are just smarter than others, and as DQ lacks an Intelligence attribute (my favorite aspect of the game, I think), ten characters starting off with the even chance you propose are still going to suffer fatalities in direct proportion to how poorly they are played, experience bonus or no, bad dice luck or good dice luck.

>    It isn't my job as the GM to design a wizard's

stronghold the

> players can "beat". It's my job to design one that the

*wizard himself*

> would design, one in which he feels secure, and which,

hopefully,

> intruders *cannot* "beat", whether or not those intruders

happen to be

> player-characters. I don't put in A-Class-weapon-immune

monsters if I

> know the players are all armed with bows and rapiers,

because the

> game-world is full of other creatures who use all kinds of

weapons.

>     It is the players' job to *figure out a

way to beat the design*, and

> my further responsibility to help them

have fun doing it.

No, you're right, it's not.  However, it is your responsibility to
understand what your players expect.  It didn't sound like they were
having fun.  (Of course, your campaign *might* have been suffering from
a bout of munchkin-itis! ^_^ )

    Actually, that particular adventure is the one my players have most often requested another crack at. Once they understood what they were doing wrong -- playing the rules instead of playing the game -- they tackled the problem in an entirely new way. They realized the powerful magic items they had acquired weren't of themselves sufficient to the task at hand. They were clever and creative and made their own opportunities without worrying about how to second guess me as the GM.

    For the record, it actually is not my reponsibility to know what my players expect. I don't presume to read minds, I'm running an entertainment. I know what my players *like*, but that's a very different thing from knowing what they *expect*. Often from me, they say they *expect* a huge, bloody battle, and that' when I like to throw a non-combative roleplaying session at them.

    Accommodating what players say they *expect* instead of running something that is enjoyable for everyone -- and the GM is everyone, too -- is the fastest way to leach the fun out of any roleplaying game.

 

>     DQ is based on the concept that nothing comes

without a price. And

> sometimes that price is having to do without.

Player characters in DQ

> can do *anything*, but just as in the real

world, they cannot do

> *everything*.
> 
>     That's what RuneQuest and D&D are

for.

> 
> Don Hawthorne
>

Actually, I disagree.  Given enough time, and enough characters, they
can do *everything*.  It just takes a much, much, much longer time.
And, is more fun and more realistic along the way! ^_^

  True; and enough monkeys at enough typewriters will eventually reproduce Shakespeare, but who wants to wait around for it? I suppose one could write a program which generated DQ characters and calculated random threats, dice roll responses, experience point awards and training times and we could see enough time and enough characters reach levels of godhood far beyond the design parameters of the game. It would probably take about two seconds per character and would be as much fun as watching paint dry.

    And it wouldn't be any more fun if the players did it over the course of far too many campaigns.

    Because the problem with running characters to a level where they can do *everything* is that there is no longer any risk, or thrill, or or value in doing *anything*. Long before that happens, the players should have the good grace to retire their Heroes to towers or castles or thrones and start running newbies.

Don Hawthorne

Steven Wiles <mortdemuerte@yahoo.com> wrote on 26/08/2003 13:35:13:

> --- "John M. Kahane" <johnk-thinkpad@comnet.ca> wrote:
>
> > 4. What is the "Adventurers' Guild"? How does it
> > operate and what
> > does it do for me?
>
> I'll go ahead and get the ball started with my two
> cents.
>
> I want to start this by saying what an interesting
> concept I find to be locked up in these three words:
> The Adventurer's Guild. It seems to say a very great
> deal about the kind of world your players are in.
>

<snipped for length>

>
> Well, that was long. But, those are just a few ideas
> I have about what an Adventuring Guild is, how it
> operates, and what service (monetary or social) it
> provides. I hope this seeds a little discussion. I'd
> love to know what the Guild has been like in other
> people's campaigns.
>

From our old campaign, the Guild played a nicely elegant real-world role.
Since we had many players (around 25 at the peak) and multiple GMs, we had
the luxury of being able to swap PCs around into different groups.

But how did we make it believable?

Simple - the Guild 'bulletin board'. About once a month (or so) the GMs
would put up the equivalent of advertisments, written as if they were
placed in the Guildhall by people wanting to hire adventurers. Players
would read them, and contact the appropriate GM. With the ability to
schedule training time and such, PCs could all be available to start at
about the same time in-game, and the adventure would be on, with a group
of characters that may well never have even met before.

One of our original concerns was that the groups so formed wouldn't be
'balanced' for adventuring. But funnily, it never seemed to happen. Maybe
we wer just lucky? Or maybe it doesn't matter what character types you
have - if you roleplay it properly, you'll use the strengths your party
has to compensate for those it doesn't...

Stephen Lister

Message From: "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@comnet.ca>

> Hullo, Don,
>
> In a message of Friday, August 22nd, 2003, you wrote,
>
> >> One of the questions that I want to place into the FAQ files is
> >>one that relates to Experience Points alloted when creating characters.
> >>How many Experience Points do folks give out when creating characters
> >>of the various levels (ie., Mercenary, Adventurer, and Hero level)?
> >>Do you treat Mages and non-Mages differently in this matter?
> >
> >I use the charts in the books.
>
> Ah, Don, I don't mean the costs for the skills and the like as
> noted on the EP charts at the back of the book. What I meant was how
> many Experience Points do you give the player to create the character,
> using the EP Cost charts at the back of the book?
>
> >I run what a friend calls "dirty-nails-fantasy", where PC's start
> >from the ground up.
>
> Yep, that's pretty much my approach as well, although I once
> started the DQ campaign off with high level Adventurer characters.
> Ran it as a five or six session campaign to see what it would be like.
> :)
>
> >If new characters come along and are overshadowed too
> >severely by much more experienced PC's, I just brevet
> >them a certain number of Ranks and (rarely) Attribute Points
> >to bring them to a more experienced level, though still not
> >to the level of PC's who've been in the game for the duration.
>
> But see, this is where questions start to come up. How many Ranks
> do you assign them? On what basis do you assign the Ranks? Why
> aren't they playing new characters, from scratch as well? See this is
> where some of the really neat questions start to get asked.
>

Our GM never gave these kinds of gifts. As PCs we either protected the PC
"kid" or left him behind if we thought it would get too tough. There have
been times when a "kid" would roll a critical hit or something and save the
day. My only retired character would never had made it to hero if a first
adventure character, rolled up per the generation rules, had not saved the
party. Having PCs of differing abilities and levels is just part of the DQ
way.

Message From: "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@comnet.ca>

> Hullo, Bruce,
>
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 17:11:17 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:
>
> >> One of the questions that I want to place into the FAQ files is
> >>one that relates to Experience Points alloted when creating characters.
> >> How many Experience Points do folks give out when creating characters
> >>of the various levels (ie., Mercenary, Adventurer, and Hero level)?
> >
> >Not sure I'm following you. I never permitted character creation of
> >higher-than-mercenary level, so beginning characters always got the
> >"same" amount of XP (used the same table to roll them, that is).
>
> Hmm, well the table in DQ, 2nd Edititon, page 11, gives out a
> very basic amount of XPs, based on the character's Order of Birth, and
> nothing more, since there were no EXP Multipliers given in that
> edition. (This seems to have been something that was added in the
> Social Status expansion that appeared in Dragon Magazine.) How does
> one create a starting character group to take on a total of five orcs,
> when the characters will have anywhere between 10 and 250 Experience
> Points to allot to abilities and all? That's not a lot, and talk
> about your *bare* starting character.
>

A smart GM will have the non-random encounters fit the party. I remember
many new character deaths that can be attributed to random encounters.

> >>Do you treat Mages and non-Mages differently in this matter?
> >
> >Most assuredly not. I always believed that anyone who thought mages and
> >non-mages should get different amounts of XP didn't understand the game
> >system properly. (There was that article in "Dragon", wasn't there,

about

> >the guy who claimed that non-mages should get a bonus 1000 XP or

something

> >like that? Grr, that made me so mad when I read it!)
>
> Ah, another person after my own heart in this regard, as I always
> hated that article (I believe that was "The Warrior Alternative" or
> some such?). I agree with you about the allotment of EXPs to mages and
> non-mages. Let's see what some of the other folks around here have to
> say on the matter...

XP is XP. It matters not if you are a mage, a fighter or craftsman.

Message From: "davis john" <jrd123@hotmail.com>

> Hmm, not sure I like the idea of any new character starting from scratch

if

> they are to be in a highly advanced party.... You wouldnt see a 'dream
> team' hire on a complete rookie, so u wouldnt in an adventure. Like you

say

> you wouldnt wanna rely on any new stranger to save your skin, you'd at

least

> interview them, see there guild credentials, listen to their tavern tales,
> see their callused hands, battle wounds etc. I cant see grizzled
> adventurers taking on some snotty nosed kid straight out of enchantment
> school....
>

This happens in real life, so why not in role-play? The GM can be creative
about it. PCs can not (perhaps "should not" would be a better phrase) be
100% independent. Why can't the local Noble or Captain of the Guard or Red
Lantern Madame twist a few arms and have the young "cousin", nephew/neice,
"child of someone I owe a favor to" be unloaded on the "dream team"???

I for one find "dream teams" to be boring after a while. I retired a hero
PC for this reason, and started again with a bare bones new character. It
is amazing how much more interesting it is when a party has a "kid" to
protect.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:04:26 -0000, "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Mages get talents and all General Knowledge Spells and Rituals at
>rank 0 for free. This is powerful. Where's the ballance in that?

* Restrictions on character design. A mage needs an MA value. A non-mage
can allocate the minimum and use the extra points elsewhere.

* Restrictions on armour and weapons, both in what the mage can actually use
(due to restricted physical stats, see above) and also in what the mage can
use and still use magic (cold iron restrictions etc.).

* To be any good, a mage needs to concentrate on magic when expending XP.
This can be a limitation in gaining other important skills. There can also
be curious feedback effects in that some colleges have higher overall XP
costs than others, and many colleges have spells/rituals that a typical PC
will never need or want to cast (and thus can't gain any rank in). Yet
restrictions on MA can force the mage to use magic he doesn't really want to
use (risking backfire etc.) just so he can gain Rank in them so he can
"clear" them from his MA allowance and gain useful magic. Non-mages get
what they need and ignore what they don't.

Need I go on?

>What do you do if a non mage wants to learn spells later?

I've never had a player want to do this, but if they did I'd use the same
rules as for a mage who wants to change Colleges. (Six months study, IIRC.)
A non-mage doesn't have any MA worth mentioning, so unless they have a
strong desire to become a Namer, or prepare for it in advance by expending a
*lot* of XP on raising their MA, it's just not an issue.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:11:53 -0500, "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>Bingo! *That* was my point. There is, in fact, *per the rules as
>written*, an advantage to starting a character as a mage, but none for
>having a "mundane" character. I also agree that the "Warrior
>Alternative" is a little too free with the EXP. But, something to
>balance out the inequity seems reasonable.

Like I said, a limited understanding of how the game actually works in
practise leads to this belief.

>True enough, but I still see little incentive, other than general
>maturity of players (and when did you see that last in an RPG
>session!?!), to have a non-mage. So, I think that some kind of balance
>should be allowed.

Little incentive? In my experience the first combat the character gets into
makes the new adept wish he'd studied fighting instead ....

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:10:03 -0700, "D. Cameron King"
<monarchy2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>This came up in our campaign only once (when a powerful
>magic item that raised MA by 5 points came into our
>possession, and a warrior-type wanted to use it to become
>an Illusionist just for the Witchsight talent).

>(After finishing his training, this character gave back the
>MA-boosting magic item to the Adept PC it properly
>belonged to, and "forgot" spells G-3, G-4, and G-5, since
>he no longer had enough MA to know that many spells
>and rituals. He still had the Witchsight talent, though,
>so he was happy.)

I would not have permitted this as GM. On applying for entry to the
Illusionist College, the adept-to-be is asked to strip down to the bare
necessities and demonstrate his raw MA talents. Oops, without that item in
his grubby little paws he doesn't qualify. "Goodbye, go away, and stop
wasting our time."

IOW, the MA requirement has to be *innate* to the PC, not something
"temporary".

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:20:47 -0500, "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>And, that is the fault in your argument. That would mean, in game
>terms, that not choosing a college of magic, and getting those benefits,
>is a voluntary penalization. What fool would do that?

What penalisation? Not being a mage gives you access to many options that
being a mage prohibits you from (or, at best, makes extremely difficult).
What fool *wouldn't* is the more reasonable question.

>No, really, it doesn't. It's not a "free XP" system, either.

Of course it is. "Waahh! He gets spells and I don't! I want more XP!" As
if the spells the other character gets make the new adept somehow more
powerful than the guy who can wear whatever armour he wants, use whatever
weapon he wants, buy any skill that takes his fancy and never has to worry
about "backfire".

>No, don't be sorry, be more open minded. Think about the argument
>first, then make your decision. The idea comes from a thoughtful
>consideration of costs vs. benefits of being a mage vs. not being a mage.

I see ... if I disagree with you, it means I didn't spend any time thinking
about it. Glad to hear that you're so "open-minded"!

>Again, what problems to beginning mages have that every other beginning
>characters don't have? Oh, they can't wear armor. Right. That
>balances out all the entry-level talents. Whee! It's all balanced out now!

Like I said, you haven't understood all the restrictions that are involved
in being a mage. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the limitations on armour
are just one part, and only a small one at that.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 12:24:42 +0000, "John M. Kahane"
<johnk-thinkpad@comnet.ca> wrote:

>1. What spells can cause damage to Endurance and what spells can
>only do Fatigue damage?

As best as I can recall, no spell does damage *directly* to EN if the target
still has FT remaining. One could house-rule that certain specific spells
do EN on a "special" result, but if so they wouldn't gain the "doubling"
effects that normally accrue on a "special".

>2. Are illusions (College of Illusions) "real"?

I guess this question is asking "do the illusions exist outside of the
target's perception?" I would say "no". (Some games, e.g., RuneQuest,
treat illusions as "temporary reality" but I don't see anything in the DQ
write-up to indicate that it should be true for this game.)

>3. What are True Names, and how do they work?

That's a complicated question. I think the writeup in the Namer's College
is as good a "general" summary as you can get. Anything more detailed falls
into the "campaign-specific" mode.

>4. What is the "Adventurers' Guild"? How does it operate and what
>does it do for me?

In my campaign, it doesn't. I don't like the concept and think it's silly
metagaming.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

I'm almost convinced, but for a couple of points

1)non-mages can't use *any* armour and weapons, often their starting
money precludes this, one of my current starting PC could only afford
a sling, spear, dagger and heavy clothing (still suprisingly
effective in combat). As a mage he would have been able to use just
about all of these (except the dagger) and have spells. If you run
in the bronze age this disadvantage disapears, not that I know of
anyone who has but its an interesting idea...

2) How realistic is it that all non-mages have just 5 MA? Speaking
as a geneticist my assumption would be that there is a continous
range of values, probably with an average the same as any other
stat. I'm not saying it can't happen, just unlikly. And yes we all,
myself included, have all our non-mage PCs with 5 MA :--)

> >Mages get talents and all General Knowledge Spells and Rituals at
> >rank 0 for free. This is powerful. Where's the ballance in that?
>
> * Restrictions on character design. A mage needs an MA value. A

non-mage

> can allocate the minimum and use the extra points elsewhere.
>
> * Restrictions on armour and weapons, both in what the mage can

actually use

> (due to restricted physical stats, see above) and also in what the

mage can

> use and still use magic (cold iron restrictions etc.).
>
> * To be any good, a mage needs to concentrate on magic when

expending XP.

> This can be a limitation in gaining other important skills. There

can also

> be curious feedback effects in that some colleges have higher

overall XP

> costs than others, and many colleges have spells/rituals that a

typical PC

> will never need or want to cast (and thus can't gain any rank in).

Yet

> restrictions on MA can force the mage to use magic he doesn't

really want to

> use (risking backfire etc.) just so he can gain Rank in them so he

can

> "clear" them from his MA allowance and gain useful magic. Non-

mages get

> what they need and ignore what they don't.
>
> Need I go on?
>
> >What do you do if a non mage wants to learn spells later?
>
> I've never had a player want to do this, but if they did I'd use

the same

> rules as for a mage who wants to change Colleges. (Six months

study, IIRC.)

> A non-mage doesn't have any MA worth mentioning, so unless they

have a

> strong desire to become a Namer, or prepare for it in advance by

expending a

> *lot* of XP on raising their MA, it's just not an issue.

Hullo, Jason,

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 09:56:44 -0500, Jason Winter wrote:

> > Now, this is another question that can be raised and dealt with
>>in the FAQ and all. Characters do, unfortunately, die or get replaced
> >when players leave and new players come into the game, and so the
> >matter of how many EXPs to generate their characters based on
>>becomes another issue.
> >
> > Anyone else want to comment on this?
>
>In my campaign, characters replaced after a death come in with 75% of the
>exp the character that died had (we call keep track of exp, so this is no
>big deal). A new character coming in to an ongoing campaign starts with
>75% of the exp of the character with the least exp already playing in the
>campaign. I've been playing this forever and it has worked out very well.

Hmm, that seems to be a pretty good arrangement to have, Jason,
and given how long I believe you've been running the game, I think that
this is a good solution to a dilemma that I'm sure has faced many a
DRAGONQUEST GM. I'll be interested to hear what some of the other
folks here think on this subject.

.....If you want your dinner, do not insult the cook. (Chinese Proverb)

JohnK
e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane

Hullo, Gabriel,

As you may have noticed, I changed the subject line to keep some
kind of idea about what the subject we're talking about really is, even
though the EXP topic is still of relevance here. :)

In a message of Monday, August 25th 2003, you wrote:

>>>In our group, we ask to the players to write a background
>>>of his character.

>> I suspect that most players write out backgrounds for their
>>characters. Usually, the background is done after the character
>>is generated, or while the player is creating the character to
>>rationalise and provide more depth on why a given skill or
>>whatever was chosen, or how a background fits in.
>
>We use to give them a week time to create the background

Hmm, that's not bad...although I have to admit that I've found
that most of my players require up to three weeks to create their
backgrounds and all. What do you do in the event that the player
doesn't get the background to you in a timely fashion?

>>>That a way to get a guide of the personals matters of all
>>>players and penalize then when don't follow their ouw screept.
>>
>> The key here becomes what kinds of words, phrases, and
>>the like serve as a guideline of how many Ranks to give the
>>character in a given skill or ability?
>

A mix between both. Normaly, the craracters "ask" for items and

>ranks in their background, like "...give me a rank 2 in shortsword..."
>or even some item. We use our "malicious mind" to re-interpretate
>what they want. We don't give more than Rk. 3 in any. Exept we
>considerated the way he/she ask for it deserved more.

Ah, okay, this makes sense to me and I'm sure that it's a system
that works well, if it's not abused. Sounds like a good system to use,
although I suppose it won't be for everyone.

>>>Before that, we just gived 2000 XP plus the rule's table.
>>
>> Hmm, so the 2,000 XPs would be for the basic Mercenary
>>character, right? :)
>
>Always. We never star with adventurers. From the bottom to the top.

Ah, good, a fellow DQ GM after my own heart. :)

.....Hex Dump (n.): A place where witches cast away used curses.

JohnK
e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane

Hullo, J.K.,,

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 11:47:12 -0500, J. K. Hoffman wrote:

>>>Do you treat Mages and non-Mages differently in this matter?
>>
>>Most assuredly not. I always believed that anyone who thought
>>>mages and non-mages should get different amounts of XP
>>didn't understand the game system properly. (There was that
>>article in "Dragon", wasn't there, about the guy who claimed
>>that non-mages should get a bonus 1000 XP or something
>>>like that? Grr, that made me so mad when I read it!)
>>
>> Ah, another person after my own heart in this regard, as
>>I always hated that article (I believe that was "The Warrior
>>Alternative" or some such?). I agree with you about the
>>allotment of EXPs to mages and non-mages. Let's see what
>>some of the other folks around here have to say on the matter...
>
>Hmm, okay, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with
>you both on this one.

Well, you certainly can do so. The folks around here seem to
have a few disagreements on the mailing list from time to time about
matters DQ. :)

>The "Warrior Alternative" article was based on a simple idea, namely,
>that the time it takes to learn the basics of magic are worth something.

Actually, within game terms, they're not. The problem really
becomes one of how many points one should allot to skills to
"compensate" for this (even if such a thing were desirable). If this
is based on the effectiveness of magic for beginning players, then the
argument falls apart ot begin with, simply because there are more
deficits to choosing a Mage than one might expect. To start with,
taking a Mage means the characters has to shuffle the Characteristic
Points given to begin with into more magic-oriented ones, rather than
having a non-Mage balance to their stats. Second, not all Magic
Colleges have the same usefulness in play, and different Colleges have
differing numbers of spells, talents, and rituals that the character
begins with. How does one determine the EXPs that should "compensate"
for being a Namer, as opposed to being a Water Mage, or being a Greater
Summoner?

When push comes to shove, two things are important here. Having
a Mage player character in the party is not a good reason to suddenly
give a whole bunch of additional EXPs to create one's character with.
Second, and more importantly, I always got the impression that the
"Warrior Alternative" article was written by someone who had never
played or GMed DRAGONQUEST at all.

But again, we'll just to agree to disagree. :)

.....Childhood is the kingdom where nobody dies. (Edna St. Vincent Milay)

JohnK
e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane

Bruce Probst wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 07:20:47 -0500, "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> What penalisation? Not being a mage gives you access to many options that
> being a mage prohibits you from (or, at best, makes extremely difficult).
> What fool *wouldn't* is the more reasonable question.
>

Someone who wanted the talents later, but wanted armor today.

> Of course it is. "Waahh! He gets spells and I don't! I want more XP!" As
> if the spells the other character gets make the new adept somehow more
> powerful than the guy who can wear whatever armour he wants, use whatever
> weapon he wants, buy any skill that takes his fancy and never has to worry
> about "backfire".

True, there is the backfire table to slow someone down. However, if I'm
willing to not cast spells *right now*, why shouldn't I wear armor?
What if I invest the spells into something, then put my armor on? Do
you still see no advantage that a non-mage gets?

>>No, don't be sorry, be more open minded. Think about the argument
>>first, then make your decision. The idea comes from a thoughtful
>>consideration of costs vs. benefits of being a mage vs. not being a mage.
>
>
> I see ... if I disagree with you, it means I didn't spend any time thinking
> about it. Glad to hear that you're so "open-minded"!

No, that's not what I said. Think about the argument that's being
*currently* made, not past arguments. And, if you look at my other
posts, you'd see that someone else made a suggestion that I do, in fact,
like better than the "Warrior Alternative". I offer that as evidence of
an open mind.

> Like I said, you haven't understood all the restrictions that are involved
> in being a mage. As I've pointed out elsewhere, the limitations on armour
> are just one part, and only a small one at that.
>

Like, I've said, you haven't understood all the advantages, either. As
I've pointed out right here, there are more advantages than the spells.

In either case, I'm sure glad I don't play in your game group. We'd
never see eye to eye.

Enjoy your campaign!
Jim

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

Hullo, Steven,

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 13:04:54 -0700 (PDT), Steven Wiles wrote:

>> This is, to me, one of the strengths of DRAGONQUEST, that
>>one can actually see some of the origins of the various Colleges
>>of Magic in literary and mythological sources, and it's what makes
>>the Colleges so realistic in many ways. One of the Colleges that
>> I worked on for some time (although I found someone else's
>>variant of that College, and revised my own to work in some of
>>its elements) was that of Mirror Magics. Magical mirrors are so
>>common in mythology and fantasy literature, and it was a variant
>>that I really wanted to do something with, so I did. I've only had
>>a couple of Mirror Mages over the years, but they brought a
>>whole new dimension to the game; heck, some of the stuff you
>>can do with mirrors is kind of neat. :)
>
>There was a two-book series by Stephen R. Donaldson that
>featured a magic system based entirely on mirrors, "The Mirror
>of Her Dreams" and "A Man Rides Through".

Yep, the last revision that I made to the College was based on my
reading those two books by Donaldson. Had some interesting stuff in
them that I felt would fit the College nicely. :)

>On reflection (no pun intended), the system featured in those
>books had a lot in common with Lesser Summoning.

Yeah, it did...which I found amusing. :)

Mind you, this raises an interesting point... How many folks
have added Colleges of Magic to the game because they've liked what
they saw in literature or because they had a neat concept strike them
for a new College?

.....Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal disease.

JohnK
e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane

As an ex-geneticist Id say it very unlikely theyd all have an MA of 5. Id
say it more likely MA is zero in the vast majority of cases, and therefore
MA should be a secondary stat....whole different kettle of ball-games
JohnD, UK-DQer

2) How realistic is it that all non-mages have just 5 MA? Speaking

>as a geneticist my assumption would be that there is a continous
>range of values, probably with an average the same as any other
>stat. I'm not saying it can't happen, just unlikly. And yes we all,
>myself included, have all our non-mage PCs with 5 MA :--)
>

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@c...>
wrote:

> Hullo, J.K.,,
>
> Actually, within game terms, they're not. The problem really
> becomes one of how many points one should allot to skills to
> "compensate" for this (even if such a thing were desirable). If

this

> is based on the effectiveness of magic for beginning players, then

the

> argument falls apart ot begin with, simply because there are more
> deficits to choosing a Mage than one might expect. To start with,
> taking a Mage means the characters has to shuffle the Characteristic
> Points given to begin with into more magic-oriented ones, rather

than

> having a non-Mage balance to their stats. Second, not all Magic
> Colleges have the same usefulness in play, and different Colleges

have

> differing numbers of spells, talents, and rituals that the character
> begins with. How does one determine the EXPs that

should "compensate"

> for being a Namer, as opposed to being a Water Mage, or being a

Greater

> Summoner?
>
> When push comes to shove, two things are important here.

Having

> a Mage player character in the party is not a good reason to

suddenly

> give a whole bunch of additional EXPs to create one's character

with.

> Second, and more importantly, I always got the impression that the
> "Warrior Alternative" article was written by someone who had never
> played or GMed DRAGONQUEST at all.
>
> But again, we'll just to agree to disagree. :)

Perhaps we just see a difference in extremes. I certainly didn't
like the extremes the "Warrior Alternative" took the percieved
problem. And, I really liked the inverse application of the EXP for
Attribute points rule. Of course, a mage can use this to sacrifice,
say, Physical Strength to get more skills, but the balance is still
struck by a non-mage sacrificing MA points for more EXP. It's really
a very elegant solution, I think. And, it ought to satisfy the most
rigid of the "Must Follow Only Written Rules" camp, as well. (Okay,
maybe not, but it's the best shot at it! ^_^ )

Cheers!
Jim

Hullo, J.K,

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:43:35 -0500, J. K. Hoffman wrote:

>Nope, I still disagree. There are definite benefits to being a
>non-spell casting mage.

Huh? That's something of a contradiction in terms. Why take a
Mage, if you're not going to cast spells?

>For one, I can always shed the armor and cast a spell, if
>I need to do so.

hehe Check the time requirement for shedding armour in combat,
Jim. Not short, for sure.

>For another, investment.

Invested items at low Ranks aren't all that effective. Add the
backfire element to them, and well..

>For a third, talents. Sure, there are drawbacks, but they are
>more than out-weighed by the benefits.

I think that depends on what Talents one is considering... and
bear in mind that one must still meet the minimum Magic Aptitude
requirement to be a Mage of a given College, regardless of whether one
wants to cast spells or not. That means having to put the points into
MA rather than the non-combat Characteristics.


.....Perhaps the narration for year five should just be, "RUN FOR IT!" (JMS)

JohnK
e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane

Hullo, Loki,

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:34:07 -0700, Loki Freyr wrote:

>I tried the "warrior option" out for a couple of campaigns during
>my career. I think the reasoning in that article was that it was
>often easier for a mage to get to Adventurer status more quickly
>than a non-mage.

That certainly seemed to be the premise for the article, or so I
have always thought.

>Therefore, the theory goes, earlier in the campaign he would
>start gaining double the experience points that a fighter-type
>would earn. Most mages have at least eight spells which they
>can get to Rank 4 at a relatively low cost, whereas a fighter
>needs to get his primary weapon and often his primary skill up
>to higher ranks as quickly as possible.

I don't buy this for a moment. Most of the time, the players
playing Mages are going to raise their spells in accordance with how
they view the character, more on the roleplaying side of things. And
given that the spell usually costs (EXM x Rank to be achieved), they
are not that easy to increase, since you can't skip a level. At the
lower Ranks, spells are certainly cheaper to raise than most skills,
but given that one can only raise a spell that one has used, what the
heck is a Mage character supposed to do?

>Of course, he could jack up the cheapest 8 weapons and skills
>to Rank 4, but he will have diluted his effectiveness, and in practice
>players just don't do it.

Yeah, but weapons are commonly easier to raise than anything else,
except maybe Languages. :)

>I have seen the theory in the article prove true with a couple of
>players. Mages can indeed get to Adventurer status surprisingly
>quickly, if 1) they are members of a large party and don't need to
>actually cast a lot of spells to survive, or 2) they are lucky
>dice-rollers.

Yeah, but if they aren't casting the spells, they can't increase
the Ranks of said spells. So, if they're learning new spells, they
have to be learning them from teachers. I would argue that it's
easier to find someone to teach you to be a Courtesan, Ranger, or
Mechanic than it is to find someone to teach you magic - but that's a
function of the extent to which one has magic in one's campaign.

>BUT most of the new mages in the game, in my experience,
>spend a great deal of time blind, senile, and searching for an
>NPC wizard with a high rank in the Remove Curse ritual.
>Unskilled spellcasters are often handicaps to their parties.

Exactly. A character who starts as a non-Mage is at least
effective most of the time at what he does in combat, assuming he chose
combat skills, but for Mages, well...it can be a bad thing in the
beginning of one's career. :)

.....Books are not made for furniture, but there is nothing else that so
beautifully furnishes a house. (H.W. Beecher)

JohnK
e-mail: jkahane@comnet.ca
web page: http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Don Hawthorne" <ravenglass@e...>
wrote:

> Not in the Tactical Phase, you can't. Not before the fight is over,

one way or the other. And it's doubtful anyone will offer a seocnd
invitation to go adventuring to any mage who spends his time taking
his armor off while his comrades are getting chopped into bits.

Okay, you've got a point there. But, how many starting characters
can even afford armor?

> I kind of can't shake the feeling that you are focusing on playing

the rules here, rather than playing the game.

Not at all. If I could invest a spell in advance of going into a
dangerous situation, then strap on armor, I would do it. That's just
straight up survival. As an adventurer, I would do everything I
could to give myself an advantage. If I could, I'd use GPS to
navigate! It's just how I am. Old Boy Scout training, I guess.
("Be Prepared!")

> You have to look at the system as a whole -- combat, weapons,

monsters, skills -- not just the Colleges, to see that there is no
real regard for "balance". Simply because there is no such thing in
the real world. Hence, there was no strong incentive to simulate it
in the DQ world.

Again, I think we're on the same page here, really. "Balance", as
such, may not have been a stated goal of the game designers, but it's
in there. The idea of trading EXP for attributes, for instance, as a
way to make up for a starting lack. I think we're just using balance
differently.

> They do have the same, or a similar, chance of survival. It begins

with avoiding outright combat whenever possible. The fact is, some
players are just smarter than others, and as DQ lacks an Intelligence
attribute (my favorite aspect of the game, I think), ten characters
starting off with the even chance you propose are still going to
suffer fatalities in direct proportion to how poorly they are played,
experience bonus or no, bad dice luck or good dice luck.

Well, sure, some folks are luckier than others, but it's still fairly
balanced. Even a lucky roll doesn't make a particular character
indestructible. I don't have the rules in front of me, but I recall
minimums and maximums for the various starting Attribute
point "groups" that, to my way of thinking, were geared toward
balance. At least, not letting anyone get too much advantage in a
particular area right off.

> No, you're right, it's not. However, it is your responsibility to
> understand what your players expect. It didn't sound like they

were

> having fun. (Of course, your campaign *might* have been suffering

from

> a bout of munchkin-itis! ^_^ )
>
> Actually, that particular adventure is the one my players have

most often requested another crack at. Once they understood what they
were doing wrong -- playing the rules instead of playing the game --
they tackled the problem in an entirely new way. They realized the
powerful magic items they had acquired weren't of themselves
sufficient to the task at hand. They were clever and creative and
made their own opportunities without worrying about how to second
guess me as the GM.

> For the record, it actually is not my reponsibility to know

what my players expect. I don't presume to read minds, I'm running an
entertainment. I know what my players *like*, but that's a very
different thing from knowing what they *expect*. Often from me, they
say they *expect* a huge, bloody battle, and that' when I like to
throw a non-combative roleplaying session at them.

> Accommodating what players say they *expect* instead of running

something that is enjoyable for everyone -- and the GM is everyone,
too -- is the fastest way to leach the fun out of any roleplaying
game.

Ah, I meant, what style of game they expect. I mean, what's fun to
your players? Solving puzzles? Monty Haul? Of course, if their
idea of fun isn't yours, I don't imagine they'd remain your players
for very long. And, conversely, they should know what to expect from
you. If they don't, they ought to be smart enough to ask.

> Actually, I disagree. Given enough time, and enough characters,

they

> can do *everything*. It just takes a much, much, much longer time.
> And, is more fun and more realistic along the way! ^_^
>
> True; and enough monkeys at enough typewriters will eventually

reproduce Shakespeare, but who wants to wait around for it? I suppose
one could write a program which generated DQ characters and
calculated random threats, dice roll responses, experience point
awards and training times and we could see enough time and enough
characters reach levels of godhood far beyond the design parameters
of the game. It would probably take about two seconds per character
and would be as much fun as watching paint dry.

> And it wouldn't be any more fun if the players did it over the

course of far too many campaigns.

> Because the problem with running characters to a level where

they can do *everything* is that there is no longer any risk, or
thrill, or or value in doing *anything*. Long before that happens,
the players should have the good grace to retire their Heroes to
towers or castles or thrones and start running newbies.

> Don Hawthorne

Actually, they tried that monkey experiment with a computer. The
monkeys threw excrement at the screen. No, really:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20030509/D7QTTJHG0.html

But, anyway.... What I meant was, there are no limits to DQ. You
can do everything, if you spend way, way too much time working at
it. Not that I think someone *should* do it, just that it is, in
fact, *possible*. But, whatever.

Enjoy the monkey story!
Jim

For the people that was asking why a character would join the AG, this is the
Adventurer's Guild Ad I sent to the party I am GM'ing.
Join the ADVENTURER'S GUILD!
We offer you:
-Social Security Services
-Prepaid Medicine
-Safe Boxes
-Savings Accounts
-Checking Accounts
-Courier Services
-Travel Agency
-Hardware Supplies
-Supplies Discounts
-Job Training
-Undertaker Services
-Temporal and Permanent Lodging
-Debts Collection Services
-Legal Counseling
-Instantaneous Communications
-Controversies Arbitration
All for SP 200 per annum (or 5% of your earnings)
Sign the joining contract now!
...
Of course, only one of the characters joined the AG! ;-)
Best regards... Arturo

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

Well, here goes:

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Don Hawthorne" <ravenglass@e...>
wrote:

> Not in the Tactical Phase, you can't. Not before the fight is over,

one way or the other. And it's doubtful anyone will offer a seocnd
invitation to go adventuring to any mage who spends his time taking
his armor off while his comrades are getting chopped into bits.

Okay, you've got a point there. But, how many starting characters
can even afford armor?

Ours usually can. They just settle for cloth or, if they're lucky, leather.
It's also an obvious incentive for the characters to get out there and take
a position as caravan guard, man at arms or other adventure-potential job
that loans them the equipment they need and pays them enough to buy their
own.

> I kind of can't shake the feeling that you are focusing on playing

the rules here, rather than playing the game.

Not at all. If I could invest a spell in advance of going into a
dangerous situation, then strap on armor, I would do it. That's just
straight up survival. As an adventurer, I would do everything I
could to give myself an advantage. If I could, I'd use GPS to
navigate! It's just how I am. Old Boy Scout training, I guess.
("Be Prepared!")

Well, I'm an old Boy Scout myself, and there was a lot more to it than just
the motto. There's also the Creed. The fact is that there are bunches of
things in DQ one can do, and bunches of things one just can't. Bending the
rules to one's advantage sure wasn't any part of my Scouting experience.
If a player feels compelled to change fundamental aspects of a game simply
because he disagrees with them, he really should be playing something else.
Adding variants is one thing; chnaging the rules to get a system one prefers
is another.

>SNIP<

> They do have the same, or a similar, chance of survival. It begins

with avoiding outright combat whenever possible. The fact is, some
players are just smarter than others, and as DQ lacks an Intelligence
attribute (my favorite aspect of the game, I think), ten characters
starting off with the even chance you propose are still going to
suffer fatalities in direct proportion to how poorly they are played,
experience bonus or no, bad dice luck or good dice luck.

Well, sure, some folks are luckier than others, but it's still fairly
balanced. Even a lucky roll doesn't make a particular character
indestructible. I don't have the rules in front of me, but I recall
minimums and maximums for the various starting Attribute
point "groups" that, to my way of thinking, were geared toward
balance. At least, not letting anyone get too much advantage in a
particular area right off.


***I didn't say "luckier". I said "smarter". Some players are just better
than others at playing their characters and dealing with situations that
arise in games. I've seen shrewd players survive terrible dice rolls, and
mighty Conan-wannabes tank the dice right and left.
I do have the rules in front of me; those groupings let a character
generated with a low point total have at least one powerfull Attribute,
while a character with a high point total would have several high, though
less-powerful Attributes. That incidnetally "balanes" beginning characters,
but is also a very good model on how most people actually develop. If you
concentrate on one thing, you get good at one thing, and thers suffer. If
you spread your attention out over many activities, you may become a Jack of
Al Trades, but you will be a Master of None.

> No, you're right, it's not. However, it is your responsibility to
> understand what your players expect. It didn't sound like they were
> having fun. (Of course, your campaign *might* have been suffering from
> a bout of munchkin-itis! ^_^ )
>
> Actually, that particular adventure is the one my players have

most often requested another crack at. Once they understood what they
were doing wrong -- playing the rules instead of playing the game --
they tackled the problem in an entirely new way. They realized the
powerful magic items they had acquired weren't of themselves
sufficient to the task at hand. They were clever and creative and
made their own opportunities without worrying about how to second
guess me as the GM.

> For the record, it actually is not my reponsibility to know

what my players expect. I don't presume to read minds, I'm running an
entertainment. I know what my players *like*, but that's a very
different thing from knowing what they *expect*. Often from me, they
say they *expect* a huge, bloody battle, and that' when I like to
throw a non-combative roleplaying session at them.

> Accommodating what players say they *expect* instead of running

something that is enjoyable for everyone -- and the GM is everyone,
too -- is the fastest way to leach the fun out of any roleplaying
game.

Ah, I meant, what style of game they expect. I mean, what's fun to
your players? Solving puzzles? Monty Haul? Of course, if their
idea of fun isn't yours, I don't imagine they'd remain your players
for very long. And, conversely, they should know what to expect from
you. If they don't, they ought to be smart enough to ask.

I must just be spoiled by having really great players.

As for the monkeys, well, throwing excrement is what monkeys do best, after
all.
Don (survivor of more monkey houses than he cares to think about)

I was following the mage-warrior discussion, and I want to raise a point: I
think it takes more or less the same effort for a mage or warrior to become
adventurer, but it is very hard for a warrior to become a hero. There are very
few weapons that can be raised to rk 8, and it is very very expensive in XPs to
get rk 8 with skills. For a mage, it is a lot easier to get rk 8 with spells,
and be a hero, thus gaining more XPs in adventures and inter-adventures.
In the long run, it is better to be an adept.
To somewhat balance this situation, I adopted the WARRIOR skill I found
somewhere in the net (I think it was at Shariana's pages (Thank you JKahane)),
adding a new rule: the ability to raise a weapon's level 1 rank above the
tabulated limit, at the XP cost of that last rank, when the WARRIOR skill rk is
greater or equal than the new level the character wants to attain with the
weapon.
Then at warrior rk 5 you can raise shield to rk 5, at rk 8 you can get
battleaxe to rk 8, and you can attain warrior level 10, as you must have shield
rk 5 to become warrior level 10.
I hope all this explanation is not too confusing or boring. Best regards... Arturo

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

Okay, I'll take a stab at some of these.

>1. What spells can cause damage to Endurance and what spells can
>only do Fatigue damage?

I'm not aware of any spell that inflicts "only" Fatigue damage.
Most (if not all) damaging spells inflict Damage Points, which
are always applied to Fatigue first and then Endurance when
Fatigue is exhausted. This is also explicitly stated in [18.4].

Thus, unless its description specifies differently, *any* spell
that inflicts Damage Points "can cause damage to Endurance."

>2. Are illusions (College of Illusions) "real"?

The only guidance we have on this that I'm aware of is the
following (from the Magic System Designer's Notes, section
97 of the unpublished Arcane Wisdom supplement): "In
answer to the ever present theoretical question, the
illusions do actually exist; they are not simply inside the
viewer's mind."

Additional support for this view may be inferred from the
fact that Illusionists gain a bonus to their Base Chance of
casting spells for having high WP, regardless of the viewer's
WP, while Sorcerers of the Mind, in contrast, gain a similar
bonus only if their WP is greater than their target's WP
(and a penalty if it is lower). This suggests that Sorcerers
are interacting with their target's mental processes in a
way that Illusionists are not.

>3. What are True Names, and how do they work?

To gain a full understanding of True Names (whether
Generic or Individual) in DQ, one really must read
Ursula K. LeGuin's "A Wizard of Earthsea." The Magic
System Designer's Notes identify LeGuin as the
source of inspiration for the College of Naming
Incantations.

Here is a brief summation of the concept, however:
Every thing in the universe has at least one, and
usually several, Names that define it. An ocean may
have one name, for example, and every sea in that
ocean another, individual name. Furthermore, every
bay or inlet of that sea has its own, unique name,
and--as you may by now predict--every tidepool
along the shore of each bay has yet another. Indeed,
this principle applies down to every drop of water in
an ocean.

Knowing a thing's True Name gives one power over
that thing, and the more specifically one can describe
a thing (by using its correct Names), the more power
one can exert. So simply knowing the Name of an
ocean can give some small power over every drop of
water in it, but knowing the True Name of an
individual drop can give almost unlimited power over
that single drop (yet no power at all over the
entire ocean, of course).

In DQ, Names operate similarly, but not identically.
Every thing has a Generic True Name, which describes
its type. For example, all human beings share the
Generic True Name of "Man." In addition, each human
being has his or her own, unique Individual True Name
("Jason" or "Tlipaxienefforklaw"). Studying the Generic
True Name of "Man" will give an Adept some small
power of all human beings, while studying Jason's
Individual True Name will give that Adept tremendous
power over Jason, but no other human being.

It is necessarily up to each GM to decide how vague
or specific Generic True Names can be. For example,
the Generic True Names "Plant," "Flower," and "Rose"
might all be applicable to a single object. Because
the rules state that a Namer adds 1 to his Base Chance
for every Rank he has achieved with a target's Generic
True Name, an Adept wishing to maximize his power
might gain Rank with the Name "Plant" rather than
"Rose," since that will apply the bonus to more
potential targets. For this reason, GMs may choose
to institute a sliding scale of bonuses (1 per Rank
for "Plant," 2 per Rank for "Flower," and 3 per Rank
for "Rose," for example). This can become
problematic itself, however.

(Hmm. Not as brief a summation as I was aiming
for, but that's the best I can do!)

>4. What is the "Adventurers' Guild"? How does it operate and what
>does it do for me?

I'm not touching this one. (Personally, I think the
rules speak pretty well for themselves on this, anyway.)

-Cameron King

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8: Get 6 months for $9.95/month. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

JohnD wrote:

>Hmm, not sure I like the idea of any new character starting from scratch if
>they are to be in a highly advanced party.... You wouldnt see a 'dream
>team' hire on a complete rookie, so u wouldnt in an adventure. Like you
>say
>you wouldnt wanna rely on any new stranger to save your skin, you'd at
>least
>interview them, see there guild credentials, listen to their tavern tales,
>see their callused hands, battle wounds etc. I cant see grizzled
>adventurers taking on some snotty nosed kid straight out of enchantment
>school....

You and I are operating from different premises. We never
imagined our adventuring group as any sort of "dream team,"
but rather as a hodge-podge of grizzled (but otherwise fairly
ordinary) veterans in an extremely dangerous profession
(think of Glen Cook's "Black Company" books, for those of you
familiar with them). We'd take a "snotty nosed kid" along
because there simply wasn't anyone else willing to put their
ass on the line, and we weren't about to let ourselves get
attached to them until they proved their durability, because
experience told us they weren't likely to survive very long.
(Any wartime vet will describe having the same attitude
toward replacement troops.)

But you're right about one thing: you wouldn't rely on some
new stranger to save your skin. More like, "Stay the hell
out of my way, kid, and try not to get yourself killed...maybe
you'll live long enough to learn something. In the meantime,
pick up that sword--you know which end is the pointy one,
right?--and keep an eye out for any goblins coming up on
us from behind." Nevertheless, he just might, anyway...and
then it would make sense for you to trust and care for him
a bit more. ("Thanks, kid...I was so busy handling those
three big orcs in front of me, that sneaky little one might've
got me in the back! Now, stick close by me when the
next wave comes at us, and I'll try to keep you alive for
one more day.")

If there are plenty of elite, professional adventurers roaming
around your campaign world, looking for a party to join, then
that's one thing. In *our* DQ world, we were just about
the only "adventurers" we knew of (though we'd be more
likely to call ourselves "mercenaries," "itinerant swordsmen,"
or just plain "thieves"), and we'd have laughed at anyone
who described us as "elite."

-Cameron King

_________________________________________________________________
Enter for your chance to IM with Bon Jovi, Seal, Bow Wow, or Mary J Blige
using MSN Messenger http://entertainment.msn.com/imastar

Bruce Probst wrote:

>I would not have permitted this as GM.

And you would have been well within your rights
as GM not to. But it suited us just fine.

>On applying for entry to the
>Illusionist College, the adept-to-be is asked to strip down to the bare
>necessities and demonstrate his raw MA talents. Oops, without that item in
>his grubby little paws he doesn't qualify. "Goodbye, go away, and stop
>wasting our time."
>
>IOW, the MA requirement has to be *innate* to the PC, not something
>"temporary".

We saw no reason to impose such a condition. (I'd say
you might just as well refuse to teach Speak Common to
a person with a hearing aid...or bar people who need
spectacles to read from entering public libraries.) In our
DQ world, stat-boosting magic items like this one were
*extremely* rare (we didn't have Arcane Wisdom and
the rules for creating such things at that time), so it
simply wouldn't have *occurred* to the College that they
should strip-search applicants. (By the way, how exactly
would one "demonstrate his raw MA talents," anyway?
On second thought, never mind. It's a moot issue.)

-Cameron King

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8: Get 6 months for $9.95/month http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

David Barrass wrote:

>I'm almost convinced, but for a couple of points
>
>1)non-mages can't use *any* armour and weapons, often their starting
>money precludes this, one of my current starting PC could only afford
>a sling, spear, dagger and heavy clothing (still suprisingly
>effective in combat).

[remainder snipped]

This is true, but the limitation lasts exactly as long as it
takes for the party to kill someone (of the poor PC's size)
who *does* have decent weapons and armor--which
is often about one hour into the evening's session of
play. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

>2) How realistic is it that all non-mages have just 5 MA? Speaking
>as a geneticist my assumption would be that there is a continous
>range of values, probably with an average the same as any other
>stat. I'm not saying it can't happen, just unlikly. And yes we all,
>myself included, have all our non-mage PCs with 5 MA :--)

I have two answers to this. The first is that is doesn't matter
how realistic it is; since the rules permit the player to assign
his Characteristic Points more or less as he sees fit (and how
"realistic" is *that*?), and there is absolutely no game-
mechanical reason for a non-Adept's player to assign more
than 5 points to his MA, no one in his right mind is going to
assign more than 5 points to a non-Adept's MA. And your
experience bears this out, of course. :-)

My second is, you're assuming certain things that may not
be true--primarily, that MA is (at least somewhat) evenly
distributed among the population, right? But it is a staple
of much fantasy literature that MA, or "The Gift," or whatever
the author calls it, is a rare ability that one either has or has
not. In other words, we might assume that in most DQ
worlds, the vast majority of the population has essentially
*no* Magical Aptitude (5). Some very rare individuals,
however, have "The Gift" (represented by an MA closer
to 15, which is generally considered enough to begin
dabbling in magic without blowing your own brains out).
No one has an MA of 6 or 7 or even 8, however,
because...well, you either have "The Gift" or you don't!

-Cameron King

_________________________________________________________________
Help protect your PC: Get a free online virus scan at McAfee.com.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Don Hawthorne wrote:

> I must just be spoiled by having really great players.

Sounds like it. Good for you, though. I usually find good players with
good GMs. Says something about you and your style that you've never had
these problems. Me, I'm a lousy GM so I had them all!

> As for the monkeys, well, throwing excrement is what monkeys do best, after
> all.
> Don (survivor of more monkey houses than he cares to think about)
>

Amen to that, Brother!

In any case, whether we agree or not, I certainly see your point. And,
should I ever run a DQ game again, you can bet that this all makes an
impact. I can tell you for sure, I won't use the "Warrior Alternative",
but I might just use that EXP for Attributes idea.
And, what a great discussion we've had! The passion!! The well
reasoned arguments to and fro! Even a bit of round about name calling! ^_^

Cheers!
Jim

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

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 09:17:50 -0000, "dbarrass_2000" <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>1)non-mages can't use *any* armour and weapons, often their starting
>money precludes this, one of my current starting PC could only afford
>a sling, spear, dagger and heavy clothing (still suprisingly
>effective in combat). As a mage he would have been able to use just
>about all of these (except the dagger) and have spells. If you run
>in the bronze age this disadvantage disapears, not that I know of
>anyone who has but its an interesting idea...

And the first time a bit of cash comes along the non-mage no longer has to
worry about this, while the mage still has the same restrictions. You're
stretching, here.

>2) How realistic is it that all non-mages have just 5 MA?

Realistic? It's inevitable, from the wording of the character generation
rules. I've not yet encountered a single player who, upon being informed
that MA is useful only for casting magic, didn't instantly realise that if
he didn't intend to cast magic then he didn't need MA. I've known some
people who were resentful that they had to allocate even 5 points.

In a "game realism" sense, I think it's reasonable, though. I prefer the
game model of a relatively small number of individuals who know they have
"the talent" and seek training in exploiting that, and a much larger body of
individuals who know nothing about magic and generally could care less.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:20:31 -0700, "D. Cameron King"
<monarchy2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>We saw no reason to impose such a condition. (I'd say
>you might just as well refuse to teach Speak Common to
>a person with a hearing aid...or bar people who need
>spectacles to read from entering public libraries.)

Neither are in the same league (or even relevant in the same game world).
Rather, try this example: a person with 10 PS and 10 MD asking for admission
to a "only Rank 4 broadsword users admitted" club <g>. If you can't do it,
you can't do it.

>(By the way, how exactly
>would one "demonstrate his raw MA talents," anyway?

By the wise and mystical tests that the Colleges use to determine whether
applicants are suitable or not, of course. Or, to put it another way, I
somehow don't see that they determine that an apprentice is suitable by
merely stuffing General Knowledge into his head and seeing whether they
"stick" or not. <g>

I think motivational tests would be part of the whole shebang too. Since
the PC in your example clearly wanted one thing and one thing only, the Wise
Elders would know this loser didn't *deserve* to learn their Secret
Knowledge.

Finally, was your PC aware that to use his Talent he could never be in
contact with Cold Iron? (Talents suffer the same magic restrictions as
Spells and Rituals.) It seems to me to have been a long and complicated way
of getting not much in return, and a rather blatant "rort" of the system
....

But as you say, your campaign, your rules.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 08:18:55 -0400, "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@comnet.ca>
wrote:

> Mind you, this raises an interesting point... How many folks
>have added Colleges of Magic to the game because they've liked what
>they saw in literature or because they had a neat concept strike them
>for a new College?

I've *wanted* to, but never actually gotten around to doing so. No time
when I was actively playing the game, and no interest when I wasn't <g>.

Whereas some people seem to have written up Colleges merely to fill what
they perceive as apparent "gaps" in the system. The umpteen different
versions of the "College of White Magics" seem to bear this out, whereas
it's my opinion that what some might call "White Magics" is more properly
called "organised religion" -- which as we know the DQ rules indicate is
very non-magical in nature.

Rather, the perceived "gaps" that I've seen are mostly Colleges for
non-human practitioners of magic. It's always seemed odd to me that, for
example, a human and a lizard-man might sit side-by-side at the same College
<g>. I know, that's a gross simplification of the "College" concept, but I
think it rather more likely overall that your lizard-man shaman down in the
swamp simply learns stuff that's *different* to what a human might learn.

Similarly, if we adhere to the Ursula le Guin model of "Naming", then (a)
all dragons should be Namers (which somewhat limits them, magically) and (b)
True Names should mean more than they (apparently) do. To partially
counteract this I added some spells to Naming Magics (e.g., shape-shifting)
and also tried to more rigorously define what knowing someone's True Name
actually means, but that's still only a partial solution. (I also added
True Name effects to a couple of other Colleges.)

In play I often fudged it, by occasionally letting "unusual" NPCs (as in,
weird monster types) use magic that were clearly (as far as the players were
concerned) NOT spells from any College that they knew about (although they
were still spells, and suffered the usual restrictions of same). But I
never organised this in any "formal" sense.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 07:21:50 -0500, "J. K. Hoffman" <ryumaou@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>What if I invest the spells into something, then put my armor on?

How does that help? So far as I'm aware, casting a spell from an investment
still has the same restrictions as casting a spell from your brain (i.e., no
contact with Cold Iron). At least, that's how I understand Investment to
work, and it's how it was played in our games.

>No, that's not what I said. Think about the argument that's being
>*currently* made, not past arguments.

You're implying that they're different. They're not.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 08:27:49 -0400, "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@comnet.ca>
wrote:

> Exactly. A character who starts as a non-Mage is at least
>effective most of the time at what he does in combat, assuming he chose
>combat skills, but for Mages, well...it can be a bad thing in the
>beginning of one's career. :)

Oh yes. A beginning "fighter" type can be assumed to be at least vaguely
competent at fighting. A beginning "rogue" type can be assumed to be at
least vaguely competent at doing his stuff (and might be vaguely competent
at fighting as well). But there's no guarantee that a beginning mage is
competent at *anything*, magic least of all!

Survive and gain experience for a few adventures and by that point the
"fighter" is virtually guaranteed to be at least OK at what he does, ditto
the "rogue". There's still no such guarantee for the poor mage!

There's no question that mages can, eventually, become quite powerful. But
for most it's quite a long road to travel to get to that point.

There is one advantage that mages have, though: a mage who expends most of
his XP on increasing Rank in spells (which is, after all, what you would
expect) tends to have a *lot* of free time on his hands. (Compare the weeks
it takes to improve Skills and the multiple-weeks it takes to improve Weapon
Ranks.) Hence the mage tends to accumulate a lot of "down-time" XP on a
daily rate. He can't spend it any faster but it does tend to give him more
to spend, which I see as something of a balancing factor for their overall
uselessness early in their career. (Later it doesn't matter quite so much
since their spells will cost a lot more to increase, take longer to
increase, and there will probably be more of them to increase, plus the mage
will be able to consume spare time by doing rituals etc.)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:52:27 -0500 (CDT), Arturo Algueiro Melo
<aleam00@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I was following the mage-warrior discussion, and I want to raise a point: I
>think it takes more or less the same effort for a mage or warrior to become
>adventurer, but it is very hard for a warrior to become a hero. There are very
>few weapons that can be raised to rk 8, and it is very very expensive in XPs to
>get rk 8 with skills.

This is very true. In my game, I removed the upper limit on Ranks with
weapons; all weapons can advance to Rank 10 (although for most they start to
get *very* expensive to push them higher than the limits imposed by the
rules).

I also expanded the Skills list with a bunch of relatively-cheap but still
important options (e.g., Climbing for non-thieves).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Well, look at that. 'Breach hull, all die.' Even had it underlined."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

I have spreadsheet, based on one i got off the net, that calaculates all xp
costs including spells. Just to throw some numbers on the matter...an
ensrocelment mage can get 8 'magic things' to rank 4 for about 10,000xp, a
warrior 8 weapons to rank 4 for less than half (~4000xp). What you have is
a warrior with a few useful weapons at rank 4, and a mage with maybe 1
offensive spell.

These are both cheaper than even languages.
****************
The formula for spell multiple calculations is [N/2*(N+1)]* the XPM where N=
number of ranks...a 100XPM is 1000xp to rank 4 for example. Rank 4 always
looks odd cos total cost to get there for a spell is always 10*XPM. Rank 20
in Mass Chamr costs 178500!!

JohnD
********************

>From: Arturo Algueiro Melo <aleam00@yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>To: dqn-list@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [DQN-list] Mages and Warriors
>Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 13:52:27 -0500 (CDT)
>
>I was following the mage-warrior discussion, and I want to raise a point: I
>think it takes more or less the same effort for a mage or warrior to become
>adventurer, but it is very hard for a warrior to become a hero. There are
>very
>few weapons that can be raised to rk 8, and it is very very expensive in
>XPs to
>get rk 8 with skills. For a mage, it is a lot easier to get rk 8 with
>spells,
>and be a hero, thus gaining more XPs in adventures and inter-adventures.
>In the long run, it is better to be an adept.
>To somewhat balance this situation, I adopted the WARRIOR skill I found
>somewhere in the net (I think it was at Shariana's pages (Thank you
>JKahane)),
>adding a new rule: the ability to raise a weapon's level 1 rank above the
>tabulated limit, at the XP cost of that last rank, when the WARRIOR skill
>rk is
>greater or equal than the new level the character wants to attain with the
>weapon.
>Then at warrior rk 5 you can raise shield to rk 5, at rk 8 you can get
>battleaxe to rk 8, and you can attain warrior level 10, as you must have
>shield
>rk 5 to become warrior level 10.
>I hope all this explanation is not too confusing or boring. Best regards...
> Arturo
>
>_________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Informaci�n de Estados Unidos y Am�rica Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
>Vis�tanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail messages direct to your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile