REVIEW OF DRAGONQUEST

DQ is a FRPG that was originally released by SPI and later revised in a 2nd edition. After TSR
bought SPI, they released a 3rd edition which is still available, though maybe out of print. The
differences between the 2nd and 3rd edition are small and include the elimination of references to
black magic and demonology and the addition of supplemental material from SPI's Arcane Wisdom
rules supplement.
The character generation system consists of rolling a random number which is then allocated to
attributes like agility, magical aptitude and physical strength. The size of the original random
number determines the maximum amount that can be allocated to a single attribute, this prevents
players with large initial rolls from creating super strong beings and forces them to create more
rounded characters.

Character races include: human, dwarf, elf, halfling, giant, shape changer (lycanthrope) and orc.
Racial adjustments to character abilities and experience point multipliers help to balance the game.
One exciting feature of the game is that all of the creatures in the monster section are listed with
ranges of abilities just like the characters. It would take little, if any, effort to create gnome,
minotaur, hobgoblin, neanderthal, centaur or any other race of character.

There are no character classes, characters use their experience to by levels of proficiency in skills,
weapons or magic. Skills include: alchemy, beast mastery, ranger, thief, languages, troubadour,
navigation as well as others. There are several colleges of magic with numerous spells and
counterspells and a fair list of weapons categorized by usage. This system provides the flexibility
and uniqueness of character that is the state of the art without the complexity and magnitude of
rules normally associated with such an open game.

Individual combat receives a clear, well illustrated explanation which would be helpful to any
player of any RPG. Ranges, field of fire, flank attacks, etc are explained and pictures of miniatures
on a hex grid provide visual aid. A 25mm hex grid is provided to be copied and used as a tactical
display, a smaller scale grid for mapping is also provided for mapping.

The rule book comes complete with character creation, advancement, combat, magic and encounter
rules. An excellent adventure takes up the last few pages along with blank player character and
adventure record sheets for photocopying.

I used to believe there was little support material for DQ, but I was wrong. The now defunct Judges
Guild had published a few adventures and game aids, and TSR has one that was compatible with
AD&D as well (DQ1, The Shattered Stone). SPI published a campaign setting (Frontiers of Alusia),
3 adventures, and 2 accessories (dungeon design kit and rules supplement). Chaosim's Thieves
World adventure pack provided full statistics for use with DragonQuest. On top of this Ares
magazine supported DQ with articles and adventures prior to issue #14. Additional magazine
support has appeared in Dragon and Imagine magazines at least 11 times in the past. Finally, the DQ
system is well suited for the use of universal supplements from any source and conversion of
material from other systems is not overly difficult. 5th Cycle (Shield Games) and Ysgarth
(Ragnarok Enterprises) material are probably the easiest to convert of the non-generic supplements
available. DQ : 5th Cycle stat conversion follows:

PS : ST MD : HM AG : AG MA : MA EN : EN FT : FP
WP:CS PC : IN PB : CL (DQ has no equivalent for EL)
Aside from being atrophied by TSR (DQ's ghost lives in the pages of AD&D 2nd edition) the only
flaw in the game may be that the list of creatures can be considered unoriginal by some. As stated
above, monster creation/conversion is not difficult and fun enough to solve this problem. Using
DQ's, somewhat, basic collection of denizens one can interpolate the stats of favorites from other
games and/or create original creatures.

All in all DQ is an excellent game system with easy to learn rules. A group of players with great
imagination and creativity could easily campaign for years and even use the rules to play other
genre (eg. scifi, superhero, horror). It would be sad to see such a flexible system disappear and I for
one hope to prolong its existence as long as possible.

Style: 5 (Excellent!)
Substance: 5 (Excellent!)

REVIEW OF DRAGONQUEST
DragonQuest is an old fantasy RPG which still retains some ardent followers, evident by active
mailing lists and a particularly long-lasting group in New Zealand. Personally, I have had the good
fortune with recent experiences in both playing and GMing the game. Copyright is currently held by
WotC (the trademark has been abandoned) and despite regular requests it seems very unlikely that
they will release it. Still, an elaborated version of the rules are availble online, so if people want to
play it it's hardly a problem. The game has nothing to do with the computer game or Anne
McCaffrey's novels of the same name.
Three editions of DQ were published, two by SPI (1980 and 1982) and one by TSR (1989).
Changes in the game system were incidental, but with significant changes to the content. The first
edition was three separate books in a boxed set, the second was either a single hardback book or a
softback in a boxed set, and the third was a softback book. The first two edition featured a skimpy
dressed barbarian with a dragon's head and the third a dragon-warrior confrontation. Neither the
cover art nor the interior art was ever anything special. Layout is in three column style (two for the
monsters chapter) and with serif font. The rules were divided into three books (Character
Generation and Combat; Magic; Skills, Monsters and Adventure), and organised in the standard
SPI-war game style, which is very formal with specific rules following general descriptions. All
editions come without a page-numbered table of contents or an index.

The game system is entirely based around d10 or d100 mechanics. The primary characteristics are
Physical Strength (PS), Manual Dexterity (MD), Agility (AG), Endurance (EN), Magical Aptitude
(MA), Willower (WP) and, optionally, Physical Beauty (PB) which are determined from a randomly
determined pool and with human ratings from 5-25. In addition there are derived characteristics
including Fatigue (from Endurance) and, Action Points (AP 1st ed) and TMR (Tactical Movement
Rate 2nd ed onwards); these do not scale particularly well outside human norms. Note the lack of a
general "Intelligence" stat. Apparently players provide their own intelligence and no NPC can be
smarter than the GM. Further, there is also a Perception (PC) characteristic, starting at 5 or 8,
depending on the edition. Characteristic tests are based on a multiple of a characteristic usually
between 0.5x and 5x the value.

Player character races include humans, dwarves, elves, giants, halflings, humans, orcs and
shapechangers. If a non-human is chosen, the players have a variable percentage chance of playing
that character, plus they will have a variable experience point multiplier. Characteristic modifiers
are significant; for example a halflings PS is reduced by 6. Character races also modify experience
point costs; for example an Elf's progression as a Ranger (Woods) is quicker than in other
professions. An excellent optional rule is the inclusion of "aspects", influences that the time and
circumstances of birth have on the characters abilities at equivalent times during the campaign.
Characters also determine their social class which effects both their starting wealth and experience.
The combat system is fought in pulses (5 seconds, 2nd and 3rd ed, 10 seconds 1st ed) with initiative
varying for engaged and non-engaged figures. The combat system assumes the use of hex maps,
with a variety of maneuvers, which mostly work quite well and would probably work better if the
monsters section was more careful with some of its figures. Attacks are resolved on d100 with
modifiers due to the weapon's base chance, the character's skill, minus defense and the usual
modifiers. Missing means the target may have performed a Parry and Riposte, which isn't modified
by weapon type; disarming a pole arm wielder with a dagger is just as probable as anything else.
Damage is resolved on a d10+weapon bonus and PS, and differentiated between Fatigue damage
(the norm, absorbed by armour), Endurance damage (a critical, not absorbed) and Grievous Injury
(a special critical, varies by weapon type, no rules on scaling). Characters can fight on until their
END is 3 or less at which point they fall unconscious and a 0 or less they're dead; on average four
blows form a broadsword will do this. There are also some particularly nasty infection rules,
especially if the wounds are from teeth and claws. Shields, it must be added, are particularly
pathetic and armour isn't that great either. Different weapons have different maximum ranks; a main
gauche can be learned all the way up to rank 10, whereas a war club is limited to rank 5.

The magic system is based around "mana" which, unlike the Polynesian term, is a "magical energy"
which can be depleted through use and recovered by opening gates to other planes. Magic is learned
in colleges, with exclusive knowledge - one cannot know spells from the College of Fire Magics
and Earth Magics at the same time which to say the least is a little unreasonable and arbitrary. There
are 12-13 colleges of magic, depending on edition, conceptually separated into colleges of
"thaumaturgies", "elementals" and "entities". Particularly interesting colleges are the Naming
Incantations, Black Magics (curses and the like) and Greater Summonings, which famously
included individual and evocative descriptions of the demons from the Ars Goetica, and
counterspells. The latter two were dropped in the third edition, apparently for reasons of public
relations, which was a very unpopular decision. Their replacements, the Colleges of Shaping
Magics and Rune Magics were both good, not not sufficient to placate fans. There is also a serious
power-gamer problem with the abilities available to Rag & String Golems. Finally, the third edition
also includes herblore and a list with alchemical effects from "real world" herbs.

Each and every general and special spell, ritual or talent offered by the colleges is a separate skill in
its own right with its own experience point cost and usually with variation according to skill rank.
Whether successful or not, spells cost FAT, and serious spell failure (30% above casting chance,
which is common enough at low ranks) cause backfires, many of which are quite serious. Whilst
chaotic magic systems are quite reasonable, these are seriously disproportionate to the magic being
used. Having a character being struck blind for d10x3 weeks for failing to cast a basic healing spell
does not make an enjoyable game experience.

The third book begins with skills. What DragonQuest means by skills in this instance (and not ranks
in spells in weapons) is degrees of knowledge and ability in character classes which adventurers are
likely to take up. These include Alchemist, Assassin, Astrologer, Beast Master (you can be Rip
Torn), Courtesean/Courtier (the seduction ability was removed from 3rd ed), Healer, Mechanician,
Merchant, Military Scientist, Ranger, Spy and Thief, and Troubadour. Each of these skills has a list
of abilities whose success is usually dependent on the rank in the skill. For example, a Navigator
can pilot a ship up to 25+[25xrank] feet in length. Skills have variable experience point costs and
are limited to rank 10. In addition to these "class-skills" there is also Stealth, Horsemanship and
Language skills. Some of the abilities have some neat meta-game influences, for example, the
Military Scientist can stop play in a combat situation to make an evaluation, whereas an astrologer's
abilities to predict the future has some nice narrative considerations. Overall however, the abilities
are too strongly tied to the skill packages and this problem arises with "cross-class" skills. Also, a
simple line that other skills exist (e.g., Farmer!) but are not specified would have been nice.
The Monsters chapter describes each creature separated by phenotype (common land mammals,
avians, aquatics etc) with a significant number of pleistocene beasts. The detail short but
impressive; not only are the full creatures characteristics provided and weapon abilities, one also
receives their habitat, descriptions, skills and talents and additional comments. Some of the values
are a little askew; a bear, for example, seems particularly weak. There's also a couple of funny
typo's that have made it through all the editions of the game; one suggesting that a rat (singular) is
stronger than a housecat, and another suggesting that a weasel's bite does as much damage a
broadsword. This is also the chapter where the title creature of the game makes an appearance,
although there isn't much of a quest reason as such. Dragons are certainly the most dangerous
creature in the book and, according to the FRPG genre, are greedy, intelligent, and have excellent
magical powers. They also have a transfixing gaze, corrosive blood, and a very dangerous breath
weapon, embedded gems in their underbelly for armour, top scales which protect twice as well as
the best plate, claws like broadswords and a bite like a giant axe. They're pretty tough.

The final chapter, Adventure, provides some pretty basic GM advice, party organisation notes
(including a strandard "Adventurer's Guild" contract for division of spoils), notes on fatigue loss
and recovery, lifestyle expenses and experience points; increases in skills rewuiqres both time and
the expenditure of ep. Characters also gain ep whilst not engaging in gameplay. In the second and
third editions the game also came with the sample adventure "The Camp of Alla Akabar", where the
PCs are hired, by different parties, as entertainers for a bedouin band and as investigators into the
same band for two missing women. It is quite an acceptable subterfuge adventure with a number of
notable NPCs.

There are some extremely good system and evocative features in DragonQuest. It was an excellent
game for its time and is still a very workable product now. The flexible skill system was certainly
advanced for its time, yet it still had an overall sense of game balance, although it suffered from
serious problems with any cross-"class" desires. The combat system is quite acceptable, with the
first edition possibly offering the best version. The principles of the magic system (colleges,
individual ranks, fatigue costs) are fine, but the implementation (college restrictions, backfires) is
not enjoyable. Creature descriptions were brief but interesting. Stylistically, the three editions do not
differ significantly, contrary to "back cover" claims with a consistent relatively rules and writing
heavy presentation in a wargame style; the lack of an effective table of contents or index doesn't
help either. Overall however this game is certainly worthwhile, and the existence of consistent fans
over almost a thirty year period is quite understandable.

[RPG]: DragonQuest, reviewed by Lev Lafayette (2/4)

Thread starterRPGnet Reviews Start dateMar 9, 2007 Tagsdragonquest spi tsr
1
2
3
Next
RPGnet Reviews
Guest
Mar 9, 2007
#1
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12828.phtml

Lev Lafayette's Summary:

Some excellent features for its time and still a very usable product today. Flexible characteristics,
race and skill system, some unnecessary and \"not fun\" components to the magic system. Inclusion
of historic demons in 1st and 2nd edition is very cool. Not helped by rules-heavy, lack of effective
ToC or index and very formal style.

Go to the full review for more information.

buzz
buzz
Burning worlds...
Validated User
Mar 9, 2007
#2
Nice review, Lev.

DragonQuest is one of the precious few RPGs from the early days that I'd happily run a few
sessions of. I dusted off my copy a few years ago to re-read and was really impressed; it holds up
well.
Ron
Registered User
Validated User
Mar 9, 2007
#3
Very good review! I have it once (3rd edition) and it appeared to be great. Unfortunately, I was
quickly tired from the rules writing and eventually give it to a friend who previously played and
enjoyed it. I am curious why you considered the first edition combat rules superior to the later ones.
Lars Dangly
Registered User
Validated User
Mar 9, 2007
#4
Indeed a well-built, balanced and deeply enjoyable game that still looks good after all these years.
Thanks for spreading the good word!
goeticgeek
goeticgeek
Biceps to spare
RPGnet Member
Validated User
Mar 9, 2007
#5
Black Magics (curses and the like) and Greater Summonings, which famously included individual
and evocative descriptions of the demons from the Ars Goetica, and counterspells. The latter two
were dropped in the third edition, apparently for reasons of public relations, which was a very
unpopular decision.
For a bit of historical perspective on this. Gaming in the 1980's was shadowed by a "Witch Hunt"
perpetrated by right wing Christians against role playing games, D&D in particular. Their
arguement was that Dungeons and Dragons provided children with actual occult and magical
instruction which invariably caused children to commit suicide, worship the devil, or join witch
covens. This whole concept might seem silly to some today but the gaming industry took the
criticism very seriously not because they believed it was true but they feared that the bad press
would not only impact sales but could get gaming banned altogether and with two right wing
Christians occupying the highest office in the U.S.A at that time, it wasn't too much of a stretch.
TSR was particularly sensitive to the image painted by fundamentalists of their most popular game
and took steps to strip anything out of the game that might hint at alternative religions or occult
knowledge. They changed the name of Deities and Demigods to Legends and Lore; in AD&D 2nd
Edition, they changed the names of devils and demons to "baatezu" and "tanar'ri" respectively; and
when they inherited the rights to Dragonquest, they stripped out the Black Magic and Greater
Summonings. Fortunately this trend at TSR seems to have reversed itself and demons, devils and
Pagan gods are once again making their appearance in Dungeons and Dragons.

ED
Strange Visitor
Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
Mar 10, 2007
#6
To reinforce what Lev says, the biggest problem with all three incarnations of DQ (though the third
was better in this regard) was that the magic system could way too easily blow up in your face when
you were starting out, but if you didn't use the magic it never got better. As I reference, they tried to
address this a bit in the third edition by making some of the success bases higher, but I'm not sure it
was enough, and it created the annoying problem that porting the missing Schools from earlier
editions was problematic because the numbers would not be in sync.

Still a game that possibly could have been a contender, at least until the tolerance for rules-heavy
systems died down, had SPI and TSR's history not gone as they did.
Bochi
Registered User
Mar 10, 2007
#7
Good review, Lev. Makes me want to have another look at this one.

One of the things that put people off DQ at the time, as I remember it, was that it was published by
"The Mighty Hex", SPI, the dominant board wargame publishers in the 1970s. They published the
main wargame magazine, Strategy and Tactics. That was probably quite unfair to a much more
diverse game, although tactical hex maps didn't help.

However, when people talk about the marketing power of TSR vis-a-vis AD&D, in fact, at the time
these games were launched, SPI was a major player in the wargame business and there was a
definite perception of Dark Forces muscling in on the cult hobby. I think it worked against them, at
the time.
Strange Visitor
Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
Mar 10, 2007
#8
Bochi said:
Good review, Lev. Makes me want to have another look at this one.

One of the things that put people off DQ at the time, as I remember it, was that it was published by
"The Mighty Hex", SPI, the dominant board wargame publishers in the 1970s. They published the
main wargame magazine, Strategy and Tactics. That was probably quite unfair to a much more
diverse game, although tactical hex maps didn't help.
Honestly, given the crunch intensiveness of games that sold halfway well at the time like, well,
most of the FGU line, I have to wonder how much impact this _really_ had.

However, when people talk about the marketing power of TSR vis-a-vis AD&D, in fact, at the time
these games were launched, SPI was a major player in the wargame business and there was a
definite perception of Dark Forces muscling in on the cult hobby. I think it worked against them, at
the time.
I think it had more to do with the combination of the enormous gravitational advantage TSR had in
the RPG business, and the rather complex buisness relationship TSR and SPI developed not long
after this, personally. It wasn't like TSR hadn't gotten its start in the minatures wargame business
itself, after all.
Bochi
Registered User
Mar 10, 2007
#9
Strange Visitor said:
... It wasn't like TSR hadn't gotten its start in the minatures wargame business itself, after all.
I should have made it clear that my memory is from the UK scene, not the US scene. I don't think
TSR had much of a presence here in wargames. I do remember looking askance at SPI's attempt to
get into RPGs. In my local game store, SPI games took up a lot of shelf space while D&D books
were stuffed into a small magazine rack at the far end of the shop. TSR looked like a small player
compared to SPI.

Of course their whole "just a bunch of nerdy gamers like you" schtick served TSR very well,
whereas SPI's wargame simulations (and many S&T articles) were so cerebral and complex that you
kind of imagined an equally cold and calculating company behind them. Untrue though that might
have been.
Strange Visitor
Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
Mar 10, 2007
#10
Bochi said:
I should have made it clear that my memory is from the UK scene, not the US scene. I don't think
TSR had much of a presence here in wargames. I do remember looking askance at SPI's attempt to
get into RPGs. In my local game store, SPI games took up a lot of shelf space while D&D books
were stuffed into a small magazine rack at the far end of the shop. TSR looked like a small player
compared to SPI.

Of course their whole "just a bunch of nerdy gamers like you" schtick served TSR very well,
whereas SPI's wargame simulations (and many S&T articles) were so cerebral and complex that you
kind of imagined an equally cold and calculating company behind them. Untrue though that might
have been.
By the time DQ came out, TSR was at least as big a player as they were; in fact, SPI was already
starting to be in some financial difficulties by the time DQ came out, as I recall; its not a
coincidence that TSR bought them out not long afterwards.

ldd23
Closet Surrealist
Mar 11, 2007
#11
Lev Lafayette said:
If a non-human is chosen, the players have a variable percentage chance of playing that character,
plus they will have a variable experience point multiplier.
Am I reading this right? If you want to play an elf, you need to roll the dice to see whether or not
you'll be allowed to? That sounds really odd.
Lev Lafayette
Lev Lafayette
Lawful Good Anarchist
Validated User
Mar 11, 2007
#12
ldd23 said:
Am I reading this right? If you want to play an elf, you need to roll the dice to see whether or not
you'll be allowed to? That sounds really odd.
There was a seriously simulationist agenda in some games (to a fault), which also conviniently
acted as a game-balance mechanism. Rolling to see whether your character could be a non-human
was used in both DQ and C&S, and probably others if I have a harder look. IMO it made some
sense, but not at the cost of letting the players actually having some input on the characters they
wanted.

Ron said:
I am curious why you considered the first edition combat rules superior to the later ones.
Well, they were all virtually the same, however the first edition did have a more sophisticated hex-
movement system (much of which one also finds in GURPS) and the action point system, which
was very good.
JRR_Talking
Guest
Mar 11, 2007
#13
i think the roll to find race was a balance thing to ensure not everyone was non-human.

elfs in DQ are a bit like Middle earth elves in that they are 'statistically better' than humans. Better
stat bonuses and abilities and such (in first edition they could walk on snow). They score very well
in all the important stats and made very powerful magic wielders.

Shapeshifters were even more powerful in many respects.

The balacing factor was the XP cost to develop stuff. Humans had a x1.0 cost to develop new skills
et al, elves is x1.2, shapeshifters x1.5

DQ is still my rpg of choice.

John
JRM
Registered User
Validated User
Mar 11, 2007
#14
Well the hex-movement system reminded me more of GURPS predecessor The Fantasy Trip, since
that was more of a contemporary to the game when it first came out.

What was weird was back in the good old days when I played DragonQuest we always ignored the
hex-rules in favour of winging it by sketching out the characters' position, but when we played TFT
we followed the hexagonal movement obsessively.
Strange Visitor
Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
Mar 11, 2007
#15
I actually quite liked the action point system from the first edition, but by the time of second and
later I think it was way too wargamey for the market.

And yes, the whole racial thing was a pain in the ass too, but some of the DQ races were so much
better than others that if you were at all concerned about balance you had to do something, and the
experience penalties alone didn't seem likely to be enough of a discouragement.
SteelCaress
Epic-Level Geek
Mar 12, 2007
#16
I remember picking it up in college, about 7 years after publication. It was 2nd Edition. I'd never
seen it before (D&D had a firm grip on the market then), though I had DQ stats for the Thieves
World characters in a Chaosium supplement.

I was inspired by the system to clean it up and houserule it. There were some professions I wanted
in there and I didn't want to stat them out to the nth degree. Gone were the random rolls for things.
Skills were performed by rolling percentiles against a stat + (ranks in the skill x N%) I changed the
N to one consistent number. I slotted numerous professions in there and did a writeup of Lord
Dunsany's world. And segued that into the world of Fafhrd and Grey Mouser. All with great
success.

I loved the d10+N for weapon damage, though. That was a nice touch, easy to remember, and they
had some strange weapons in there.

I was tempted to try and contact the company and offer a new edition, streamlined and ready to run.

When I finally understood what TSR had done with SPI's intellectual property, it was too late. The
game was published (one print run), with one module dual-statted for use with AD&D, and killed.
The name surfaced later, in a boardgame version of D&D meant to introduce D&D to the novice
crowd.

I'm just glad I have my original copy, and sad that the D&D machine ate another great idea.
Doomchanter
Registered User
Mar 12, 2007
#17
I’m a long term player & GM of DragonQuest (DQ). I started playing when the 2nd Ed. was
released & I am still playing now. Overall I like Lev’s review but a few comments he made coupled
with comments made in the responses has urged me to make my own comments.

Since there are some notable differences between the 3 editions I will focus on the 2nd, which is the
most played amongst the remaining fans (or at least their homebrew systems seem to be based
mainly on this edition).

An intelligence stat, in most games seems arbitrary as a character in play is never really going to be
too much smarter than the person playing it. A player can always play dumber, but this rarely
happens in practice. Hence the "INT" stat tends to be more of a game mechanic than anything else
& if a game is designed around the fact that there is no "INT" stat there is no big loss. However,
knowledge is something that should be included (i.e. knowledge of a particular area or subject); DQ
does fall down in this area.
Rolling for character races is not really any different to rolling up your stats (i.e. you’re rolling
randomly for the type of character you wish to play), and given that you have three chances to roll a
non-human it isn't such a big deal (having said this you can only attempt each race once). Most
groups that I have played with tend to go with the philosophy that as long as you don’t want a
Shapechanger or Giant, you can have anything you want (you must roll for the exceptions). Most
people tend to go for Humans due to the EXM anyhow.

There was a comment regarding the EXM not being harsh enough, well obviously they haven't tried
to get a Shapechanger to Adventurer Level. For example a Shapechanger to achieve Rank 4 as a
Thief (fairly standard skill) needs to have 6,000 EXP compared to a Human only requiring 4,000
EXP. This encumbrance becomes even more apparent when all the characters with low EXM’s are
at adventurer level, earning 2,400 EXP per adventure and the Shapechanger is still wallowing as a
Mercenary earning only 1,200 EXP per adventure. A high EXM can make a huge difference,
particularly for students of a College of Magic!!!

Shields are “pathetic”, what the ……??? Shields are extremely useful, particularly if you look at the
evading, shield rush and parry / riposte rules. An evading character with a shield can be extremely
hard to hit & when the opponent misses you could get a free attack, which since you will most
likely have another attack before they can respond you will get a rear hex (think of this with a
decently ranked Assassin, extremely deadly). This is where the Wargaming aspect of the game
comes in. Shields are most definitely not pathetic!!!

Backfires, are well this is a topic that has been going on for awhile in DQ circles. Lev’s example of
a healing spell backfiring probably isn’t the best example & actually proves quite the opposite of
what he was trying to demonstrate. For example, most healing spells have a BC of around 40%, add
in the usual College specific modifier that you can usually drum up of 5%, now add a couple of
ranks which adds a further 6% and say a MA of 17 which adds another 2%. This gives a grand total
of 53%, which means outside of combat a healing spell would backfire only 8% of the time
(remember that all spells backfire on 99 or 100 so this is only 6% more than minimum). This
doesn’t hurt too much particularly given that the Backfire Table only starts to get nasty if you roll
over 60% on it. It should also be considered that there are some pretty devastating spells in DQ,
which kill immediately and as such there has to be some counterbalance to stop people throwing
their magic around in the hope that their 4% spell works. All in all I believe that the Backfire rules
simply make the practitioner of magic use their spells with much more consideration, using the low
BC, devastating spells only when they really need to. Once again however, having said this there
are a few BC’s that need to be reviewed as well as some of the damage spells in Fire Magics,
nothing a few house rules can’t fix though.

I agree with Lev’s take on the disarming thing, it is ridiculous that a dagger can disarm a pole axe.
Another issue is that you can be rank 5 with a broadsword and still not have any idea of how to use
a claymore or sabre, even though they are all B class weapons with a similar action and weight.
Once again house rules can fix this pretty easily as they can fix the disarming thing.

Finally the Rag & String Golem thing; this was due to TSR throwing in rules without properly
thinking them out. Shaping Magics was around a lot longer than the TSR take on the game in the
form of Unearthed Arcana but hadn’t been published (one would think that this was because it
hadn’t been properly play-tested & completely thought out), TSR just threw it in there to placate the
mob who mourned the loss of a couple of their favourite colleges. Having said that though every set
of rules has its bugbear, it doesn’t really detract from the game overall though.

I still say that DQ is the best, yes you read right, the best Fantasy RPG I have ever played. Mainly
because it isn’t class based as well as the tactical way combat is played out. As it says in the rules,
the game is modulised so you can add or subtract as you see fit. It is a shame that fantasy RPG’s
didn’t evolve from this game rather than the far inferior D & D brand.
Lev Lafayette
Lev Lafayette
Lawful Good Anarchist
Validated User
Mar 12, 2007
#18
Doomchanter said:
An intelligence stat, in most games seems arbitrary as a character in play is never really going to be
too much smarter than the person playing it. A player can always play dumber, but this rarely
happens in practice. Hence the "INT" stat tends to be more of a game mechanic than anything else
& if a game is designed around the fact that there is no "INT" stat there is no big loss.
On this we'll differ. Not only do I see characters roleplay a lower INT as common practise (and even
try to roleplay a higher INT), but more importantly I think the lack of the general stat as a game
mechanic is a big loss. The concept, for example, that all mechanicians with the same rank have the
same ability to devise and invent doesn't make much sense to me.

Shields are “pathetic”, what the ……???

The unranked bonus for a shield is between 3% and 6% which is certainly in the same, incorrect,
AD&D1e ballpark of the protective value of a shield. This is quite wrong. A untrained person
can pick up a shield and they *will* improve their capacity to be protected by blow *far* more than
DQ indicates.

Backfires, are well this is a topic that has been going on for awhile in DQ circles. Lev’s example of
a healing spell backfiring probably isn’t the best example & actually proves quite the opposite of
what he was trying to demonstrate. For example, most healing spells have a BC of around 40%, add
in the usual College specific modifier that you can usually drum up of 5%, now add a couple of
ranks which adds a further 6% and say a MA of 17 which adds another 2%. This gives a grand total
of 53%, which means outside of combat a healing spell would backfire only 8% of the time
Which is still very high compared to most other games. Especially for a healing spell.

I agree with Lev’s take on the disarming thing, it is ridiculous that a dagger can disarm a pole axe.
Another issue is that you can be rank 5 with a broadsword and still not have any idea of how to use
a claymore or sabre, even though they are all B class weapons with a similar action and weight.
Once again house rules can fix this pretty easily as they can fix the disarming thing.
Ah yes; my bad on that one. Completely left out how DQ doesn't have a 'similar weapons' bonus;
they were taken to task in Murphy's Rules over that.

I still say that DQ is the best, yes you read right, the best Fantasy RPG I have ever played. Mainly
because it isn’t class based as well as the tactical way combat is played out. As it says in the rules,
the game is modulised so you can add or subtract as you see fit. It is a shame that fantasy RPG’s
didn’t evolve from this game rather than the far inferior D & D brand.
I don't think it's the best FRPG; but I do think it's pretty damn good.
Doomchanter
Registered User
Mar 13, 2007
#19
Unranked???

All weapons in DQ unranked are hopeless, perhaps this is a fault but just about any game on the
market requires some ability (game mechanic wise) with a weapon, be it defensive or not, before it
can used effectively. I really do not believe that I could effectively use a shield, a sword, wear
armour and still be fully able to dodge or deflect blows coming my way. In fact the warriors of ye
olde times practised their martial skills constantly, so a newbie would be carved up by these
practised fellows without too much of a bother.

Also do you not think that the fact that shields are relatively easy to use is reflected in the really
cheap EXP costs? This indicates that with a little training almost anybody can effectively wield a
shield at rank 3 or 4 (also consider the Maximum Rank).

I don't think the introduction of an INT stat of some description would detract from the game, I also
don't think that its absence detracts from the game either. The lack of practical and theoretical
knowledge skills do. To have the imagination to think up a new device doesn't make you an all
round smarty bum, it simply means that you are particularly good in "a" field, not all fields. This is
represented in the fact that skills require ranks, and as such the character is trained in that particular
field. It is up to the player to decide whether their character has the intelligence and natural ability
to be competent in a chosen career, which I think really, empowers players to play a character of
their own design without statutory obligations to statistics.

Backfires, all you have to do is be conservative with your spell usage until you are ranked high
enough to cast safely (or are desperate enough to take the risk). Also you do have the option to
prepare the spell for a number of hours, which improves your chance by 3% per hour up to a
maximum of 10 hours (i.e. an extra 30%).....and you could do the Ritual of Purification which
temporarily increases your MA (a few ranks in this is a must for all magic users), which could last
for days....essentially what I am saying is that there are a plethora of ways to increase your chance
of casting, particularly outside of combat. Essentially the game system has mechanics, abilities and
the like to counterbalance the risk of backfires for players with enough foresight to prepare
themselves.

Taking that same example of a Base Chance of 40% for a Healing spell, plus 6% for two ranks, 2%
for MA and 5% for College bonuses. Now let’s add on 3% for the increase in MA due to
Purification and another 3% for preparing it for an hour. Wallah only backfires 2% of the time.
Don't spend an hour and then it fails 5% of the time essentially the same as a 1 in the D20 system,
representing a fumble. All this said it is highly unlikely that a Healing spell that is used often would
be left at rank 2 for long.

Perhaps the only change I would make would be adjustments to the die roll on the backfire table
based on how badly the caster failed; this I think would be a good addition to the rules. Although it
should also be considered that there is more than a little Lord of the Rings in DQ and magic was
used sparingly in those mighty tomes, but was extremely powerful when it was. The same, to a
certain degree can be said for DQ.

I would ask you to revisit the rules and put yourself in the position of a player of a magic user, be it
a part timer or a full on practitioner of the arcane arts. Then look for ways to protect yourself, just
like a fighter would look for the right armour or weapon. I just don't think that you have fully
thought through your view of backfires or shields for that matter, two elements of the game that I
think are quite unique and beneficial compared to other games, particularly given their hidden
depths. It really takes both a Role Player's mindset and a Wargamer's understanding of rules to fully
appreciate the intricacies of DQ rules.
Lev Lafayette
Lev Lafayette
Lawful Good Anarchist
Validated User
Mar 13, 2007
#20
Doomchanter said:
All weapons in DQ unranked are hopeless, perhaps this is a fault but just about any game on the
market requires some ability (game mechanic wise) with a weapon, be it defensive or not, before it
can used effectively. I really do not believe that I could effectively use a shield, a sword, wear
armour and still be fully able to dodge or deflect blows coming my way. In fact the warriors of ye
olde times practised their martial skills constantly, so a newbie would be carved up by these
practised fellows without too much of a bother.
This is simply not true, either in a simulationist sense or in the game rules. The base chance for a
broadsword is 50%, unranked. The base protection for a large round shield in DQ is 4%. Now, I
don't know whether you've actually used a shield in the real world, but believe me, a totally
untrained person will still gain a better bonus than 4% by using one. In a game design sense, 4% is
the sort of degree of protection used in (A)D&D1e. A more realistic level is around the 20-25%
mark as suggested by Rolemaster and RuneQuest (I mention these games as they were all
contemporaries of DQ).

I don't think the introduction of an INT stat of some description would detract from the game, I also
don't think that its absence detracts from the game either. The lack of practical and theoretical
knowledge skills do. To have the imagination to think up a new device doesn't make you an all
round smarty bum, it simply means that you are particularly good in "a" field, not all fields.
To be compenet in any mental field requires good cognitive and logical processes (i.e., general
intelligence). In any case if the lack of a general INT score was a good design feature, don't you
think that it would have been incorporated in future games? Like other aspects of DQ were?

I would ask you to revisit the rules and put yourself in the position of a player of a magic user, be it
a part timer or a full on practitioner of the arcane arts.
My last two DQ characters were both full-time magic users. The experience was frustrating and
annoying, not because of the GMs, but because of the game system.

Doomchanter
Registered User
Mar 13, 2007
#21
Lev Lafayette said:
This is simply not true, either in a simulationist sense or in the game rules. The base chance for a
broadsword is 50%, unranked. The base protection for a large round shield in DQ is 4%. Now, I
don't know whether you've actually used a shield in the real world, but believe me, a totally
untrained person will still gain a better bonus than 4% by using one. In a game design sense, 4% is
the sort of degree of protection used in (A)D&D1e. A more realistic level is around the 20-25%
mark as suggested by Rolemaster and RuneQuest (I mention these games as they were all
contemporaries of DQ).

To be compenet in any mental field requires good cognitive and logical processes (i.e., general
intelligence). In any case if the lack of a general INT score was a good design feature, don't you
think that it would have been incorporated in future games? Like other aspects of DQ were?
My last two DQ characters were both full-time magic users. The experience was frustrating and
annoying, not because of the GMs, but because of the game system.
Click to expand...
Did you ignore the part about the shield being cheap to purchase ranks part altogether :confused:
:confused:

Yes I have used a shield and in conjunction with a sword it is mighty hard to use when against an
opponent with at least some training (I spent one day at one of those historical recreation things). In
fact I found I was always on the back foot and leaving myself open to attacks, until I learnt various
techniques to counter the attack (i.e. deflecting it rather than just absorbing it, etc.), perhaps this is
the process of gaining ranks....don't know maybe....I would estimate a 100EXP worth, i.e. rank 2
with a large round shield, which is 8% defence, or 26% when evading (36% to ranged attacks).
Even without a rank you would get 14% or 24% to your defence when evading. This does not
include the 4% per rank of your other weapon such as a Broadsword.

The cheap ranks coupled with the evading rule makes the Shield super effective for starting
characters to survive. Think of a character with Rank 3 Shield (Large Round) @ 200EXP and Rank
2 Broadsword @ 200EXP (both very cheap to get). When evading this character would have an
additional 42% to their defence, then if their opposition rolls over 30% above their chance to hit you
you get a chance to disarm and maybe a free attack (for which you can move one hexside around),
not bad huh? Then you would have the next strike, moving one more hexside around you get a rear
hex and a bloody good chance of a directly on to endurance. Death to the scum follows!!!!

SIDE NOTE: This evasion rule has been changed in the Open Source material and makes for some
interesting reading.

Then we also have the shield rush rules to knock your opponent over.....but we will leave it at that
as I am sure you know about those. :p

I have always hated the INT stat as it is an arbitary measure of intelligence and all the problems that
come with it, but I am not against such a measure as I may need it sometime as a GM (I think I said
that in not so many words). I just believe that knowledge is a far more important characteristic,
particularly in an environment where violence and use of minimal resources is important. Medieval
combat and adventuring is a little more hands on than most mathematical equations or DaVinci
style inventions. Knowledge of ettiquette, the wilderness, weaponary use and design, types of wood
or rock that can be used for various tasks, etc. :eek:

As for the evolution of games and the INT stat, I have regularly played three games, that I can think
of right now, that don't have an INT stat and they were all designed in the last five years or so.
Admittedly they tend to be rules light games and more cinematic, but not all games feel the need to
throw in an IQ score.

I know you played a Magic User in my game (the first character) and you didn't use all the
resources that were available. You were getting frustrated with a character because things weren't
going your way, but instead of looking for an edge or a way to improve things you just blamed the
system. As mentioned previously there are a number of ways to decrease your chance of backfires,
you chose not to adopt them. :p

Then with the second character I warned you of the low base chances for Illusions and how you
really needed to have as much EXP as possible to improve your magic but you insisted on the
Shape Changer which most likely significantly reduced the EXP you had to spend and thus the
effectiveness of your spells. :(
In DQ if you are a full time sorceror, well you need to be full time. You need to expend EXP into
some of those General Knowledge Rituals that are common to all Colleges as well as to maximise
your stats in the areas that count. It is not a fault of the system but purpose behind the design of it.
Magic users are meant to use their powers cleverly and to be the edge that the fighters need to beat
that bad dude and his cowardly hireling scum, not wave his / her arms around and hope to hell that
the 10% spell will work everytime (those are for when things look really bad) :D .
Last edited: Mar 13, 2007
Strange Visitor
Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
Mar 14, 2007
#22
Doomchanter said:
In DQ if you are a full time sorceror, well you need to be full time. You need to expend EXP into
some of those General Knowledge Rituals that are common to all Colleges as well as to maximise
your stats in the areas that count. It is not a fault of the system but purpose behind the design of it.
Magic users are meant to use their powers cleverly and to be the edge that the fighters need to beat
that bad dude and his cowardly hireling scum, not wave his / her arms around and hope to hell that
the 10% spell will work everytime (those are for when things look really bad) :D .

Given even a mage who is careful as can be is prone to blowing himself up, one way or another,
before he could possibly get his ranks up enough to eliminate that chance, just because of the linear
nature of it, I think this is wishful thinking, or the story of someone who ran games for people who
happened to luck out.
Lev Lafayette
Lev Lafayette
Lawful Good Anarchist
Validated User
Mar 14, 2007
#23
Doomchanter said:
Did you ignore the part about the shield being cheap to purchase ranks part altogether :confused:
:confused:
Absolutely, because they are irrelevant to the argument. The default for a shield should be a lot
higher than it is. That much should be obvious, and you are doing no credit to your argument by
suggesting otherwise.

I know you played a Magic User in my game (the first character) and you didn't use all the
resources that were available. You were getting frustrated with a character because things weren't
going your way, but instead of looking for an edge or a way to improve things you just blamed the
system. As mentioned previously there are a number of ways to decrease your chance of backfires,
you chose not to adopt them. :p
Regardless of your opinions on whether I adopted a sufficiently wargamer approach to the game
(and I certainly dispute these claims), it is empirically obvious that DQ has a much higher backfire
chance than other games which do not scale in accordance to the spell in question. That is a
problem; denying it suggests quite literally, "blind love" for the system.

Then with the second character I warned you of the low base chances for Illusions and how you
really needed to have as much EXP as possible to improve your magic but you insisted on the
Shape Changer which most likely significantly reduced the EXP you had to spend and thus the
effectiveness of your spells. :(
Again, this should be irrelevant, especially given that the spells were purchased to a fair level and I
chose the cheapest spells. Regardless the degree of backfire should be in proportion to the power of
spell being cast. Ignoring this as a flaw in the game system is just being contrary for the sake of it.

Strange Visitor said:

Given even a mage who is careful as can be is prone to blowing himself up, one way or another,
before he could possibly get his ranks up enough to eliminate that chance, just because of the linear
nature of it, I think this is wishful thinking, or the story of someone who ran games for people who
happened to luck out.
This is a good point. A starting character in DQ has, on average 120 XP and will gain, if successful,
another 1200 XP per session for at least the first several sessions. Spells have a base chance of 20-
30% and experience multiples of 100-500 XP/rank (so to get to rank 2 is 200 to 1000 XP) which
gives a +3% chance per rank. Given that a character can only learn two spells concurrently, as you
suggest it is quite a few sessions before backfires become less of a problem.
Last edited: Mar 14, 2007
Doomchanter
Registered User
Mar 14, 2007
#24
Lev Lafayette said:
Absolutely, because they are irrelevant to the argument. The default for a shield should be a lot
higher than it is. That much should be obvious, and you are doing no credit to your argument by
suggesting otherwise.

Regardless of your opinions on whether I adopted a sufficiently wargamer approach to the game
(and I certainly dispute these claims), it is empirically obvious that DQ has a much higher backfire
chance than other games which do not scale in accordance to the spell in question. That is a
problem; denying it suggests quite literally, "blind love" for the system.

Again, this should be irrelevant, especially given that the spells were purchased to a fair level and I
chose the cheapest spells. Regardless the degree of backfire should be in proportion to the power of
spell being cast. Ignoring this as a flaw in the game system is just being contrary for the sake of it.

This is a good point. A starting character in DQ has, on average 120 XP and will gain, if successful,
another 1200 XP per session for at least the first several sessions. Spells have a base chance of 20-
30% and experience multiples of 100-500 XP/rank (so to get to rank 2 is 200 to 1000 XP) which
gives a +3% chance per rank. Given that a character can only learn two spells concurrently, as you
suggest it is quite a few sessions before backfires become less of a problem.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry I don't understand how since I didn't agree therefore my argument is null and
void.....mmmm

A shield is used to defend against blows....if you are not defending then you are attacking....if you
defend you evade and you get the full bonus that is allowed....if you attack you do not get the full
bonus....seems pretty fair to me.
Just because you have a shield it doesn't mean that it is effective 100% all of the time, you are likely
to let your guard down sometimes and as such the shield is held to the side to allow an attack and as
such your defence is lower....or perhaps you defelcted a blow but due to a lack of training were
unable to bring it back up to bear in time for the next one....your assessment of the mechanic does
not take any of this into account.

The low experience costs illustrate how simple it is to use a shield effectively and as such is a kind
of default ability, i.e. this acknowledges that it is not difficult to learn how to use the shield, but
some familiarity with it is required otherwise it simply gets in the way or is not very effective.

Nobody I have ever gamed with used the starting EXP in the book...that I believe is a fault and
perhaps central to some of the issues.

As for backfires, I never claimed that it was equivalent to other games, in fact I said that it was
higher as there is more of a Lord of the Rings feel to the magic rather than a D & D approach. It is
simply that when I hear complaints about Backfires it tends to come from people who rarely use, if
at all, any of the risk mitigation tactics allowed for in the rules. They approach it like a D & D spell
list, although it is a totally different concept. Plus consider some of those deadlier spells....dead with
one blast at the cost of 2 FT.

Average base chance for spells is low sometimes, but the backfires are a part of the learning
experience (remember that I said that there probably should be a sliding scale for the severity of a
spell failure and that I didn't fully endorse the table as published). Also some of the spells should
have their base chances reviewed (I also said this previously).

Essentially what I am saying is that some of the comments in the review were broad comments
made without understanding the rules fully, nor indeed having put into practice some of the
elements that are included within.

I do not follow the rules blindly and in fact have made a heap of adjustments to elements of the
game that I feel require them, including the backfire table, some spell base chances and rank
synergy. You, Lev, know of many of them.

Finally to argue that I am not doing my argument any value because it is not in line with yours
shows a great deal of blindness itself.
buzz
buzz
Burning worlds...
Validated User
Mar 14, 2007
#25
Behold the power of the Internet to connect people from all over the world with the most obscure
interests... and give them a means to argue with each other. :)
Strange Visitor
Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
Mar 15, 2007
#26
buzz said:
Behold the power of the Internet to connect people from all over the world with the most obscure
interests... and give them a means to argue with each other. :)
Hey, as RPG atavisms go, DQ isn't even particularly obscure; I've seen dedicated subfora to it on
RPG sites before. You have to be getting into Swordbearer and the like before you're _really_
talking obscure...
Lev Lafayette
Lev Lafayette
Lawful Good Anarchist
Validated User
Mar 17, 2007
#27
Strange Visitor said:
Hey, as RPG atavisms go, DQ isn't even particularly obscure; I've seen dedicated subfora to it on
RPG sites before. You have to be getting into Swordbearer and the like before you're _really_
talking obscure...
Hey, I really like Swordbearer - and I intend to review it! I still have the character sheet for my
character from almost twenty five years ago...
Strange Visitor
Grumpy Grognard
Validated User
Mar 17, 2007
#28
Lev Lafayette said:
Hey, I really like Swordbearer - and I intend to review it! I still have the character sheet for my
character from almost twenty five years ago...
I have two copies of Swordbearer--the original Heritage odd boxed version, and the FGU reiissue,
but that doesn't make it less obscure.
Lev Lafayette
Lev Lafayette
Lawful Good Anarchist
Validated User
Mar 23, 2007
#29
There is an error in the review. The comment; "Also, a simple line that other skills exist (e.g.,
Farmer!) but are not specified would have been nice."

Somehow I managed to overlook that such a line does exist on the second paragraph of page 86 in
the third edition: "The skills presented here are only thoise likely to be used by a character during
an adventure. The fruits the labors of those using other, more plebian, skills can be purchased."