> I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who thought runes were
> under utilized in DQ. That is the reason I asked about RuneQuest. I
> also wanted to create a system/world where runes played a more
> important role in gaming. Ideally, I wanted to create a system/world
> where runes were a part of everyday life. (It sounds like my idea
> isn't too far off from your home-brew RQ system) Unfortunately, every
> time I sat down to work on it, I realized what an enormous task that
> would be. Needless to say, it is still on my DQ to do list. Maybe
> some day...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Any world, including this one, is full of religions and creation
>
> myths.  Religious belief powers so many of the things that happen,
>
> even in our own secular societies.  If you have a world without myths
>
> and beliefs you only have maps (I sound like I'm ranting don't I -
>
> sorry).  Yes Dieties and Demigods system was a typical Gygax
>
> imposition but I believe that you should have rules that allow
>
> religions to be made, and some example religions to show how the rules
>
> could be used to make a complete world.  This is what has been tried
>
> in the Religion system developed in DQ cathedral.  You could make
>
> religions work without rules, but that will lead to inconsistencies
>
> unles you're very careful
>
>
>
> DQ actually gives some hints, check out the paragraph on consecrated
>
> ground at the beginning of the magic system and some "magic" item
>
> descriptions in Arcane Wisdom.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> PS like your site, I look from my office window and can see Edinburgh
>
> Castle on one side and a 15th century tower house on the other
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > To my way of thinking as soon as you put in rules for priests or
>
> > divine intervention then you have to also describe the religions and
>
> > gods that go with them. How can you give abilities or spells to a
>
> > priest without describing the diety that would grant them? As soon as
>
> > you have gods you must have some kind of creation myth to explain
>
> > where these gods, and most likely the world itself, came from. IMO you
>
> > must define a campaign setting if you are going to define rules for
>
> > priests and dieties otherwise you end up with D&D.
>
> >
>
> > So why is it that you feel a religious system must be present in a game?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/
>  
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> dqn-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> Any world, including this one, is full of religions and creation
> myths. Religious belief powers so many of the things that happen,
> even in our own secular societies. If you have a world without myths
> and beliefs you only have maps (I sound like I'm ranting don't I -
> sorry). Yes Dieties and Demigods system was a typical Gygax
> imposition but I believe that you should have rules that allow
> religions to be made, and some example religions to show how the rules
> could be used to make a complete world. This is what has been tried
> in the Religion system developed in DQ cathedral. You could make
> religions work without rules, but that will lead to inconsistencies
> unles you're very careful
>
> DQ actually gives some hints, check out the paragraph on consecrated
> ground at the beginning of the magic system and some "magic" item
> descriptions in Arcane Wisdom.
>
> David
>
> PS like your site, I look from my office window and can see Edinburgh
> Castle on one side and a 15th century tower house on the other
>
> <snip>
>
> > To my way of thinking as soon as you put in rules for priests or
> > divine intervention then you have to also describe the religions and
> > gods that go with them. How can you give abilities or spells to a
> > priest without describing the diety that would grant them? As soon as
> > you have gods you must have some kind of creation myth to explain
> > where these gods, and most likely the world itself, came from. IMO you
> > must define a campaign setting if you are going to define rules for
> > priests and dieties otherwise you end up with D&D.
> >
> > So why is it that you feel a religious system must be present in a

>
> No question that religions do play an important part in any cultures
> history whether in the real world or in a fantasy world for a RPG. But
> that is talking about a campaign setting not game mechanics.
>
> One problem with a religious rules system being deemed mandatory is
> that I don't believe you can seperate the rules for such from a
> campaign setting. Whereas I do believe you can define a campaign
> setting, complete with pantheons and creation mythos, without getting
> into a detailed rules system. As soon as you have rules for what the
> gods are and can do you've placed limitations on what you, the GM, can
> do with your stories. In my campaigns no character can ever really
> know the motivations or abilities of the gods.

> I haven't taken the time yet to go through the DQ cathedral rules but
> I will take a pass through them today if I can.
>
> "You could make religions work without rules, but that will lead to
> inconsistencies unless you're very careful."
>
> Well, no, religions work just fine without rules. What I suspect you
> meant is that players, or npcs, acting as priests or supplicants to
> gods and requesting favors/blessings/spells only available through
> divine intervention needs rules to avoid inconsistencies. I can mostly
> agree with that. As soon as you say a player (or NPC) can, as a priest
> or worshipper of a diety, receive powers, spells or whatever then you
> definitely need rules. That I am fine with.

> But, IMO, if you publish a
> set of rules for what spells a priest receives then you MUST also
> include the dieties and such to go with them. However game designers
> always seem to feel the need to go that one step farther and assign
> stats and abilities to those dieties reducing them to caricatures.

> As you say the DQ rules include many references to religious type
> events, items and beings. I always felt that they were provided as
> nothing more than guidelines or suggestions of how to integrate
> whatever it was into your own campaign.
>
> I guess I have just never seen the lack of a religious system within
> DQ as even a small problem let alone a big one. Talking with one of
> my longtime players last night, she was also confused as to why it was
> an issue

> Must admit I found the use of Gods an easy way to make up a plot-line
> if u are struggling and unprepared for a session. They are always
> meddling somewhere /or having something done in their names so are
> useful for spontaneous GM-ing.

> I think religion is critical to successful campaigns. Is
> the debate here really having the gods present in the lives
> of characters?

>
>
> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, dq@j... wrote:
>> I think religion is critical to successful campaigns. Is
>> the debate here really having the gods present in the lives
>> of characters?
>
> John, that's definitely not the point of my original post on the
> subject. There are two issues here I guess. First is whether or not
> rules for religions and/or priest-type characters are needed for a
> game system to be usable. It is this issue my original post was
> directed towards.

>
> The second issue would be the subject of your comments above. Whether
> or not religion is critical in campaigns. For my part I say it is not
> critical or even mandatory. Note that most of my campaigns have had
> the presence of gods and their agents in them with varying degrees of
> interference in the players actions. But I have run campaigns and
> played in campaigns where religion played no part at all. We still
> had fun and isn't that the true measure of a successful campaign?\

>
> - Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Has no player wished to try a priest? Certainly if all
> your priests are NPCs then that's a lot of the pressure
> taken off.

> My campaign is an alternate Britain, trying to model that without
> working religions was to miss 9/10 ths of the tensions, and plot
> lines.

> My real motivation was to get Chris to clarify why he
> thought it was so important.

> That is different though from the DQ campaign we ran in the Harn
> setting. There were gods and temples and priests for those gods. The
> NPC priests were very active in the politics of the various kingdoms.
> But the priests had no abilities beyond those of anyone else. Some
> of them would have skills in a particular magic college. Others might
> be skilled in healing or perhaps alchemy. Most were just people
> devoted to their diety.

> No question that religions do play an important part in any cultures
> history whether in the real world or in a fantasy world for a RPG. But
> that is talking about a campaign setting not game mechanics.

>
> One problem with a religious rules system being deemed mandatory

> is
> that I don't believe you can seperate the rules for such from a
> campaign setting.

> Whereas I do believe you can define a campaign
> setting, complete with pantheons and creation mythos, without getting
> into a detailed rules system.

> As soon as you have rules for what the
> gods are and can do you've placed limitations on what you, the GM, can
> do with your stories.

> In my campaigns no character can ever really
> know the motivations or abilities of the gods.

> "You could make religions work without rules, but that will lead to
> inconsistencies unless you're very careful."
>
> But, IMO, if you publish a
> set of rules for what spells a priest receives then you MUST also
> include the dieties and such to go with them. However game designers
> always seem to feel the need to go that one step farther and assign
> stats and abilities to those dieties reducing them to caricatures.

>
> As you say the DQ rules include many references to religious type
> events, items and beings. I always felt that they were provided as
> nothing more than guidelines or suggestions of how to integrate
> whatever it was into your own campaign.

>
> I guess I have just never seen the lack of a religious system within
> DQ as even a small problem let alone a big one. Talking with one of
> my longtime players last night, she was also confused as to why it was
> an issue

> <snip>
> This is an issue as I see it, nothing more. A fantasy campaign that
> doesn't deal with mythology, gods and/or religions is missing the boat
> in a big time way, IMHO.

> For me, sustaining the illusion of realism is a large part
> of the fun, and if your game is set in a pre-modern society
> where you take no systematic account of religion, realism
> will be harder to achieve.

> The second meaning that I took from Chris's conclusion: if you like
> 'general storytelling' in your RPG, (and who doesn't?) why would you
> not want to draw on the good storytelling you can find in mythology?

> The only good game I can think of that made a particular
> religion an integral part of the rules is Runequest II.
> But that was a really good game.

> Pulling a guess out of nowhere it seems like you feel that RPG
> sessions should be serving a greater purpose than just general
> storytelling, bad puns and the consuming of vast quantities of junk
> food.

> Perhaps that we should be examining mans role in the universe or
> something. I don't know. Please don't interpret my comments the wrong
> way as I'm not trying to mock you or anything of the sort but my
> impression from your comments was that you were hinting at deeper
> things. Or maybe I'm just reading meaning into places where none was
> to be found.

> Game system IS story. They are one in the same. So, a fantasy
> game system that attempts to say 'we can be applied to many different
> fantasy worlds' and just does hand-waving about a mythology / gods /
> religion system would be identical, to my way of thinking, as saying
> 'the characters in this world use hand-to-hand combat, not firearms,
> but you guys have to make up that system yourself.'
>
>

On Apr 23, 2005, at 2:24 PM, dqn-list@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> For me, sustaining the illusion of realism is a large part of the
> fun, and if your game is set in a pre-modern society where you take
> no systematic account of religion, realism will be harder to achieve.

I'm not advocating mythology/gods/religion for 'realism', I'm
advocating it for drama.

> The second meaning that I took from Chris's conclusion: if you like
> 'general storytelling' in your RPG, (and who doesn't?) why would you
> not want to draw on the good storytelling you can find in mythology?

Well, yes, but not only that, but *all* storytelling is about trying to
extract meaning from life, and that is the heart of mythology. In my
mind you cannot separate the two.

> As to whether religion is better embodied in the rules or the
> campaign setting, I'm agnostic. The only good game I can think of
> that made a particular religion an integral part of the rules is
> Runequest II. But that was a really good game.

And I believe that their decision to do that is part of what made it a
great game. Twenty-five years ago, I didn't understand that.

> In earth history, religion and/or the gods played a big part in the
> day-to-day lives of the average person in most earth cultures. We
> know this through historical record (though since much of that is
> through religious records it may be a bit biased) but I doubt any of
> us really appreciate the degree to which this was true. The majority
> of people also suffered from malnutrition, pestilence, disease,
> oppression and had short miserable lives. Doesn't really make for good
> storytelling though.

Right. RPG-ing is improvisational theater, and theater/drama is
selective. 'Reality' shows are not very real. They edit the footage
they've got to increase the drama. They show you only the stuff that
will make it more interesting. Same with RPG.

> What you do need, IMO, is a self-consistent world as much as that is
> reasonably possible. Whether religion and/or the gods are a
> significant part of that or just background scenery doesn't really
> effect how easy it is to achieve suspension of disbelief.

I agree with this. I'm saying that to me, the interrelationship
between magic in ANY form and the core universal forces of creation at
work in any world are inseparable.

> Because sometimes players like to chart the destinies of their
> characters themselves?

Why would the presence of mythology and/or gods stop this?

> Because there are plenty of stories to be told
> that don't involve either gods or religion?

Sure. But there are no good stories that don't somehow at their core
address the meaning/purpose of life. To storytellers, that is the Holy
Grail.

>
> Yes it is easy as a GM to get characters to go here or do that because
> a god has asked them to do so but does that mandate rules for either
> religions or gods?

I wouldn't use this technique, myself. The players need to want to do
anything or it is empty. Gods do not play that kind of role in my
worlds. I don't have (metaphorically) Athena and Aphrodite arguing
over Paris.
>
> Note that at no point have I been arguing against inclusion of
> religions or gods in a campaign. I just disagree with the blanket
> statement that they are mandatory in a campaign and/or rule system.

Just to be clear, what I am saying is that _I_ believe that the
exclusion of those concepts from DQ handicap the system, and I believe
that in a fantasy game, you need to address those issues.

> I can certainly agree that Runequest is one of the few fantasy RPGs to
> really do a good job of tightly integrating religion into to the
> overall rules and campaign. However I never liked the game system
> itself. :)

And, just to add sauce to the goose, I never liked Glorantha much. But
I believe the *idea* of a tight integration between system and story is
crucial to a great game system. RQ II / III were, IMHO, much better
games than DQ because of this. But this is certainly my personal
taste.

And this discussion has been wonderful (grin).

Chris Klug
------------------
"Story is the gap between expectation and result"

>
> I just wanted to say, for whatever it's worth, that I see things much the
> same way as Phil does, apparently. One of the things I really liked about
> DQ was the total *absence* of rules governing religion, gods, divine magic,
> etc. In our campaigns, religion certainly had a cultural significance, but
> as far as players running D&D-style "clerics," it just didn't happen. The
> gods may have been real, or they may not have been; either way, they
> certainly didn't make their presence *known*, just as they don't in our
> world.
>
> Had anyone ever expressed interest in playing a priest (or devout follower)
> of some god, we'd have encouraged him to do so, but that character would
> have followed the exact same rules as anybody else, and received absolutely
> no in-game benefits as a result of his faith. (At one point, we considered
> allowing PCs to declare themselves a Servant of the Powers of Light, which
> would have provided a bonus to Magic Resistance in exchange for taking on
> certain restrictions/obligations and being excluded from the various
> Colleges of Magic, but no one was ever serious enough about choosing that
> option for us to bother fleshing the rules out.)
>
> Aside from that, I never had any interest (or saw any need) in having DQ
> rules for religion, and I would disagree that a system lacking such is in
> any (serious) way flawed or incomplete.
>
> -Cameron

> Our group is updating our DragonQuest house rules book. And as
> strange as this is going to sound coming from a player who began
> playing DragonQuest in 1981 (as most of my group has):
>
> Do all characteristics have racial maximums? And what are they?

> What characteristics can NOT be modified up (or down) using
> experience? And are there characteristics which have limited
> increase separate from racial limitiations?

> Here are the points of confusion that a player brought up and no
> absolute answer has been found:
>
> 1. Under rule 5 (Characteristic Generation) the range of values is
> between 5 and 25. It also states that 25 is the maximum performance
> which may be achieved by a human; 26 and above greater befits a
> superman. The other player believes this could only be applicable
> during the Character Generation process.

> 2. Fatigue for a EN of 25 in the table is 23. Can this be increased
> above 23? And if so how far above 23?

> 3. The other player believes that the FT and EN (maybe) are not
> intended to have limits. How else could a group hope to take on
> Dragons (in this I can see his point). His belief is that the
> designers intended the FT and EN (maybe) to be unlimited just as
> D&Ds hitpoints can be theoretically increased forever. With the rule
> 82.7 (#3. ...Each succeeding 10 point Endurance bracket...), his
> view is not without some merit being that they left it VERY open
> ended. And if a human's FT or EN can be increased beyond the 25,
> then what of the other stats?

> 4. Our group believes (by inferance) that Giant player characters
> may begin with upto 2 characteristic points above that of NPC giants
> listed in the book under rule 70.1. The basis of this inferance is
> that the other player character races Dwarf, Elf, Halfling and Orc
> all have beginning characteristics that are 2 points above those
> listed in there corresponding NPC section. What are the Racial
> maximums for all the other races (including the Shape-Changer animal
> forms?

> 5. Physical Beauty characteristic offers a different question. Can
> it be increased or decreased with experience? And if so how much?
> Are there racial modifiers? Within our group a player plays an Orc
> with the Troubador skill; he petitioned the rest of the group to
> allow for him to use the disguise ability (66.5) with his purposed
> new ability for (66.1) Appear ugly (alternate to appear attractive);
> this seemed resonable. And with his PB of 7 being reduced to below 6
> (64.1), this can cause a roll on the Fright Table.

> I know that these questions seem simple. But I am looking for other
> input from outside out group, before I finalize our house rules pdf.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>Do all characteristics have racial maximums? And what are they?

>What characteristics can NOT be modified up (or down) using
>experience? And are there characteristics which have limited
>increase separate from racial limitiations?

>Here are the points of confusion that a player brought up and no
>absolute answer has been found:
>
>1. Under rule 5 (Characteristic Generation) the range of values is
>between 5 and 25. It also states that 25 is the maximum performance
>which may be achieved by a human; 26 and above greater befits a
>superman. The other player believes this could only be applicable
>during the Character Generation process.

>2. Fatigue for a EN of 25 in the table is 23. Can this be increased
>above 23? And if so how far above 23?

>3. The other player believes that the FT and EN (maybe) are not
>intended to have limits. How else could a group hope to take on
>Dragons (in this I can see his point). His belief is that the
>designers intended the FT and EN (maybe) to be unlimited just as
>D&Ds hitpoints can be theoretically increased forever. With the rule
>82.7 (#3. ...Each succeeding 10 point Endurance bracket...), his
>view is not without some merit being that they left it VERY open
>ended. And if a human's FT or EN can be increased beyond the 25,
>then what of the other stats?

>4. Our group believes (by inferance) that Giant player characters
>may begin with upto 2 characteristic points above that of NPC giants
>listed in the book under rule 70.1. The basis of this inferance is
>that the other player character races Dwarf, Elf, Halfling and Orc
>all have beginning characteristics that are 2 points above those
>listed in there corresponding NPC section. What are the Racial
>maximums for all the other races (including the Shape-Changer animal
>forms?

>5. Physical Beauty characteristic offers a different question. Can
>it be increased or decreased with experience? And if so how much?
>Are there racial modifiers? Within our group a player plays an Orc
>with the Troubador skill; he petitioned the rest of the group to
>allow for him to use the disguise ability (66.5) with his purposed
>new ability for (66.1) Appear ugly (alternate to appear attractive);
>this seemed resonable. And with his PB of 7 being reduced to below 6
>(64.1), this can cause a roll on the Fright Table.

>I know that these questions seem simple. But I am looking for other
>input from outside out group, before I finalize our house rules pdf.

>Our group is updating our DragonQuest house rules book. And as
>strange as this is going to sound coming from a player who began
>playing DragonQuest in 1981 (as most of my group has):
>
>Do all characteristics have racial maximums? And what are they?

>What characteristics can NOT be modified up (or down) using
>experience? And are there characteristics which have limited
>increase separate from racial limitiations?

>Here are the points of confusion that a player brought up and no
>absolute answer has been found:
>
>1. Under rule 5 (Characteristic Generation) the range of values is
>between 5 and 25. It also states that 25 is the maximum performance
>which may be achieved by a human; 26 and above greater befits a
>superman. The other player believes this could only be applicable
>during the Character Generation process.

>2. Fatigue for a EN of 25 in the table is 23. Can this be increased
>above 23? And if so how far above 23?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I think applying the limits to character creation only is the way to go.  The very fact that the PCs are doing heroic acts on a regular basis proves that they are more than the others around them.  The amount of stuff you have to do to get 5000 xp to raise a stat is truely daunting...

dennisnordling <d.nordling@adelphia.net> wrote:

Our group is updating our DragonQuest house rules book. And as
strange as this is going to sound coming from a player who began
playing DragonQuest in 1981 (as most of my group has):

Do all characteristics have racial maximums? And what are they?

What characteristics can NOT be modified up (or down) using
experience? And are there characteristics which have limited
increase separate from racial limitiations?


Here are the points of confusion that a player brought up and no
absolute answer has been found:

1. Under rule 5 (Characteristic Generation) the range of values is
between 5 and 25. It also states that 25 is the maximum performance
which may be achieved by a human; 26 and above greater befits a
superman. The other player believes this could only be applicable
during the Character Generation process.

2. Fatigue for a EN of 25 in the table is 23. Can this be increased
above 23? And if so how far above 23?

3. The other player believes that the FT and EN (maybe) are not
intended to have limits. How else could a group hope to take on
Dragons (in this I can see his point). His belief is that the
designers intended the FT and EN (maybe) to be unlimited just as
D&Ds hitpoints can be theoretically increased forever. With the rule
82.7 (#3. ...Each succeeding 10 point Endurance bracket...), his
view is not without some merit being that they left it VERY open
ended. And if a human's FT or EN can be increased beyond the 25,
then what of the other stats?

4. Our group believes (by inferance) that Giant player characters
may begin with upto 2 characteristic points above that of NPC giants
listed in the book under rule 70.1. The basis of this inferance is
that the other player character races Dwarf, Elf, Halfling and Orc
all have beginning characteristics that are 2 points above those
listed in there corresponding NPC section. What are the Racial
maximums for all the other races (including the Shape-Changer animal
forms?

5. Physical Beauty characteristic offers a different question. Can
it be increased or decreased with experience? And if so how much?
Are there racial modifiers? Within our group a player plays an Orc
with the Troubador skill; he petitioned the rest of the group to
allow for him to use the disguise ability (66.5) with his purposed
new ability for (66.1) Appear ugly (alternate to appear attractive);
this seemed resonable. And with his PB of 7 being reduced to below 6
(64.1), this can cause a roll on the Fright Table.

I know that these questions seem simple. But I am looking for other
input from outside out group, before I finalize our house rules pdf.

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dqn-list/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  dqn-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

> I think your points about consistant world is right. I would just
> prefer to play in a world with the extra dimension of the possiblity
> of being a priest

> > I think your points about consistant world is right. I would just
> > prefer to play in a world with the extra dimension of the possiblity
> > of being a priest
>
> Options are good and if I was running a campaign in which a player
> really wanted to be a priest of a diety I would probably come up with
> something. Whether it was something along the lines of a skill like
> Healer or a magical college would depend on how much of an active role
> in the campaign I had previously envisioned the gods taking. It would
> be nothing like a D&D cleric though.
>
> BTW, I did get a chance to read through your religion rules and I
> think it is pretty good work. Doesn't really fit in with my campaigns
> but then I never let players take Greater Summoning either.
>
> -Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Game system IS story. They are one in the same.

> The implied world of DQ is High Fantasy Europe, very similar to Ray
> Feist's novels (although those wonderful novels didn't exist yet).
> That it can work in other settings is nice, but requires work on the
> GM's part.

> Again, since DQ I have read Joe Campbell extensively, and
> today, if I was to deliver a pencil-and-paper RPG, I would
> absolutely deliver it with a system for addressing
> mythology/gods, and I would deliver at the very least a
> generic pantheon, and most probably a world and detailed
> local pantheon.

> As to your second point, yes, absolutely I believe that the
> kinds of stories we tell are more, well, sacred than I might
> have thought 25 years ago. Less frivolous. More mythology
> and less D&D. That's what my fiction is like as well.

> Good discussion

> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Chris Klug <eaglewing@m...> wrote:
>
>> Game system IS story. They are one in the same.
>
> Interesting but I think that goes too far. Game system is a story
> enabler -

> > Because sometimes players like to chart the destinies of their
> > characters themselves?
>
> Why would the presence of mythology and/or gods stop this?

> > Because there are plenty of stories to be told
> > that don't involve either gods or religion?
>
> Sure. But there are no good stories that don't somehow at
> their core address the meaning/purpose of life. To
> storytellers, that is the Holy Grail.

> > Yes it is easy as a GM to get characters to go here or do
> > that because a god has asked them to do so...<snip>
>
> I wouldn't use this technique, myself. The players need to
> want to do anything or it is empty. Gods do not play that
> kind of role in my worlds. I don't have (metaphorically)
> Athena and Aphrodite arguing over Paris.

> And, just to add sauce to the goose, I never liked Glorantha much.

> I believe the *idea* of a tight integration between system
> and story is crucial to a great game system. RQ II / III
> were, IMHO, much better games than DQ because of this. But
> this is certainly my personal taste.

>
> > --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Chris Klug <eaglewing@m...> wrote:
> >
> > > Game system IS story. They are one in the same.
> >
> > Interesting but I think that goes too far. Game system is a story
> > enabler -
>
> One thing to note, though. Most modern game systems
> comply with what Chris is saying. Except GURPS, games
> are striving to be more world based than rule based.

> Even D&D has a mythology of it's own.

Do the core d20 rules include a mythos?  -Phil

Yup.  The core rules of D&D assume the Greyhawk Mythos

Albavar

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

> --- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, Chris Klug <eaglewing@m...> wrote:
>
> > Game system IS story. They are one in the same.
>
> Interesting but I think that goes too far. Game system is a story
> enabler - the soil in which stories can take root and grow. Obviously
> some soil is better than others and some just won't support much of
> anything. But like with plants and soil, there are different kinds of
> stories and what grows in one type of soil won't grow at all in
> another. In many cases the yield from the soil has much to do with
> the farmer tending that soil.
>
> Okay. Enough fertilizer. :)
>
> Certainly a game system that includes rules governing religion,
> priests and a complete background will enable a broader range of
> stories and may engender game sessions that examine mans role in
> creation or whatever. I don't think that makes the game system better
> or worse than others merely different.
>
> > The implied world of DQ is High Fantasy Europe, very similar to Ray
> > Feist's novels (although those wonderful novels didn't exist yet).
> > That it can work in other settings is nice, but requires work on the
> > GM's part.
>
> Which is not a bad thing in my mind.
>
> > Again, since DQ I have read Joe Campbell extensively, and
> > today, if I was to deliver a pencil-and-paper RPG, I would
> > absolutely deliver it with a system for addressing
> > mythology/gods, and I would deliver at the very least a
> > generic pantheon, and most probably a world and detailed
> > local pantheon.
>
> I think that's a good thing. Sometimes that's exactly what a GM wants
> or needs.
>
> > As to your second point, yes, absolutely I believe that the
> > kinds of stories we tell are more, well, sacred than I might
> > have thought 25 years ago. Less frivolous. More mythology
> > and less D&D. That's what my fiction is like as well.
>
> I've always felt there were different levels to which a gaming session
> could rise to. (Without putting to much emphasis on higher levels
> being "better".) Most never rise above the frivolous, lite
> entertainment variety. The beer and pretzels level. Sometimes you get
> sessions where everyone is really engaged and often spend more time in
> character than out. Memorably gaming stories frequently come from
> these sessions. Then you have the sessions where the dice are rarely
> rolled but great stories are still told. Where the conflicts come from
> the choices that are made "in-character".
>
> > Good discussion
>
> Indeed. This has been good.
>
> -Phil

--- In dqn-list@yahoogroups.com, "Davis, John R" <jrda@b...> wrote:
>
> Dont know if this has been brought up but...Would early man have
invented Gods to explain the strange phenomena and changing world
around him if in fact it was shown to be real magic man could wield.
>
> Would he have come up with the concept of spirits being angry etc if
everything could be explained by magic.
>
> I think he wouldnt, and therefore in a world where people can fairly
easily do miracles by magic (i.e make something burst into flame, heal
the sick, etc)gods wouldnt have been invented to explain wierd stuff,
control the masses with fear etc.?
>
> In this case religion, as we know it, wouldnt have occurrred /
developed, and people would hold 'magicians', and maybe the demons
they summon etc. as 'gods'.
>
> If you have priests, like some suggest with no real power, then that
worship would have died out. Therefore D&D may be right in that in
order to compete with non-religious magic the D&D has his own
demonstrable power.
>
> Hope that makes sense?
>
> JohnD
>
>
> *********************************************************************
> This e-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, are
> confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee.
> However, the information contained in this e-mail may subsequently
> be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 and, unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure, the
> confidentiality of this e-mail and your reply cannot be guaranteed. If
> this message was not addressed to you, you have received it in error
> and any copying, distribution or other use of any part of it is
> strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions presented are solely those
> of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the British
> Geological Survey. The security of e-mail communication cannot be
> guaranteed and the BGS accepts no liability for claims arising as a
> result of the use of this medium to transmit messages from or to the
> BGS. http://www.bgs.ac.uk
> *********************************************************************

> I just wanted to say, for whatever it's worth, that I see things much
> the
> same way as Phil does, apparently. One of the things I really liked
> about
> DQ was the total *absence* of rules governing religion, gods, divine
> magic,
> etc. In our campaigns, religion certainly had a cultural
> significance, but
> as far as players running D&D-style "clerics," it just didn't happen.

> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:49:26 -0000
> From: "dennisnordling" <d.nordling@adelphia.net>
> Subject: Do all characteristics have racial maximums
>
>
> Our group is updating our DragonQuest house rules
> book. And as
> strange as this is going to sound coming from a
> player who began
> playing DragonQuest in 1981 (as most of my group
> has):
>
> Do all characteristics have racial maximums? And
> what are they?
>
> What characteristics can NOT be modified up (or
> down) using
> experience? And are there characteristics which have
> limited
> increase separate from racial limitiations?
>
>
> Here are the points of confusion that a player
> brought up and no
> absolute answer has been found:
>
> 1. Under rule 5 (Characteristic Generation) the
> range of values is
> between 5 and 25. It also states that 25 is the
> maximum performance
> which may be achieved by a human; 26 and above
> greater befits a
> superman. The other player believes this could only
> be applicable
> during the Character Generation process.
>
> 2. Fatigue for a EN of 25 in the table is 23. Can
> this be increased
> above 23? And if so how far above 23?
>
> 3. The other player believes that the FT and EN
> (maybe) are not
> intended to have limits. How else could a group hope
> to take on
> Dragons (in this I can see his point). His belief is
> that the
> designers intended the FT and EN (maybe) to be
> unlimited just as
> D&Ds hitpoints can be theoretically increased
> forever. With the rule
> 82.7 (#3. ...Each succeeding 10 point Endurance
> bracket...), his
> view is not without some merit being that they left
> it VERY open
> ended. And if a human's FT or EN can be increased
> beyond the 25,
> then what of the other stats?
>
> 4. Our group believes (by inferance) that Giant
> player characters
> may begin with upto 2 characteristic points above
> that of NPC giants
> listed in the book under rule 70.1. The basis of
> this inferance is
> that the other player character races Dwarf, Elf,
> Halfling and Orc
> all have beginning characteristics that are 2 points
> above those
> listed in there corresponding NPC section. What are
> the Racial
> maximums for all the other races (including the
> Shape-Changer animal
> forms?
>
> 5. Physical Beauty characteristic offers a different
> question. Can
> it be increased or decreased with experience? And if
> so how much?
> Are there racial modifiers? Within our group a
> player plays an Orc
> with the Troubador skill; he petitioned the rest of
> the group to
> allow for him to use the disguise ability (66.5)
> with his purposed
> new ability for (66.1) Appear ugly (alternate to
> appear attractive);
> this seemed resonable. And with his PB of 7 being
> reduced to below 6
> (64.1), this can cause a roll on the Fright Table.
>
> I know that these questions seem simple. But I am
> looking for other
> input from outside out group, before I finalize our
> house rules pdf.

>From: "Davis, John R" <jrda@bgs.ac.uk>
>
>Dont know if this has been brought up but...Would early man have invented
>Gods to explain the strange phenomena and changing world around him if in
>fact it was shown to be real magic man could wield.
>
>Would he have come up with the concept of spirits being angry etc if
>everything could be explained by magic.
>
>I think he wouldnt, and therefore in a world where people can fairly easily
>do miracles by magic (i.e make something burst into flame, heal the sick,
>etc)gods wouldnt have been invented to explain wierd stuff, control the
>masses with fear etc.?

>In this case religion, as we know it, wouldnt have occurrred / developed,
>and people would hold 'magicians', and maybe the demons they summon etc. as
>'gods'.
>
>If you have priests, like some suggest with no real power, then that
>worship would have died out. Therefore D&D may be right in that in order to
>compete with non-religious magic the D&D has his own demonstrable power.

>From: Chris Klug <eaglewing@mac.com>
>
>I am certainly not saying anyone has to change what makes their
>campaign fun. And I never advocated D&D clerics. To summarize my point
>of view, it would go like this:
>
>1, Fantasy world, to my taste, are tied to concepts like gods &
>mythology. For me, I cannot think of one without the other.

> Annother great thing about DQ (and I feel a little guilty
> about saying this), is that SPI are never going to come out
> with a supliment that some snotty role-player is going to
> beat you around the head with and dosn't fit with your world.

>
> Dont know if this has been brought up but...Would early man
> have invented Gods to explain the strange phenomena and
> changing world around him if in fact it was shown to be real
> magic man could wield.

> If you have priests, like some suggest with no real power,
> then that worship would have died out.

>
> That cracks me up and I pretty much feel the same way. As I have
> gotten older and more crotchety I am much happier with a rule system
> that is smaller rather than larger. I don't know how people manage to
> GM a game like the current DnD with a gazillion official rulebooks.
>
> -Phil

> Here are the points of confusion that a player brought up and no
> absolute answer has been found:

> 1. Under rule 5 (Characteristic Generation) the range of values is
> between 5 and 25. It also states that 25 is the maximum performance
> which may be achieved by a human; 26 and above greater befits a
> superman. The other player believes this could only be applicable
> during the Character Generation process.

> 2. Fatigue for a EN of 25 in the table is 23. Can this be increased
> above 23? And if so how far above 23?

> 3. The other player believes that the FT and EN (maybe) are not
> intended to have limits. How else could a group hope to take on
> Dragons (in this I can see his point). <snip>

> 4. Our group believes (by inferance) that Giant player characters
> may begin with upto 2 characteristic points above that of NPC giants
> listed in the book under rule 70.1.

> 5. Physical Beauty characteristic offers a different
> question. Can it be increased or decreased with experience?
> <snip> And with his PB of 7 being reduced to below 6
> (64.1), this can cause a roll on the Fright Table.