ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (02/19/85)
Bear in mind that I might have a morbid fear of copyright laws.
Let us imagine, for a moment, that there is a company called
"Tactical Roleplaying and Simulations", or TRS for short.
This company is a grandfather amongst frp companies, largely
upon the strength that the main frp game it produces, which
is called A(D*2), was, in its original form, "Scalemail", the
first on the market.
Please note that my decision to call the game A(D*2) was purely
arbitrary, and based on nothing in real life. It might just as
easily been called NOT( NOT("AD") OR NOT("D") ) or something.
Let's say that this game gradually grew and grew, adding clever
new ideas to the skeleton. It quickly became apparent that
some of the fundamental rules were Bad, and that the entire system
would have to be revised. But the game's creator, Thorax, saw no
faults in his creation, and continued to pump life into its ailing
frame. And lo! The game survived, and went on to dominate its
field, be it ever so undeservedly.
Here might be some of the downfalls of the game:
*The combat is done by assigning a number of Fatigue Points to
each combatant, which is a measure of how long the combatant can
fight without allowing a telling blow through his defences.
Each time an opponent hits, a number of Fatigue Points are subtracted
from the combatant's total. If he goes below zero, he is incapacitated.
As the player fights more, so he becomes a better fighter, and so he
gets a higher number of Fatigue Points.
Alright so far.
Unfortunately, A(D*2) also bases damage from other sources than combat
on these Fatigue points, as fire, falling, acid. So the Fatigue points
are suddenly treated as Damage Levels, which are an entirely different
concept.
Why, for instance, should it be certain death for a child to fall
30ft, while a seasoned fighter can fall hundreds of feet, and just
get up and brush himself down afterwards? A child is, in fact, more
likely to survive a fall than some hulk wearing lots of spikes and
blades.
*Lots of arbitrary restrictions are made upon player-types in the
interests of balance. Such as: Sorcerers may not wear armour, but
Saints (who also use magic) can. Thieves may not use metal armour, regardless
of whether they are employing their thieving skills, etc etc.
No real reasons are given for many of these restrictions.
*Greater skills are obtained partly by killing things, but mostly by
finding treasure (?). This is so that the Referee can give the
players however much experiance he/she thinks they deserve, but
it instills an unnatural avarice into the players.
The rules for humans being proficient in several different fields
are also strange, and appear without foundation. another arbitrary
restriction.
*The Rules claim to be only guidelines for the referee, but there are
about 8 volumes to them, and ever more are being published. This
inevitably leads to long delays while obscure sections of rules
are tracked down, especially for beginners.
*Sorcerors have a set number of spells that they can cast in one
day. They cannot repeatedly cast these spells in one day, only once
each. For a long time there was no explanation why this should be,
but eventually someone thought of one. A real howler: every time
the sorceror casts a spell, the knowledge of how to do so is erased
from his memory!
I'm sure there are plenty of other faults you can think of for this
hypothetical game to have.
If such a game existed, and I had known about it six years ago, I
would have spent all the intervening time ironing out all the
mistakes and bad rules. By this time, I would have an almost
playable system which was also quite good.
I would be annoyed then, if I found that such a system was already on
the market, only much better. Better because, instead of repairing
a bad game (as A(D*2)), it had been designed from scratch.
Such a game might be called Dragonfly.
Dragonfly eliminates all the above problems, it only uses one sort
of dice (rather than requiring one dice with each number of sides
from 3 thru 36), and is altogether better thought-out and more
playable. The rules take up one slim volume.
This isn't very good to beginners to frp, but to people
disillusioned with A(D*2), it is perfect.
TRS took over the company that published Dragonfly, and stopped
it from being published, to stop it competing with A(D*2).
I would be most pleased to hear your views on my hypothesis.
-Nigel Galelazarus@sunybcs.UUCP (Daniel G. Winkowski) (02/22/85)
> > Dragonfly eliminates all the above problems, it only uses one sort > of dice (rather than requiring one dice with each number of sides > from 3 thru 36), and is altogether better thought-out and more > playable. The rules take up one slim volume. > > This isn't very good to beginners to frp, but to people > disillusioned with A(D*2), it is perfect. > > > TRS took over the company that published Dragonfly, and stopped > it from being published, to stop it competing with A(D*2). > > > I would be most pleased to hear your views on my hypothesis. > > > -Nigel Gale First let's realize that DragonQuest's (let's cut the runabout) long awaited expansions such as the new mage college will never be published because of the TSR takeover, and are doomed to an underground existence. Second, though DragonQuest is a very playable game that fixes many of the faults of AD&D, it is not itself without flaw. And I am sure that there will always be better games (eg. Iron Crown Enterprizes [ICE] Rollmaster). But, there is no use wishing for the best/most realistic game, instead be statisfied with something playable. Though a well thought out game can enhance the play, it is not a solution to poor players/*master. -- Today we live in the future, Tomorrow we'll live for the moment, But, pray we never live in the past. -------------- Daniel G. Winkowski @ SUNY Buffalo Computer Science (716-636-2879) UUCP: ..![bbncca,decvax,dual,rocksanne,watmath]!sunybcs!lazarus CSNET: lazarus@Buffalo.CSNET ARPA: lazarus%Buffalo@CSNET-RELAY
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (02/22/85)
(A description of how bad this hypothetical A(D*2) is, which most of us are painfully aware of, and how Dragonfly is much better, which I can well believe...) > This isn't very good to beginners to frp, but to people > disillusioned with A(D*2), it is perfect. > > TRS took over the company that published Dragonfly, and stopped > it from being published, to stop it competing with A(D*2). > > I would be most pleased to hear your views on my hypothesis. I think that the people who were publishing Dragonfly weren't very interested in improving the state of FRP's on the market. If anybody, I would blame them... Wayne
dac1@ukc.UUCP (D.Caldwell) (02/23/85)
Let me quote from the back of the Dragonquest rule book: "The most powerful and comprehensive fantasy role-playing system is now even easier and more fun in the thoroughly revised second edition. The combat system has been stremlined for quicker and more exciting play, and the experience points system has been carefully enhanced to make your characters capable of more dynamic growth. Now presented in this one volume, Dragonquest is truly complete in one book. Although we are continuing a program of fascinating supplemental material, YOU NEED NOTHING MORE THAN THIS BOOK and two decimal dice to play complete and enjoyable games." In my opinion, the above is absolutely true ! Dragonquest is for intelligent role-playing. As ther will still be young children and those people who actually enjoy gratuitous killing of everything they meet for the sole purpose of obtaining wealth, there is no justification for takin it off the market. In comparison, AD&D is pathetic. What I really hate about AD&D are the incredible restrictions that are imposed. For instance, in DQ, if you want to learn a new skill, be it Ranger, Thief, Troubador, a new language, or joining a Magic College, etc., you don't have to worry about character class, race, alignment, etc. All you need are: The time to learn it, Initially a teacher and some way to pay him/her, and the requisite amount of experience points (given by the GM simply for role-playing, etc.) Certainly DQ isn't perfect, but then, any GM worthy of being called a gamesMASTER should be able to enhance the rules appropriately, according to the way he runs his game. As the second edition rulebook came out in 1981, a lot of time has been wasted. Can't somebody put pressure on TSR to bring it out again? I'm sure it can exist quite happily alongside AD&D. Request ~~~~~~~ Being a DQ GM, I am searching for additional material for the game as has been published in various fantasy gamer magazines. If anyone has anything like this, I would much appreciate a photocopy of the relevant pages and will gladly pay postage, etc. I'm also interested in the original books, modules, etc. Any replies to the Request, please MAIL me via computer or at the address below. Thanks for your time, David Caldwell. 1 Bishopden Court To know is Park Wood nothing at all; Canterbury To imagine Kent CT2 7UY is everything. England. - Anatole France.
long@oliveb.UUCP (Dave Long) (02/24/85)
[Oh right high priest of holy IBM, wilt thou accept my batch job and run it?]
It just sounds to me like TSR has discovered that the way to success is to be
non-innovative, continually patching up old bugs while making new ones, and
using all of yesterday's "proven" ideas, while buying out or out-competing any
company that shows signs of creativity and intellect. No doubt TSR will come
out with "AD&D AS (Advanced System) -- The fourth generation FRPG!", and every-
body in the industry will say, "but we're in the sixth generation of RPG'ing!",
but very few will listen. (Nobody ever gets sulked at for buying TSR!) Hope-
fully TSR won't have the gall to come out with a new RPG system, and brand-name
it "The TSR RPG".
--
gnoL evaD
{msoft,allegra,gsgvax,fortune,hplabs,idi,ios,
nwuxd,ihnp4,tolrnt,tty3b,vlsvax1,zehntel}!oliveb!long
I'd rather be in a universe whose Creator had a bit more mechanical aptitude
and a little less imagination.robert@gitpyr.UUCP (Robert Viduya) (02/24/85)
>< Posted from ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) > > Why, for instance, should it be certain death for a child to fall > 30ft, while a seasoned fighter can fall hundreds of feet, and just > get up and brush himself down afterwards? A child is, in fact, more > likely to survive a fall than some hulk wearing lots of spikes and > blades. The seasoned fighter can slow his fall on the way down by grabbing things and also break his fall when he hits bottom. Granted, it's a relatively weak argument, but it was done to make the definition of Fatigue points was made as simple and as general as possible in order to not tie up the game with lengthy battles. The games was not designed specifically as a hack-and-slash type, but a situation-response type. This means less emphasis and detail in fighting, and more on application of skills. > *Lots of arbitrary restrictions are made upon player-types in the > interests of balance. Such as: Sorcerers may not wear armour, but > Saints (who also use magic) can. Thieves may not use metal armour, regardless > of whether they are employing their thieving skills, etc etc. > No real reasons are given for many of these restrictions. Sorcerers have to gesture. Armor doesn't help that. Saints, on the other hand, just have to pray. Saints don't use magic; they are granted favors by their deit[y|ies]. I agree with you on thieves using metal armor, however. They ought to be able to use it (with minuses to thier thieving skills). > *Greater skills are obtained partly by killing things, but mostly by > finding treasure (?). This is so that the Referee can give the > players however much experiance he/she thinks they deserve, but > it instills an unnatural avarice into the players. I once played in a game where you didn't get Experience Points from collecting gold. Instead, you collected gold in order to go to school. The DM had created all sorts of tables showing how much a school would charge you in order to raise your level and how long it would take (based partly on the player's stats). Also, there were different levels of schools, a level being the maximum level a student at that school could attain. If you reached the maximum level a school had to offer, you either had to find another school or someone to apprentice to. Apprenticeship (sp?) also cost money (more than schools) and high-level NPCs (or PCs) generally only took medium level apprentices. > The rules for humans being proficient in several different fields > are also strange, and appear without foundation. another arbitrary > restriction. I agree completely. The human should be the average character race, not the epitome. Also there should be no racial limitations on character classes. Instead, there should be a different Experience-Point-to-Level table for each race and class. The tables should reflect things like elves need the least experience to go up a level if they are a magician (because of in- herent magic), and hobbits need more experience to go up a level if they are a fighter (because of strength). > *Sorcerors have a set number of spells that they can cast in one > day. They cannot repeatedly cast these spells in one day, only once > each. For a long time there was no explanation why this should be, > but eventually someone thought of one. A real howler: every time > the sorceror casts a spell, the knowledge of how to do so is erased > from his memory! I've had many gripes about the magic system for a while and I've started thinking about a new system. It isn't finished at all, but here's the basic outline: Get rid of the illusionist and create 5 subclasses: incanters, gesturers, alchemists, enscribers and willers. The description of each: Incanters: The class of magicians who perform magic through the use of the spoken word. This subclass is the easiest. Its also the most defensesless. Gesturers: The class of magicians who perform magic through the use of bodily gestures. Harder than the above because of the precise movements required. Its just as defenseless, but invokes stronger magic. Alchemists: The class of magicians who perform magic through the use of potions and such. Requires time to prepare. Potions created in labs are generally more stable than those prepared in the field. Also limited as to amount of materials available. Enscribers: The class of magicians who perform magic through the use of the written word. Requires a bit of alchemy to create special inks and fixatives. Has similar limitations as alchemy. Willers: The class of magicians who perfrom magic through the use of pure willpower. This is the hardest subclass of them all and requires the most experience points to raise levels. Characters may overlap subclasses. I haven't worked out how yet, but I believe they should. Now, instead of starting them off with a set of basic spells, give them a set of 'building blocks'. The blocks can be modified and put together in various ways in order to create spells, based on a set of natural laws. I haven't defined all the building blocks yet, nor the laws. Of course, the laws would vary depending on what subclass the character was in. Some of the blocks would be things like Energy Manipulation (from which things like Fireballs and Magic Missles are developed), Matter Control (Animation and maybe Magic Missles), and Mind Control (Illusions). As an example, a spell of Resurrection could be done using Matter Control to animate the cells in a body up to the point where they will start working for themselves (a weaker variant would produce zombies) or it could be done with Energy Manipulation to shock the heart into pumping again. A magician would start off not knowing any of the laws which govern how spells are created. He would have to learn those laws by himself through experimentation or from other magicians. Magicians are, by nature, jealous and protective of their knowledge, so that would control their power. Obviously, it isn't quite finished. But I'm open to comments/suggestions. robert -- Robert Viduya Georgia Institute of Technology ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!robert ...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!gitpyr!robert
jagardner@watmath.UUCP (jagardner) (02/26/85)
[...stuff...] For those who are dissatisfied with AD&D, I might point out that there are two new Fantasy game systems soon to hit the market. First of all, there is Steve Jackson's GURPS (General Universal Role-Playing System) which I believe is going to be revealed at Origins this year. Considering the many wonderful things that Steve Jackson Games have put out (Illuminati, Car Wars, Ogre, Toon, Globbo, etc.) one has high hopes that the system is going to be something very special. The second new product may or may not be called "Fantastic Hero" put out by Hero Games (maker of Champions, Justice Incorporated, Espionage!, etc.) This was supposed to be out by Christmas, but has obviously been delayed. Fantastic Hero will be based on the Hero Game system, a remarkably flexible system that The Space Gamer magazine lately claimed (in an editorial) was the State of the Art in role-playing. If people are interested in a quickie description of the Hero Game system, I can post a summary to the net. (In other words, mail me and if I get more than three letters, I'll go ahead.) Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (02/26/85)
I didn't know DragonQuest didn't have character classes. Interesting. The approach to training seems similar to RuneQuest and other BRP-family games from Chaosium. The new version of RQ has an even better approach, a fusion of the two through an extended previous experience system. I believe that probably has its roots in Traveller, but I prefer the RQ3 approach. (For one thing, there's no chance of death involved, so you don't waste time generating and discarding characters before play.) You get points in various skills, and possibly spells, for each year spent in the profession. In a good FRPG, a character can learn any skills or magic that he or she can find a teacher for. Of course, religions, guilds, prejudices, and so on will create some restrictions, but there should be none of this "A human magic-user is physically incapable of lifting a sword and swinging it in an arc" nonsense, as in AD&D. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!" "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (02/28/85)
Not ANOTHER magic-user subclass proposal! Aren't eight years of old ones
enough? If you couldn't find any to suit you out of all those, that ought
to tell you that your idea is unlikely to suit anyone else.
The idea of flexible magic is a good one. Chaosium's sorcery and
enchantment systems for RuneQuest 3 do quite well. In it, any sorcerous
spell may be manipulated by any or all of the sorcerous skills: Intensity
(to boost the effective power of a spell, e.g., Fly lifts one SIZ point per
level of intensity), Duration (each point of manipulation doubles duration),
Range (similar to Duration), and Multispell. The latter allows multiple
spells to be cast at the same time, creating unusual effects. Manipulation
is limited explicitly based on intelligence and number of spells known, and
implicitly by how well the caster knows the sorcery skills.
The Enchantment ("magic item creation") system is even more oriented towards
putting various elements together to produce a unique effect. Such things
as target conditions and link conditions allow the creation of virtually any
magical effect that either player or referee could want. Furthermore, you
don't have to be a wizard for twenty years before putting together an item;
younger and sub-adept sorcerors can put together simple low-powered items,
for their own use, for sale, or whatever.
I admit that I have a very hard time imagining anyone completely rewriting
the AD&D magic system (as proposed by the person working on flexible magic)
with any degree of success, or arriving at anything that could be called
Dungeons and Dragons. Why bother, when things just like what you want are
already available in better games?
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center
ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
"Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are
but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."
Liber AL, II:9.req@snow.UUCP (Russell Quin) (02/28/85)
> "The most powerful and comprehensive fantasy role-playing system [ ... ] > Now presented in this one volume, Dragonquest is truly complete in one book. [ ... ] > In comparison, AD&D is pathetic. What I really hate about AD&D [ ... ] Yes, probably most people dislike some aspect or other of most RPG's. But let's at least TRY to be constructive, huh? Sure, DQ has good points. So have AD&D, D&D, T&T, Rolemaster, RQ!, . . . . Who out there has designed his/her own system ? Anyone interested in a mailing list for the discussion of related ideas ? [ more to follow on this in a few days ... ] Russell Hey, the nearest thing to a FLAME I've ever written! Aaaagh! -- ... mcvax!ukc!qtlon!flame!ubu!req Striving to promote the interproduction of epimorphistic conformability ....
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (03/04/85)
Actually, a few months ago I did some work on a FRP system too, but this was based on Star Rovers, which is unfortunately out of print. (It was made by Archive, and one of its designers was David Hargrave...) The reason I think that SR is a good starting point is that they have a really good system of skills -- everything that you can do is a skill, and the resolution system, while pretty complex, has a lot of flexibility. The system I worked out added some things like hit locations to the combat system, and reworked the D&D magic system using skills. Basically, the spells available can be thought of as "spell primitives", in the sense that you build complex spells out of simple ones. Thus a fireball would be a "create fire" spell combined with a "focus and deliver" type spell. This sort of thing makes it much easier for players to be creative about spell casting, and the skill resolution system adds a lot also. I never got around to play-testing it, or even really fleshing it out a lot, but if anybody who plays Star Rovers right now wants a copy I can mail it... Wayne
lori@hp-pcd.UUCP (lori) (03/22/85)
>I've had many gripes about the magic system for a while and I've started >thinking about a new system. It isn't finished at all, but here's the >basic outline: > >Get rid of the illusionist and create 5 subclasses: incanters, gesturers, >alchemists, enscribers and willers. The description of each: > >Incanters: The class of magicians who perform magic through the use of > the spoken word. This subclass is the easiest. Its also the > most defensesless. >Gesturers: The class of magicians who perform magic through the use of > bodily gestures. Harder than the above because of the > precise movements required. Its just as defenseless, but > invokes stronger magic. >Alchemists: The class of magicians who perform magic through the use of > potions and such. Requires time to prepare. Potions created > in labs are generally more stable than those prepared in the > field. Also limited as to amount of materials available. >Enscribers: The class of magicians who perform magic through the use of > the written word. Requires a bit of alchemy to create special > inks and fixatives. Has similar limitations as alchemy. >Willers: The class of magicians who perfrom magic through the use of > pure willpower. This is the hardest subclass of them all > and requires the most experience points to raise levels. > >Characters may overlap subclasses. I haven't worked out how yet, but I >believe they should. > >Now, instead of starting them off with a set of basic spells, give them a >set of 'building blocks'. The blocks can be modified and put together in >various ways in order to create spells, based on a set of natural laws. I >haven't defined all the building blocks yet, nor the laws. Of course, the >laws would vary depending on what subclass the character was in. Some of >the blocks would be things like Energy Manipulation (from which things like >Fireballs and Magic Missles are developed), Matter Control (Animation and >maybe Magic Missles), and Mind Control (Illusions). As an example, a >spell of Resurrection could be done using Matter Control to animate the >cells in a body up to the point where they will start working for themselves >(a weaker variant would produce zombies) or it could be done with Energy >Manipulation to shock the heart into pumping again. > >A magician would start off not knowing any of the laws which govern how >spells are created. He would have to learn those laws by himself through >experimentation or from other magicians. Magicians are, by nature, jealous >and protective of their knowledge, so that would control their power. > >Obviously, it isn't quite finished. But I'm open to comments/suggestions. > > > robert >-- >Robert Viduya >Georgia Institute of Technology > >...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!robert >...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!gitpyr!robert >/* ---------- */ Isn't quite finished, you say? My God, Bob, it sounds like it isn't quite started! Let me know when you get it done (if I'm still alive!). Sort'a from the World of Vindarten Mark F. Cook