--- "D. Cameron King" <monarchy2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
> My group always followed the book. Thus, every
> character started
> out with two skills at Rank 8 (Speak Common + R/W
> Common if
> human or Speak [racial tongue] if non-human).
> This has the
> unfortunate side effect of favoring non-humans,
> however, since
> it costs 1/2 XP to increase your R/W skills when you
> Speak the
> language at a higher rank. The book rules also make
> *every*
> human literate, and *every* non-human illiterate,
> which we
> considered lame. So we house-ruled starting
> languages slightly:
> humans could either R/W Common or Speak a different
> human
> tongue (we had four besides Common in our campaign
> world).
> Non-humans could opt for R/W Common at the expense
> of
> speaking their racial tongue.

In our campaigns, we also followed the rule that
everone spoke Common at Rank 8, and their native
tongue at Rank 8 if it wasn't Common. As far as the
book rules stating that ever human is literate, we
felt that was definitely open to interpretation. :)
It doesn't say that every human has Rank 8 in
read/write, just that they could read/write some. We
based what Rank you started with on what your social
class was (i.e., background), and it could go anywhere
from 0 to 10. We also applied the same rule to
non-humans, i.e., they would be able to read and write
somewhere between Rank 0-10 based on their background,
but in their native language, not Common.

As an aside, I don't think that that this rule about
literacy is meant to be taken as a blanket statement
about all humanity (or demi-humanity, as the case may
be). These rules are about beginning -player
characters-, who are already explicitly stated as
being a cut above the masses. I see nothing too odd
about them all starting with some literacy, however
little, while the bulk of the people around them are
quite illiterate. At any rate, that's how we
interpreted things.

Mort

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

Steven Wiles wrote:

> --- Esko Halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > That would be nice. The problem is that DQ doesn't
> > really have a specific called shot system, where
> > this sort of thing would come into play. Something
> > like that would necessitate a hit location chart and
> > piecemeal armor rules too, though, and that'd bog
> > down the system.
>
> The question of helmets is an vexed one. As you say,
> the system is not really set up for hit location
> mechanics. Adding such would seriously complicate an
> elegant system, which I doubt any of us wants.
> However, I've been in campaigns where people found
> helmets, and the only reason they wore them was
> becuase they had some sort of magic in them. That is
> a bit silly.

Indeed. I've always assumed that if somebody is wearing chain mail, they will have the coif also. I suppose same could be assumed of all the other armors as well.

>
> I'm just going to throw out a couple of suggestions
> that fit within the existing mechanics for how to
> incorporate helmets:
>
> 1. Helmets add to your defense rating some fixed
> amount. I can't really defend the in-game philosophy
> of this too well, other than to say that the added Def
> represents all the head buffets you took before that
> you are protected from now. The only other protection
> stat to modify is Protection Rating, and I really
> can't see helmets adding to that, i.e. subtracting
> damage from -all- hits. This may be a workable
> option, but to me it seems a little fishy. Comments?

Increasing overall Prot is not a good idea. The def rating works better. David Barrass has some rather interesting house rules regarding helmets, I just didn't have time to look at them in any great detail yesterday evening.

>
> 2. Helmets protect against head-and-neck based
> Grievous Injuries. Admittedly, this isn't an issue
> that comes up too often. However, when a character
> does receive such an injury, it's usually either fatal
> or subtracts permanently from some character stat. In
> short, rare but nasty. Now, if a helmet prevented, or
> at least forced a reroll of these types of injuries (a
> second reroll that is also head based should
> stick...), I could see a character feeling justified
> in wearing a non-magical helmet. Again, comments?

I suppose wearing a helmet could reduce the effects of the grievous injury by half, or something? It'll still be a grievous injury, but it might just become survivable. I mean, you first take e.g. D+4 points directly to Endurance, and then some 6 to 8 points more depending on which head injury you got, and then have half the stats reduced by 2 to 4 points, very few if any characters survive this (assuming full endurance to begin with). Just halving those penalties would be reason enough to wear the helmet. Of course, the helmet would be ruined by such a hit.

Edi

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

>
> The question of helmets is an vexed one. As you say,
> the system is not really set up for hit location
> mechanics. Adding such would seriously complicate an
> elegant system, which I doubt any of us wants.
> However, I've been in campaigns where people found
> helmets, and the only reason they wore them was
> becuase they had some sort of magic in them. That is
> a bit silly.

I've tried a hit location system and it is silly

> I'm just going to throw out a couple of suggestions
> that fit within the existing mechanics for how to
> incorporate helmets:
>
> 1. Helmets add to your defense rating some fixed
> amount. I can't really defend the in-game philosophy
> of this too well, other than to say that the added Def
> represents all the head buffets you took before that
> you are protected from now. The only other protection
> stat to modify is Protection Rating, and I really
> can't see helmets adding to that, i.e. subtracting
> damage from -all- hits. This may be a workable
> option, but to me it seems a little fishy. Comments?

The option I have gone for is to add to protection for all hits in my
house rules. I spent a long time thinking about the diferent ways
and they're all fishy. I justified this to myself by saying that as
the head is often targetted for blows it kind of averages out. It
does have the effect that most of my PCs use helmets even if they
don't have any other armour, which seems right. Then you have the
problem of the munchkin who wears a great helm and normal clothing :--
(

> 2. Helmets protect against head-and-neck based
> Grievous Injuries. Admittedly, this isn't an issue
> that comes up too often. However, when a character
> does receive such an injury, it's usually either fatal
> or subtracts permanently from some character stat. In
> short, rare but nasty. Now, if a helmet prevented, or
> at least forced a reroll of these types of injuries (a
> second reroll that is also head based should
> stick...), I could see a character feeling justified
> in wearing a non-magical helmet. Again, comments?

Like you say, it doesn't come up all that often

Steven Wiles wrote:

> --- esko_halttunen <esko.halttunen@luukku.com> wrote:
> >
> > Where could I get my hands on that material? I checked the
> > www.dragonquest.org.nz site, and couldn't find it. If it was supposed
> > to be in the Mort's Library section, that's still under construction, no?
>
> Well, I got my hands on it several years ago, and a
> good thing I did, because it vanished from their site
> not long after. The document I'm referring to was a
> pdf file which presented the complete 2nd edition
> rules with all SAG houserules already written in.
> Although vastly altered in form and content, it was a
> complete reproduction of the basic rules, and so I'm
> presuming it disappeared for legal reasons.

Most probably.

> There are many fine things in it, including some very
> interesting new colleges and extremely sensible
> modification to existing colleges (all fully
> playtested, I believe). I'd love to distribute it to
> others, but I'm loathe to do so for obvious reasons.
> If I was only laying -myself- open to the litigious
> wrath of WotC, I might be seduced into some
> copyright-violating wickedness.

I've already got the 2nd Edition pdf, two versions of it, actually, so no problem on that account. It's the house rules I'd be interested in seeing.

> However, I'm much
> more concerned with the original SAG members whose
> work this is. I don't really know why the thing was
> taken down, and I would have to have their consent
> before I did anything.

This is quite reasonable. Their work, and if they don't want it publicly available, then I'll just have to fix things on my own as best I can.

> > I'm really going to have to scan and post the picture my friend Kalle
> > drew about the relations of the different colleges,
>
> Please do. It sounds interesting.

I'll see what I can do about that tomorrow. :-)

>
> Mr. Kahane has kindly posted a number of people's
> ideas for colleges. In case you don't already have his link,
>
> http://deathstar.comnet.ca/~jkahane/dq/library/magic/new-colleges.html

I think that's reachable via the DQPA links section, I certainly remember seeing it before.


Edi

............................................................
Maksuton sähköposti aina käytössä http://luukku.com
Kuukausimaksuton MTV3 Internet-liittymä www.mtv3.fi/liittyma

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:25:13 -0700 (PDT), Steven Wiles
<mortdemuerte@yahoo.com> wrote:

>As far as the book rules stating that ever human is literate, we
>felt that was definitely open to interpretation. :)
>It doesn't say that every human has Rank 8 in
>read/write

Um, actually it *does* say so; Rule [49] says "A human or shape-changer can
read and write in Common ..." and then [49.6] says "If a character begins
with the ability to speak or read and write in a language, his Rank in that
skill is presumed to be 8."

Be that as it may, that's a rule I junked early in my campaign; both Speech
and Literacy skills are subject to Character Background (i.e., social
class). I adapted the Hârn background generation tables to form a greatly
expanded "social class" table for characters to roll on (varying by race as
well). (Amongst other things, some basic skills are given for free, e.g.,
*every* character can have Dagger or Knife at Rank 0, and certain others are
cheaper-than-normal to purchase according to background.)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

> PDF of the Bantam Second Edition I was using is glairingly

incomplete.

Where did you get the pdfs from? was it
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dragonquestfiles/files/

If so, as far as I can tell, the book is complete, but the last bit
of Character generation is the first column of the first page of the
second file DQBook1b.pdf

Sorry to waste your time if you've worked this out, someone else has
pointed this out or this isn't what you were refering to

David

Hullo, Don,

In a message of Saturday, August 30th, 2003, you wrote:

>Just thought I'd shar ethis with the list.

Go right ahead. :)

No major change, just a bit of color I put in my campaign. I let

>characters with Qquarterstaffs (staves?) have a 2% defense
>bonus per Rank with the Quarterstaff even when attacking.
>It just made for a nice "feel" for the parry/block/attack nature
>of the weapon.

I rather like this...and it works nicely for simulating characters
like Little John and Robin Hood-y things (since I've just ordered the
ROBIN OF SHERWOOD dvds for myself).

>Good defensive break for Adepts, too.

Ooh, nice...hadn't thought of that. :)

....."Some days, try as you will, nothing goes wrong." - Nathan Spring (SC)

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

Hullo, Keith,

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 09:32:12 +1200, phaeton_nz@yahoo.co.nz wrote:

>> I was wondering if anyone could tell me where I might
>>find some of the new spells and abilities and stuff that the
>>folks at the Seagate Adventurers Guild added to the game
>>system? I've been reading the old Adventure summaries and
>>journals from their campaigns, and there seems to be a ton
>>of new spells and rituals, among other things, and I would
>>like to find some of this material to look over. Any help with
>>this would be appreciated. Thanks. :)
>
>Try www.dragonquest.org.nz

Thanks for the information, Keith. Much obliged. :)

Out of curiosity, do you know if the folks who created these
spells used the rules from ARCANE WISDOM to do so?

.....Some realities are more allegorical than others.

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

Hullo, Steve,

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 09:59:28 -0400, Ross wrote:

> My name is Steven Ross, I'm a new DQ GM. Just this
>last Sunday I started creating characters with my players.
>However, in the course of character creation we discovered
>several problems.

I wouldn't have called them "problems", just minor setbacks. :)

>The Character Sheets I'm using are Third Edition (not a problem),

Agreed. :)

>My GM Screen is First Edition (a surprise, but not a major problem).

And still collectible. :)

>No, the major problem I discovered is that the PDF of the Bantam
>Second Edition I was using is glairingly incomplete.

When we were looking through it, it was almost as if it wasn't a
finished version of it.

> Does anyone know of an intact PDF of the Second
>Edition hard cover, preferably the SPI version, but the Bantam version
>would do.

I have the SPI 2nd Edition hardcover, which is my version of DQ
of choice, but most the folks here will tell you to use the Bantam 2nd
Edition. If you really want to, we can handle this by photocopying my
book. :)

However, if you join the Dragonquestfiles list here on Yahoo,
you'll find the Bantam 2nd Edition there, broken down into seven or so
files. :)

.....Some people talk because they think sound is more manageable than silence.
(Margaret Halsey)

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

Hullo, Bruce,

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 19:36:45 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>> How do you all go about determining the characters' Levels
>>(ie., Mercenary, Adventurer, Hero) in the game? The rules in the
>>book are pretty clear on this, but how many folks here actually
>>use Language skills to "enhance the skill total" for this determination?
>>And if folks have changed the system in this regard, what sort of
>>criteria are people using?
>
>I used the standard 2nd ed. "8 things at Rk 4/8" rules.

Yep, that's how I approached the game at first.

>My ruling was that anything that cost XP to get Ranks in was kosher,
>so languages or whatever were fine (and I didn't use the "languages
>only count as half a skill" or whatever rule from 3rd ed.).

Nor do I. That particular rule really bugged me somewhat, simply
because I always found it to be...silly. I guess you (and the other
folks here) have noticed by now that Spoken languages are much cheaper
to buy than Read/Write ones, except for the rule that states that a
character can learn the lower of the two at a cheaper cost. Makes
snese, but that means that player characters learn to speak a ton of
languages and pay significantly less to increase their Ranks with the
written forms. And this totally ignores the element of literacy vs.
non-lireracy in one's fantasy campaign. :)

>However, I also used a minimum amount of XP spent -- from memory
>it was 10 000 XP for Adventurer, and 50 000 for Hero -- so you couldn't
>get there *just* by buying really cheap skills or whatever, and also not
>to penalise people who invested a lot of XP in improving characteristics
>(particularly PC, which you really *need* to spend a substantial amount
>of XP on). It didn't seem fair to me that a player who spent a lot of effort
>improving his character's abilities but not his skills should have that effort
>ount for nothing in terms of his character's overall "level".

Yep, I remember seeing this rule somewhere else (perhaps on the
older mailing list?), and thought it was worth using.

One of the things that has always irritated me about the game
system is that XPs are handed out on a *session* basis (of about five
hours), and in such quantity that character advancement in the system
is quite rapid. Something like the Palace of Ontoncle scenario can
takes *months* of real time to have the players go through, and if you
were to play a scenario that lasted eight sessions, each of five hours
in length (or let's just call it lasting 40 hours), that gives the
charcters at Mercenary level 4,800 XPs, plus another 1,200 if they
successfully compete the scenario. Do four or five sceanrios of eight
sessions each and the characters are gaining around 20,000 XPs, plus
bonuses for roleplaying and successfully completing the mission.
Characters advance very rapidly at that rate. This doesn't simulate
real life to any great extent in terms of learning some of the more
convoluted or complex skills, but there are a few controls on this
matter. How do you feel about this (and others can feel free to chime
in)?

....."The universe will reboot in 5 seconds...this is a recording...."

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

Hullo, Deven,

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 09:59:45 -0400, Deven Atkinson wrote:

>We followed the rules. Speaking another language, say Dwarvish,
>>when human bad guys could hear came in very handy in our party.
>>It also would come in handy to obtain minerals and gems at
>>wholesale prices from Dwarves, instead of the markup prices at
>>any city's bazaar or gem district.

Nice to see that someone else didn't get away from the rules in
regards to increasing levels, and used the language stuff for that
purpose. :)

On the other subject, yes, this is something that players don't
tend to think of very often, I find. When you travel into a town or
city to trade in some of the loot that you've acquired, having a
knowledge of Dwarvish when speaking with a Dwarf merchant in gems not
only makes the transaction easier, but might give you a more favourable
deal as the dwarf may be pleased that you made the effort to deal with
them in their own language and that sort of thing.

>Not only did language enhance a PC to Adventurer and Hero, but it enhanced
>gameplay because of a well rounded character(s). We had a good GM and it
>took a while for our all Human party to find a Dwarf to teach the PCs.

hehe I'll bet. Could have made a scenario out of finding the
Dwarf. :)

The well-rounded character and the enhancement of game play
using the languages of various races (not to mention regions) can add a
wonderful element to the game, and give the players and their
characters pause when dealing with certain issues and matters.

.....Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall take flack from both sides.

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

Hullo, folks,

I'm generating a character for Steve's campaign, and was
wondering if anyone can help with some information. Has anyone got
the stats on costs and weights for crystal balls (of divination) and
for the equivalent of Tarot decks of differing qualities? I could
have sworn I saw that information somewhere, but can recall where.

Any help is appreciated on this. :)

.....A pat on the back is only a few centimeters from a kick in the butt.

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

Hullo, Steven,

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:33:13 -0700 (PDT), Steven Wiles wrote:

>> >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.
>>
>> To be honest with you, I think that was one of the most
>> insightful messages I've read in some time about the game
>>and about one of the more interesting elements of the game
>>world that never really came to fruitiion. I was wondering if
>>you'd permit me to use the text of this post verbatim in the
>>FAQ since it seems most appropriate.
>
>By all means, I'd be honored. Thanks for the compliment.

More than welcome - just giving an honest opinion on what you
wrote. :)

>A couple of people earlier this week mentioned additional
>ervice features of the Guild that I -wish- I'd thought of, so
>pleaser add their stuff in too.

Yep, will do. Been saving messages out the wazoo for some time
now.

>I'd also note that people's opinion about having an AG
>in their game world is obviously pretty... polar in
>nature. I totally respect how campaign dependent the
>Guild is. I'm in a MiddleEarth campaign right now,
>and an AG in that setting would be ludicrous.

This is something that has been pretty much along the lines of
divided opinions, ever since the Adventurer's Guild was first mentioned
in the game system. Most of my players don't like the Guild all that
much, because they feel that it limits behaviour and the like much in
the way alignment does in other games, but I can't agree with that.
However, I think that your comments above are pretty much accurate. :)

.....I came, I saw, I had no idea what was going on, so I left.

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

Hullo, Cameron,

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 12:36:02 -0700, D. Cameron King wrote:

>> >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.
>>
>> I'm not sure I know which rule you're taking about here. Was it
>>someone else on the list who posted this?
>
>Early in our discussion, I pointed out that a non-Adept will
>invariably put only 5 Characteristic Points into his MA, whereas
>an Adept will put more like 15 into the same stat. Thus, on
>average, a non-Adept has about 10 CP more to allocate
>among PS, EN, MD, AG, and WP than an Adept. I further
>pointed out that we could estimate the "value" of this
>benefit at approximately 50,000 XP, based on what it
>would cost to raise a stat (other than EN) 10 points as
>indicated on the Experience Point Cost Chart [87.8].
>
>Someone (I believe it was Jim) then extrapolated from that
>observation a possible house-rule that newly generated
>characters could sort of "cash in" a Characteristic Point or
>two at the rate of 5,000 XP per Point, and use those XP
>to begin play with some Rank in skills and weapons. Since
>non-Adepts will be hurt less by such a transaction, this
>would provide some benefit to forsaking membership in
>a College of Magic at the time of character generation.

Ah, thanks for clarifying that for me, Cameron. I thought I was
losing my mind for a moment there. There have been so many posts and
different threads here lately (althogh I seem to be the only one
changing the Subject lines!) that I've not kept up mentally with the
different threads and the like. Mind you, I've had a terrible memory
of late, and some personal problems have been interfering with my state
of mind and the ability to concentrate of late, so..

>I'm not sure I would allow the "inverse application of
>the rule" myself, but it's not such a bad idea.

Yeah, while I thought the rule was interesting, it's not something
that I would add to the game as it stands right now. Mind you, a lot
of other folks might end up using this one, if they feel the same way
about the "imbalance" of starting points between Mages and non-Mages.

>(And thanks for the complimentary responses to my
>FAQ message, John!)

More than welcome, more than welcome. :)

.....Women can't survive on guile alone; that's why they have witchcraft!

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

Hullo, Bruce,

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 19:10:33 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>> The weird thing about this answer is that if you look at the
>>Designer's Notes for Magic in ARCANE WISDOM, it is stated,
>>"In answer to the ever present theoretical question, the illusions
>>*do* actually exist; they are not simply inside the viewer's mind."
>>This would seem to imply that the magic of illusions does not
>>affect the mind (and states so quite nicely, I think).
>
>Yeah. Not exactly how I pictured them working, but ....

Nor I. I revised the College somewhat based on a few ideas I had,
and some very cool fantasy works that I had read that dealt with
Illusions heavily.

....."We drew straws to see who'd be the one to get the princess out of the room
while the other one fights the troll. Guess who got lucky?" - Parvin Askindell, courtesan and thief

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

Hullo, Steven,

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Steven Wiles wrote:

>Hmmm. Good question, that. My natural inclination would be
>to put Time into the Elemental branch. My rationale for this is
>that the Elemental colleges all have to do with manipulation
>of -material- reality, whether of an earthly or celestial nature.
>Thaumaturgies seems distinguished by manipulation of
>intangibles and abstracts (mind, intrinsic essence [True Names],
>subjective perception, and magic itself), the things that lie
>behind the material universe, while Entities is of course about
>dealing with things that lie outside the material universe.
>What's more intrinsic to the nature of the -material- universe
>than the concepts of Time and Space, the stage upon which
>all matter and energy perfoms its dances?

Your rationale for Time Magics is pretty much the one I used for
putting them into the Elemental division.

>I have no idea what to do with Spider. Of course, I'm an
>arachnophobe, so I don't even like thinking about it... :O ;>

hehe Not so crazy about spiders myself. In any event, that
College so obviously belongs in the Entities. Imnsho. :)

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

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

> Thanks for the information, Keith. Much obliged. :)
>
> Out of curiosity, do you know if the folks who created these
>spells used the rules from ARCANE WISDOM to do so?

To be honest, I have no idea.

Keith.

John M. Kahane wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 19:36:45 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:
>
> >My ruling was that anything that cost XP to get Ranks in was kosher,
> >so languages or whatever were fine (and I didn't use the "languages
> >only count as half a skill" or whatever rule from 3rd ed.).
>
> Nor do I. That particular rule really bugged me somewhat, simply
>because I always found it to be...silly. I guess you (and the other
>folks here) have noticed by now that Spoken languages are much cheaper
>to buy than Read/Write ones, except for the rule that states that a
>character can learn the lower of the two at a cheaper cost. Makes
>snese, but that means that player characters learn to speak a ton of
>languages and pay significantly less to increase their Ranks with the
>written forms. And this totally ignores the element of literacy vs.
>non-lireracy in one's fantasy campaign. :)

This reminded me of another house rule my old group had
regarding languages: one of the four non-Common human
tongues in our world was a "dead" language (like Latin). It
cost the same XP to learn to Read & Write it as any other
language, but 50% more to learn to Speak it. That
reversed the order in which characters tended to learn
the language: Read & Write first, then Speak at
(150%)/2 cost. I just thought I'd share that with
everyone; this flurry of DQ-talk has got me on a
nostalgic roll...

-Cameron King

_________________________________________________________________
Get MSN 8 and help protect your children with advanced parental controls.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/parental

Great Zot, John! You've triggered a great flood of
discussion. I envy you the time to devote to DQ, but
I'm glad you're here to help provoke so much of it.

--- "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@comnet.ca> wrote, and
wrote, and wrote, and wrote, and wrote....

:-)

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

> Um, actually it *does* say so; Rule [49] says "A
> human or shape-changer can
> read and write in Common ..." and then [49.6] says
> "If a character begins
> with the ability to speak or read and write in a
> language, his Rank in that
> skill is presumed to be 8."

I'll be darned, but you are correct, sir. Somehow my
eyes always managed to skip over that or something.
More likely, none of us read through the skill that
far, and if we did, we blocked it out. As you say, it
is an -extremely- junkable rule. Sounds like
everybody house-ruled pretty much the same ideas into
their campaigns regarding literacy, though. How's
that for great minds thinking alike. :>

Mort

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

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

> Hullo, folks,
>
> I'm generating a character for Steve's
> campaign, and was
> wondering if anyone can help with some information.
> Has anyone got
> the stats on costs and weights for crystal balls (of
> divination) and
> for the equivalent of Tarot decks of differing
> qualities? I could
> have sworn I saw that information somewhere, but can
> recall where.
>
> Any help is appreciated on this. :)

Well, right now I'm looking at a pdf for service
prices the Seagate Adventurer's Guild used, and they
had a 78 card Tarot deck priced at 30 sp. Sounds
about right. Weight = 3 oz. Don't see anything about
divination crystals, though...

Hm. If we're talking about a Crystal of Vision as per
the enchantment ritual 36.Q-2, those have a base cost
of 1000 sp to make. I'd say to buy one would cost
twice that.

If we're talking about a crystal for use with the
Astrology skill, let's see what the Arcane Wisdom has
to say... looks like Quartz is your best bet:

"Use: Quartz may be fashioned by an artisan into a
clear polished seeing crystal for use in fortune
telling by either Adepts or Astrologers. Only
non-smoky Quartzes may be used for this purpose." The
magical market value of Quartz is listed at 50-2000
sp, and I would assume that a large clear polished
piece for a crystal ball would be at least 1000 sp.
Supply and demand is never kind to mystical types.

Don't see anything about weight. However, given the
density of quartz (2.65 g/cm3) and assuming a six-inch
diameter spherical crystal, we're talking a 10.8 lb
chunk of stone, if I did my math right.

There is also the Opal:

"Use: All types of Opals, except Catseye, may be set
and polished into seeing rings or crystals by a
competent jeweler or artisan. An Astrologer of Rank 5
or higher may then use them to foretell the future
with 5-25% greater accuracy. The Astrologer looks
into the "fire" present within the Opal and sees there
an image in answer to the question asked by him. The
image will appear with various amounts of clarity
depending upon the quality of the Opal used. There is
a 2% chance that anyone using an Opal for this purpose
will be cursed with Ill luck as a result. See [86.4]
for the operation of this curse."
Magic market value: 300-12,000 sp.

Heh heh. Not for a starting character, and not for an
experienced one that is faint of heart. But your
character might find this useful info for the future.
Hope that's what you were looking for.

Mort

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

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

> Hullo, Steven,
>
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 19:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Steven
> Wiles wrote:

> >I have no idea what to do with Spider. Of course,
> I'm an
> >arachnophobe, so I don't even like thinking about
> it... :O ;>
>
> hehe Not so crazy about spiders myself. In
> any event, that
> College so obviously belongs in the Entities.
> Imnsho. :)

Heh. Yeah, it's a basically evil, corrupting college,
so it would be in good... er... appropriate company.

That brings up a question, though. I can't seem to
find in the ArcWis (with my cursory searches) where it
defines the Branch to which each of the new colleges
(Lesser Summonings, Rune Magics, Shaping) belongs. If
someone with sharper eyes or a better memory can find
where that info is, I'd appreciate it.

On the other hand, maybe they forgot to include that
info. It is an unpublished copy, after all. If I had
to base my guesses on the criteria I established in my
previous post, I'd say Rune = Entities, Shaping =
Thaumaturgies, Lesser Summoning = Elemental. Rune is
a difficult one to analyze, though. It's almost its
own Branch, partaking freely of all colleges. I say
Entities mostly because of the Totem Spirits.

Mort.

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

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:32:54 -0700 (PDT), Steven Wiles
<mortdemuerte@yahoo.com> wrote:

>That brings up a question, though. I can't seem to
>find in the ArcWis (with my cursory searches) where it
>defines the Branch to which each of the new colleges
>(Lesser Summonings, Rune Magics, Shaping) belongs. If
>someone with sharper eyes or a better memory can find
>where that info is, I'd appreciate it.

Section 88: Lesser Summonings is a Thaumaturgy, Rune and Shaping are
Entities.

(However, I strongly disagree with their classification of Shaping, and in
my game that College is a Thaumaturgy also.)

(Loosely speaking, IMO: Elementals deal with the "stuff matter is made of";
Thaumaturgies deal with "theory and application of magic"; and Entities deal
with "dealing with external powers".)

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 10:50:47 -0400, "John M. Kahane" <jkahane@comnet.ca>
wrote:

> One of the things that has always irritated me about the game
>system is that XPs are handed out on a *session* basis (of about five
>hours), and in such quantity that character advancement in the system
>is quite rapid.

I quite like it, actually. Gaining XP and being in a position to expend
them are different things. When I ran "Enchanted Wood" for my players many
many years ago, they were trapped in there for *months* of game play; they
were collecting massive amounts of XP and couldn't do anything with them!
When they finally completed it and returned to civilisation they took a
*long* training break. Yet even then they could only improve each thing by
one Rank, so they still ended up with a pile of unspent XP. (It also gave
them the opportunity to do stuff they didn't normally think about, like
raising primary characteristics.) In a sense, they were able to "bank"
their massive Enchanted Wood experience and live off that over the course of
subsequent, shorter adventurers. The final result is that in a (relatively)
short while after completing that massive adventure they had progressed
tremendously in their overall abilities ... and I liked that result (and I
think they did too).

>This doesn't simulate
>real life to any great extent in terms of learning some of the more
>convoluted or complex skills, but there are a few controls on this
>matter.

I don't think of it in terms of "real life" but in terms of "player
satisfaction in their character's development". In that respect I think it
works just fine.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"I want to decide who lives and who dies."
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

Hullo, Cameron,

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 16:54:39 -0700, D. Cameron King wrote:

<> How do you all go about determining the characters' Levels
(ie.,
>>Mercenary, Adventurer, Hero) in the game? The rules in the book are
>>pretty clear on this, but how many folks here actually use Language
>>skills to "enhance the skill total" for this determination? And if
>>folks have changed the system in this regard, what sort of criteria are
>>people using?
>
>My group always followed the book. Thus, every character started
>out with two skills at Rank 8 (Speak Common + R/W Common if
>human or Speak [racial tongue] if non-human). This has the
>unfortunate side effect of favoring non-humans, however, since
>it costs 1/2 XP to increase your R/W skills when you Speak the
>language at a higher rank.

Yes, I suspect a lot of folks noticed that. One of the things I
wasn't all that fond of.

>The book rules also make *every* human literate, and *every*
>non-human illiterate, which we considered lame. So we
>house-ruled starting languages slightly: humans could either
>R/W Common or Speak a different human tongue (we had
>four besides Common in our campaign world). Non-humans
>could opt for R/W Common at the expense of speaking
>their racial tongue.

Yes, this is something else I house-ruled myself some years back.
One of the factors that one needs to take into account in this is how
literate one's world happens to be. Or not to be, as the case happens.
It also comes down to whether or not certain character skills require
the character to be literate or not. (Several skills in DQ make
mention of this.) I think it's a matter of personal preference, and
how one views the world that one is gaming in.

Hullo, Steven,

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Steven Wiles wrote:

>Mr. Kahane has kindly posted a number of people's
>ideas for colleges. In case you don't already have
>his link,
>
>http://deathstar.comnet.ca/~jkahane/dq/library/magic/new-colleges.html

Actually, the URL is slightly incorrect. It should be:

http://www.comnet.ca/~jkahane/dq/library/magic/new-colleges.html

And while you're correct about some of the "other people's ideas" about
the Colleges, note that Faerie Magics, Thaumaturgic Magics, and
Witchcraft are all mine. I've got several other Colleges that I've
been debating put up there as well, but haven't come to a decision
about for the moment.

Hullo, Keith,

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 07:50:54 +1200, phaeton_nz@yahoo.co.nz wrote:

>> Thanks for the information, Keith. Much obliged. :)
>>
>> Out of curiosity, do you know if the folks who created these
>>spells used the rules from ARCANE WISDOM to do so?
>
>To be honest, I have no idea.

I was afraid that you would say that, but I can't say I'm
surprised. I wonder if anyone else from the old Seagate days who might
know is still active on the list...

.....Silk was invented so that women could go naked in clothes.

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

Hullo, Cameron,

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:45:26 -0700, D. Cameron King wrote:

>> >My ruling was that anything that cost XP to get Ranks in was kosher,
>> >so languages or whatever were fine (and I didn't use the "languages
>> >only count as half a skill" or whatever rule from 3rd ed.).
>>
>> Nor do I. That particular rule really bugged me somewhat, simply
>>because I always found it to be...silly. I guess you (and the other
>>folks here) have noticed by now that Spoken languages are much
>>cheaper to buy than Read/Write ones, except for the rule that
>>states that a character can learn the lower of the two at a cheaper
>>cost. Makes snese, but that means that player characters learn to
>>speak a ton of languages and pay significantly less to increase their
>>Ranks with the written forms. And this totally ignores the element
>>of literacy vs. non-lireracy in one's fantasy campaign. :)
>
>This reminded me of another house rule my old group had
>regarding languages: one of the four non-Common human
>tongues in our world was a "dead" language (like Latin). It
>cost the same XP to learn to Read & Write it as any other
>language, but 50% more to learn to Speak it. That
>reversed the order in which characters tended to learn
>the language: Read & Write first, then Speak at
>(150%)/2 cost.

That actually makes sense, but that's one of the "implicit" rules
with languages that are "dead" or truly "ancient". After all, it's not
like you're going to find someone who can speak it..although in fantasy
rpgs, one never knows. :)

....."I checked the *last* door for the trap. You do it this time!" - Trayne Therral,
thief

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

Hullo, Steven,

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:14:58 -0700 (PDT), Steven Wiles wrote:

>> I'm generating a character for Steve's campaign, and was
>> wondering if anyone can help with some information. Has
>>anyone got the stats on costs and weights for crystal balls (of
>> divination) and for the equivalent of Tarot decks of differing
>> qualities? I could have sworn I saw that information somewhere,
>>but can't recall where.
>> Any help is appreciated on this. :)
>
>Well, right now I'm looking at a pdf for service prices the Seagate
>Adventurer's Guild

Ah, back to the good old Seagate Guild stuff, huh? :)

>used, and they had a 78 card Tarot deck priced at 30 sp. Sounds
>about right. Weight = 3 oz. Don't see anything about divination
>crystals, though...

That's not bad for a tarot deck, although 30 sp for a real deck
sounds a bit cheap. And that might not even be a good quality deck...

>Hm. If we're talking about a Crystal of Vision as per the enchantment
>ritual 36.Q-2, those have a base cost of 1000 sp to make. I'd say to
>buy one would cost twice that.
>If we're talking about a crystal for use with the Astrology skill, let's
>see what the Arcane Wisdom has to say... looks like Quartz is your
>best bet:

Yeah, I figured the quartz crystal would be the best bet, since I
remember the business from Arcane Wisdom on that (in the gem
description, right?).

>"Use: Quartz may be fashioned by an artisan into a clear polished
>seeing crystal for use in fortune telling by either Adepts or
>Astrologers. Only non-smoky Quartzes may be used for this purpose."
>The magical market value of Quartz is listed at 50-2000 sp, and I
>would assume that a large clear polished piece for a crystal ball
>would be at least 1000 sp. Supply and demand is never kind to
>mystical types.

Agreed. :) Thanks for this info. :)

>Don't see anything about weight. However, given the density of
>quartz (2.65 g/cm3) and assuming a six-inch diameter spherical
>crystal, we're talking a 10.8 lb chunk of stone, if I did my math right.

I have no clue on this right now, but it doesn't sound right. Or
maybe it does. Anyone else who wants to contribute to this is surely
welcome. :)

>There is also the Opal:
>"Use: All types of Opals, except Catseye, may be set and
>polished into seeing rings or crystals by a competent jeweler
>or artisan. An Astrologer of Rank 5 or higher may then use
>them to foretell the future with 5-25% greater accuracy. The
>Astrologer looks into the "fire" present within the Opal and
>sees there an image in answer to the question asked by him.
>The image will appear with various amounts of clarity
>depending upon the quality of the Opal used. There is a
>2% chance that anyone using an Opal for this purpose
>will be cursed with Ill luck as a result. See [86.4]
>for the operation of this curse."
>Magic market value: 300-12,000 sp.

Yeah, that sounds like a good choice, too. :)

>Heh heh. Not for a starting character, and not for an experienced
>one that is faint of heart.

That's for sure. :) This is the sort of thing that one has to
deal with as a starting character, but to be honest, the information
helps one plan for the future. :)

>But your character might find this useful info for the future.

Exactly. :)

>Hope that's what you were looking for.

Sort of. Much appreciated. :)

....."The conscience of the King doesn't matter. His head rolling on the floor,
that's another matter entirely." - Samir Olagsson, mercenary

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

Dead languages... cool idea. In our real world there are dead languages
where all we know are the texts, no chance of speaking it because that
knowledge has passed away (Myan glyphs, cuniform). Then there are languages
like Navajo that have (or at least had) no written text.
[Devious GM mind kicks into full gear] :)

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Cameron King" <monarchy2000@hotmail.com>
To: <dqn-list@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Determining Levels?


>
> John M. Kahane wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 19:36:45 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:
> >
> > >My ruling was that anything that cost XP to get Ranks in was kosher,
> > >so languages or whatever were fine (and I didn't use the "languages
> > >only count as half a skill" or whatever rule from 3rd ed.).
> >
> > Nor do I. That particular rule really bugged me somewhat, simply
> >because I always found it to be...silly. I guess you (and the other
> >folks here) have noticed by now that Spoken languages are much cheaper
> >to buy than Read/Write ones, except for the rule that states that a
> >character can learn the lower of the two at a cheaper cost. Makes
> >snese, but that means that player characters learn to speak a ton of
> >languages and pay significantly less to increase their Ranks with the
> >written forms. And this totally ignores the element of literacy vs.
> >non-lireracy in one's fantasy campaign. :)
>
> This reminded me of another house rule my old group had
> regarding languages: one of the four non-Common human
> tongues in our world was a "dead" language (like Latin). It
> cost the same XP to learn to Read & Write it as any other
> language, but 50% more to learn to Speak it. That
> reversed the order in which characters tended to learn
> the language: Read & Write first, then Speak at
> (150%)/2 cost. I just thought I'd share that with
> everyone; this flurry of DQ-talk has got me on a
> nostalgic roll...
>
> -Cameron King
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get MSN 8 and help protect your children with advanced parental controls.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/parental
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Stuff was put together by a large pool of people, will many different
influences, so its hard to say where everything came from.

I never recall anyone ever referring/quote from this book, generally
ideas were tossed around and mulled over by various people until the
spell looked OK. More years of gaming experience than anything else.

Terry


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

> Hullo, Keith,
>
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 07:50:54 +1200, phaeton_nz@y... wrote:
>
> >> Thanks for the information, Keith. Much obliged. :)
> >>
> >> Out of curiosity, do you know if the folks who created

these

> >>spells used the rules from ARCANE WISDOM to do so?
> >
> >To be honest, I have no idea.

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, phaeton_nz@y... wrote:

>
> > I was wondering if anyone could tell me where I might find

some of

> >the new spells and abilities and stuff that the folks at the

Seagate

> >Adventurers Guild added to the game system? I've been reading the

old

> >Adventure summaries and journals from their campaigns, and there

seems

> >to be a ton of new spells and rituals, among other things, and I

would

> >like to find some of this material to look over. Any help with

this

> >would be appreciated. Thanks. :)
>
> Try www.dragonquest.org.nz
>
> Keith.

Have a look at
http://dq.sf.org.nz/library/
as well.

I'm still working my way through the current flurry of
discussion that has come up of late --thank you JohnK
for sparking off this (and several other) firey
threads of discussion--, so my appologies for not
reading all the followup if I'm repeating someone else
here:

--- dbarrass_2000 <david.barrass@ed.ac.uk> wrote (in
part):

> 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.

There's no reason to expect a continuous range of
values in a stat when only a small fraction of the
population regularly uses that stat.

I think that the case could be made for MA to be
something that can be incresed through practice and
exercise, much like strength. If a character never
does anything with the ability, it seems entirely
reasonable that the stat should fall to a minimal
value.

There may be a smoother distribution in the population
at a very young age, but those who have an affinity
for magic and practice regularly develop their
abilities and keep a higher MA, while the rest of them
become (metaphorically) magical couch potatoes.

(One could likewise make an argument for playing a
mage character who never, ever ever uses a weapon nor
carries anything, and thus feels no need to have a PS
of more than 5. Having just thought of that, I think
I may have to explore that concept as an NPC at some
point.)

The rules allow a character to increase any stat
through expenditure of EXPs. Looking at MA as
something like Strength, rather than as a fixed trait
like eye color fits better with the game mechanics
which govern it. Of course, this can all get to be a
bit like arguing the physics of magic ;-)

In my old campaign some years back, as the characters
were reaching top ranks in their skills, one of the
players decided to make his character a mage. It took
him some time to raise his MA up from 5 to the point
where he could learn the spells (and then we had some
downtime which gave him the period of time needed to
learn all the basics) and thus take a character from
non-mage to mage.




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

I've just joined in as a player in an existing
campaign (thanks Juanc et al!) and was allocated
roughly 50% of the EXP totals that the other
characters had. My character isn't up there
immediately with the rest of the party, but he can
stand his own.

As an experienced DQ player, I prefer to be able to
play a character who can act in the DQ world. While I
appreciate the process of starting new characters and
advancing to the point where you are dangerous to
others (rather than just to yourself), it doesn't
necessarily always fit in with the tone and style of
the particular campaign.

I don't see either of these viewpoints as being
exclusive. Depending on the particular campaign, it
may be more appropriate to play a character with more
or less experience.

This is one of the points where I think, if SPI had
not died when it did, there would have been variant
rules suggested for alternate methods for character
creation.

When I started my new campaign, I gave everyone a fair
chunk of experience points to create their characters.
Everyone was an experienced DQ player, and I was much
more interested in a more involved story for my
campaign, rather than having a campaign of scrappy
youngsters trying to earn a couple hundred silvers
here and there.

I've also used a system based on Ranks rather than on
EXPs to allow players to customize characters for
adventures at conventions. It's much faster than
calculating all the EXPs, and for a one-shot event
like an adventure at a con, balance isn't that big of
an issue. I think that it has worked well.

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

>
> 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.

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

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

> 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?

Definitely me.

Witchcraft and Time Magics (in "Poor Brendan's
Almanac") and a College of Sun Magics [Entities] that
I am currently developing.

--Rodger Thorm

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

Sorry for the late append, but I had too many messages to catch up with and too
little time.

> John M. Kahane wrote on Thu, 28 Aug 2003 09:06:49 -0400 :
>
> >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.
> Now this sounds like a good addittion to the skill... Any chance
> you can post the paragraph section of this to the mailing list? I'd
> like to see the write-up on this, if possible.

The original paragraph was written in Spanish, so the translation may be a
little ackward; feel free to correct my english:

12) The character who chooses the Warrior skill may increase the maximum level
he/she can rank his/her weapons
A Warrior may increase in 1 the tabulated maximum level he can rank a weapon.
The XP cost needed to attain this additional rank is equal to the last
tabulated level for that weapon; and to be able to get this rank, the character
must have a rank with the Warrior skill that is greater than or equal to the
new rank level with the weapon. So, a character must have at least rk 5 with
the Warrior skill to be able to rank shield to level 5.

Best regards... Arturo

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

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:18:50 -0700 (PDT), Rodger Thorm
<rodger_thorm@yahoo.com> wrote:

>(One could likewise make an argument for playing a
>mage character who never, ever ever uses a weapon nor
>carries anything, and thus feels no need to have a PS
>of more than 5. Having just thought of that, I think
>I may have to explore that concept as an NPC at some
>point.)

One of the players in my game had a PS of 5 ... he was laughed at a lot for
being so puny, and god help them all if they needed him to actually *carry*
something ... but he *was* one heck of a powerful Celestial mage
(eventually).

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"Oh no, they're doing it clown-style!"
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

Hullo, Steven,

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:32:54 -0700 (PDT), Steven Wiles wrote:

>> >I have no idea what to do with Spider. Of course, I'm an
>> >arachnophobe, so I don't even like thinking about it... :O ;>
>>
>> hehe Not so crazy about spiders myself. In any event,
>>that College so obviously belongs in the Entities. Imnsho. :)
>
>Heh. Yeah, it's a basically evil, corrupting college, so it would
>be in good... er... appropriate company.

Exactly. :)

>That brings up a question, though. I can't seem to find in the
>ArcWis (with my cursory searches) where it defines the Branch
>to which each of the new colleges (Lesser Summonings,
>Rune Magics, Shaping) belongs. If someone with sharper
>eyes or a better memory can find where that info is, I'd appreciate
>it.

I figure you'll get a few answers to this one, but what the heck..
I believe it's in Section 88. Lesser Summonings is a Thaumaturgy,
Rune and Shaping are in the Entities. Never did understand the
rationale for that with the Shaper College, but...


.....Virus found - Windows95. (C)lean (W)ipe (I)nstall OS/2 Warp

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

Hullo, Deven,

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 20:30:24 -0400, Deven Atkinson wrote:

>Dead languages... cool idea. In our real world there are dead
>languages where all we know are the texts, no chance of
>speaking it because that knowledge has passed away (Myan
>glyphs, cuniform). Then there are languages like Navajo
>that have (or at least had) no written text. [Devious GM mind
>kicks into full gear] :)

Yes, the business of dead languages is something that fascinates
me in real life, too, and so naturally it spills over into the
roleplaying games, especially the fantasy ones. I ran one plot where
an understanding of a phrase from an ancient language was the central
element to the plot, and the party had to track down the only known
person who understood the language (and there was a secret behind that
as well, much to the party's surprise for some reason), and that worked
out kind of well.

....."The only good gargoyle is one decorating the top of a church." - Willem Anders,
city guard

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

Hullo, Bruce,

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 18:40:06 +1000, Bruce Probst wrote:

>> One of the things that has always irritated me about the game
>>system is that XPs are handed out on a *session* basis (of about
>>five hours), and in such quantity that character advancement in
>>the system is quite rapid.
>
>I quite like it, actually. Gaining XP and being in a position to expend
>them are different things.

This is certainly true. :)

>When I ran "Enchanted Wood" for my players many many years ago,
>they were trapped in there for *months* of game play; they were collecting
>massive amounts of XP and couldn't do anything with them!

Yeah, one of the things I like both about that scenario and "The
Palace of Ontoncle". Had a stubborn party that wouldn't let the place
go, so they hired someone to drop food off for them at the entrance to
the place, and a party member of two would always make the trip back
every so often to pick up the food. Logistical nightmares at times,
but some fun times with party members getting lost or forgetting their
way. :) Lots of experience there.

>When they finally completed it and returned to civilisation they took a
>*long* training break. Yet even then they could only improve each
>thing by one Rank, so they still ended up with a pile of unspent XP.

See even though several people have mentioned the ability to only
go up by one Rank in an ability that one has used, I still can't seem
to (re-)find this rule in the book. I think that if a character is
willing to spend that long learning one or two or three Ranks in the
skill (and if he wants to pay a teacher that much, although the teacher
may not want to invest that amount of time), there shouldn't be
anything wrong with this...other than the fellow party members all
itching to leave the town as soon as possible. <g>

>(It also gave them the opportunity to do stuff they didn't normally think
>about, like raising primary characteristics.)

Yeah, there is that...always a great place to dump some XPs after
adventuring. :)

> In a sense, they were able to "bank" their massive Enchanted Wood
>experience and live off that over the course of subsequent, shorter
>adventurers.

Yep, that's the way I always work it with epic scenarios like
that. :)

>The final result is that in a (relatively) short while after completing
>that massive adventure they had progressed tremendously in their
>overall abilities ... and I liked that result (and I think they did too).

I guess each one of us differs in that regard. It is a matter of
the realistic nature of the game in some areas, versus this massive
ability to gain skills and abilities over the short term and in such a
"one shot" fashion that bothers me.

>>This doesn't simulate real life to any great extent in terms
>>of learning some of the more convoluted or complex skills,
>>but there are a few controls on this matter.
>
>I don't think of it in terms of "real life" but in terms of "player
>satisfaction in their character's development". In that respect
>I think it works just fine.

I don't agree with you on this, but that's just me, I suppose. :)

....."I'm getting some space, Aeryn, and I'm not talking the space outside
the ship." - John Crichton (FS: JC)

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

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

> >That brings up a question, though. I can't seem to
> find in the
> >ArcWis (with my cursory searches) where it defines
> the Branch
> >to which each of the new colleges (Lesser
> Summonings,
> >Rune Magics, Shaping) belongs. If someone with
> sharper
> >eyes or a better memory can find where that info
> is, I'd appreciate
> >it.
>
> I figure you'll get a few answers to this one,
> but what the heck..
> I believe it's in Section 88. Lesser Summonings is
> a Thaumaturgy,
> Rune and Shaping are in the Entities. Never did
> understand the
> rationale for that with the Shaper College, but...

Thanks, John and Bruce, for answering this. I now
realize why I couldn't find the answer myself, though.
Both copies of the ArcWis I have, a Word doc and a
pdf, start with section 89. I never even noticed the
jump from the main rules, which of course end with
section 87. Now obviously, the both of you must have
this section in -your- copies. Could I impose upon
one of you to send me this section in text form so
that I may have a complete copy?

Mort

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

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

> >Mr. Kahane has kindly posted a number of people's
> >ideas for colleges. In case you don't already have
> >his link,

[snip]

> And while you're correct about some of the "other
> people's ideas" about
> the Colleges, note that Faerie Magics, Thaumaturgic
> Magics, and
> Witchcraft are all mine. I've got several other
> Colleges that I've
> been debating put up there as well, but haven't come
> to a decision
> about for the moment.

Oh, my apologies, I should've given credit where
credit was due. I forgot those three were your
babies.

Mort.

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

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

> >used, and they had a 78 card Tarot deck priced at
> 30 sp. Sounds
> >about right. Weight = 3 oz. Don't see anything
> about divination
> >crystals, though...
> That's not bad for a tarot deck, although 30 sp
> for a real deck
> sounds a bit cheap. And that might not even be a
> good quality deck...

Yeah, I would say that represents a common's man deck,
designed more for use in card games than in
divination. Probably still servicable for an
Astrologer on the road, though. A more aesthetically
pleasing deck painted by a true artist would, of
course, be more expensive.

> >Don't see anything about weight. However, given the
> density of
> >quartz (2.65 g/cm3) and assuming a six-inch
> diameter spherical
> >crystal, we're talking a 10.8 lb chunk of stone, if
> I did my math right.
>
> I have no clue on this right now, but it
> doesn't sound right. Or
> maybe it does. Anyone else who wants to contribute
> to this is surely
> welcome. :)

Ho, you impugn my capacities as a natural philosopher,
sirrah! :)

Still, as a teacher of collegiate physics I would be
remiss if I neglected empirical evidence. Also, it's
the weekend and I'm bored. So, I grabbed a brick and
weighed it. It has about half the volume of the 6"
quartz sphere [(4/3)*Pi*radius^3, 3" radius vs.
7.5"x3.5"x2.25" brick]. On my bathroom scales, it
weighed 4 pounds. Brick is a little less dense than
quartz crystal (say about 2 g/cm3). Alas, 10 pounds
is about right. That ain't even counting the metal
stand/settings/etc. Man, I'm gonna miss this free
time when school gets going again.

I know what you mean when you say it sounds too heavy,
though. I'm getting the idea that crystal balls are
for home use, and nice light card decks (rune-carved
finger bones, chicken entrails, etc.) are more travel
friendly. :)

Mort

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

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

> >When they finally completed it and returned to
> civilisation they took a
> >*long* training break. Yet even then they could
> only improve each
> >thing by one Rank, so they still ended up with a
> pile of unspent XP.
>
> See even though several people have mentioned
> the ability to only
> go up by one Rank in an ability that one has used, I
> still can't seem
> to (re-)find this rule in the book.

[87.1], end of section: "A character must satisfy all
requirements to increase his Rank by one in an ability
or skill before he again increases it by one. Thus, a
character may never `skip` Ranks. A character must
have attempted an ability or skill on the adventure
previous to a gain in Rank in that ability or skill."

I agree, though, that this is a rule that can be
waived by appropriate circumstances. Apparently, so
did the designers: "[87.7] The requirements noted
above for the advancement of skills are ultimately up
to the discretion of the GM."

I always perceived this rule as being more of an
anti-munchkin rule. My old GM used to give the
example of his old high-school group, who had their
Merc characters take five years off to build up
between-campaign XP (15 EP/day). In his case, his
Earth Mage went from Rank 0 to Rank 20 in Diamond
Javelins, and never feared anything again. After
that, their GM enforced this rule and so did he.
However, if one of us had used a skill/spell/weapon a
very great deal on the previous adventure, he'd agree
to let us do jumps of two Ranks, and rarely even
three.

For mature gamers, it shouldn't be a real serious
issue. Come to think of it, everyone saying how
character progression is -rapid- surprised the heck
out of me. I always thought of it as -slow- in this
game. My college group gamed nearly every weekend
with the same characters for 4 years, and we only hit
Hero levels at the before we graduated. However, it
was real typical in our group to spend XP on many
abilities, and we certainly weren't thinking in terms
of reaching Adventurer or Hero as quickly as possible.
A couple of us spent tons of XP on Perception as
Mercs (probably 'cause we were tired of constantly
getting jumped) until our GM actually asked us to stop
(he couldn't surprise our characters anymore). :)

> I think that if
> a character is
> willing to spend that long learning one or two or
> three Ranks in the
> skill (and if he wants to pay a teacher that much,
> although the teacher
> may not want to invest that amount of time), there
> shouldn't be
> anything wrong with this...other than the fellow
> party members all
> itching to leave the town as soon as possible. <g>

Exactly. That's another technique I've seen used
effectively in some campaigns. Don't give the
characters enough down-time to train for too long. Of
course, that only works if the characters have
obligations they can't or won't ignore. That kind of
thing wouldn't have worked in my old college group, we
could be delightfully amoral and difficult to track
down when we felt like it. :)

Mort

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

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 15:24:13 -0700 (PDT), Steven Wiles
<mortdemuerte@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Thanks, John and Bruce, for answering this. I now
>realize why I couldn't find the answer myself, though.
> Both copies of the ArcWis I have, a Word doc and a
>pdf, start with section 89. I never even noticed the
>jump from the main rules, which of course end with
>section 87. Now obviously, the both of you must have
>this section in -your- copies. Could I impose upon
>one of you to send me this section in text form so
>that I may have a complete copy?

****

88. Incorporating New Colleges into the Game

The three new Colleges of Magic in this booklet operate in all ways
identically to the original 12 Colleges incorporated into *DragonQuest*
proper. Each College is possessed of a General Knowledge and Special
Knowledge Counterspell, and these are known to Adepts of the College of
Naming Incantations, just as other counterspells are. The College of Lesser
Summonings is one of the Thaumaturgies. The Colleges of Rune Magics and
Shaping Magics are part of the Entities. All of the provisions of Sections
25 through 35 of the *DragonQuest* rules apply to these three Colleges.

The GM who is concerned with maintaining continuity may have to invent a
rationale, explaining why players have been unaware of these new Colleges.
Also, the Namers of his world should be given certain allowances pertinent
to the knowledge of the counterspells for these Colleges, especially for a
character who has risen in power and knowledge of all other counterspells.
Possibly a temporary reduction of the required study time or Experience
Point cost may be implemented to allow a Namer an opportunity to catch up.

****

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830
Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"It says I may already be a winner!"
ASL FAQ http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ

Steven Wiles wrote:

>Come to think of it, everyone saying how
>character progression is -rapid- surprised the heck
>out of me. I always thought of it as -slow- in this
>game. My college group gamed nearly every weekend
>with the same characters for 4 years, and we only hit
>Hero levels at the before we graduated.

For what it's worth, I agree with you, Steven. My
group played regularly (once every two weeks or so)
for two or three years, and our three most successful
characters--who survived from the very beginning of
the campaign--never achieved Hero status. But then,
[86.1] and [86.2] are pretty vague for being such
fundamental game rules, so there's a lot of room
for interpretation...and it would seem that different
groups have, in fact, applied them quite differently.

-Cameron King

_________________________________________________________________
Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage.
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

--- Bruce Probst <bprobst@netspace.net.au> wrote:

> 88. Incorporating New Colleges into the Game
>

Thank you very much, Bruce. Now my copy is complete.

Mort

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

Hullo, Terry,

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 12:09:16 -0000, terryintransit wrote:

>Stuff was put together by a large pool of people, will many different
>influences, so its hard to say where everything came from.

Based on some of the adventure journals that I've read from the
Seagate stuff, it's easy to see that there are a lot of different
influences. :)

>I never recall anyone ever referring/quote from this book, generally
>ideas were tossed around and mulled over by various people until the
>spell looked OK. More years of gaming experience than anything else.

Hmm, yeah, the years of gaming do count, but so far, I have tried
to "recreate" several of the spells from the additional material using
AW's rules for spell creation, and some of them just don't work. Oh,
well...back to the drawing board for this stuff, at least in my
campaign. :)

Thanks for the info. :)

.....Bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of cheques.

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

Hullo, Rodger,

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:45:22 -0700 (PDT), Rodger Thorm wrote:

>I've just joined in as a player in an existing campaign (thanks
>Juanc et al!) and was allocated roughly 50% of the EXP totals
>that the other characters had. My character isn't up there
>immediately with the rest of the party, but he can stand his own.

That makes as much sense to me as any other, when introducing new
characters into an ongoing campaign. This is, however, one area that I
wish the game had dealt with firmly in writing, since the Experience
section is more of a general guideline than anything else.

>As an experienced DQ player, I prefer to be able to play a
>character who can act in the DQ world. While I appreciate
>the process of starting new characters and advancing to
>the point where you are dangerous to others (rather than
>just to yourself), it doesn't necessarily always fit in with the
>tone and style of the particular campaign.

No, no it doesn't...but I think that the type of campaign has
only marginally to do with the starting "level" of characters who come
into the campaign fresh. If I give every character 5 Ranks total to
create their characters with, than the types of enemies, beasties, and
the like that they should face to begin with should match that "level"
of character. Unless one wants to kill off the characters quickly.
But it's much more difficult gauging things when the player brings a
new character into a group that has adventured for several years real
time.

>I don't see either of these viewpoints as being exclusive.
>Depending on the particular campaign, it may be more
>appropriate to play a character with more or less experience.

No argument here. :)

>When I started my new campaign, I gave everyone a fair chunk
>of experience points to create their characters. Everyone was
>an experienced DQ player, and I was much more interested in
>a more involved story for my campaign, rather than having a
>campaign of scrappy youngsters trying to earn a couple hundred
>silvers here and there.

This makes sense to me, unless the players in question want to
experience that challenge of the young, scrappy set of characters once
more. :)

>I've also used a system based on Ranks rather than on EXPs
>to allow players to customize characters for adventures at
>conventions. It's much faster than calculating all the EXPs,
>and for a one-shot event like an adventure at a con, balance
>isn't that big of an issue. I think that it has worked well.

I would have to agree with this, although the question becomes how
many Ranks to give the players to begin with. Because SPI went under
and the game never really "developed", there are just so many questions
and issues that arise from time to time with DQ. Over the years, that
has been the most frustrating part of running the game, although I have
to admit that I find myself in a position where, like most DQ GMs, I
created and innovated the solutions that I needed at the time I needed
them. :)

....."There's a Mazianni ship off the port bow...I think. I'm actually quite
blind now." - Thomas Whitaker, pilot

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

Hullo, Steven,

On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 15:24:13 -0700 (PDT), Steven Wiles wrote:

>> >That brings up a question, though. I can't seem to find in the
>> >ArcWis (with my cursory searches) where it defines the Branch
>> >to which each of the new colleges (Lesser Summonings,
>> >Rune Magics, Shaping) belongs. If someone with sharper
>> >eyes or a better memory can find where that info is, I'd
>> >appreciate it.
>>
>> I figure you'll get a few answers to this one, but what the heck..
>> I believe it's in Section 88. Lesser Summonings is a Thaumaturgy,
>> Rune and Shaping are in the Entities. Never did understand the
>> rationale for that with the Shaper College, but...
>
>Thanks, John and Bruce, for answering this.

You're welcome. :)

>I now realize why I couldn't find the answer myself, though.
> Both copies of the ArcWis I have, a Word doc and a pdf, start
>with section 89. I never even noticed the jump from the main
>rules, which of course end with section 87. Now obviously,
>the both of you must have this section in -your- copies.

Well, yes, I have one of the original copies of AW. I don't
know whether Bruce does, too.

>Could I impose upon one of you to send me this section in text
>form so that I may have a complete copy?

I'm a little bit behind in answering my e-mail, but I see that
Bruce has answered this already. :)

.....Contentsoftaglinemaysettleduringshipping.

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