Re: [dq-rules] On Flames and Publishing [long]

[Rodger Thorm <rodger_thorm@yahoo.com>]

It was clear from the outset that SPI intended for
DragonQuest to expand beyond the base rules in what
was initially published (the original game system). 
The twelve colleges of magic and the handful of skills
and abilities was the beginning, not the extent of
what DragonQuest was meant to be.

We can certainly take the narrow view that only things
that came out with SPI's imprimatur are official DQ,
and that nothing else matters.  Personally, I *do*
take Arcane Wisdom as part of the core DQ canon; the
playtest photocopy that was circulated was a finished
product.  It was ready to be printed.  It was done.  

If we accept the view that there can be no new
material for DQ, then there is no point to any of the
discussion boards or newsgroups or the Newsletter. 
Everything is set, and there is no point to creating
anything new.  I don't accept that position or agree
with it.  The very existence of the dq-rules group is
completely counter to that in principle.

Now that the parent company is gone and the system is
orphaned, I feel it is completely reasonable to
maintain the system and to continue to develop the
core of what is official DQ.

The idea of having the DQ-rules list was to bring
additional rules out for general review and
suggestions from other GMs and players.  Ideally, as
in the Open Source software movement, the idea was
that "many eyes make shallow bugs" i.e. that problems
can be readily discovered and repaired through group
action.  For that to be a useful process, however,
versioning is required, and the document (whether
computer code or games rules) has to be a changing
entity, rather than a fixed, final document.

I think that it is useful to keep producing new
material for DQ, as well as to revisit and revise the
existing rules.  

'House rules' are fine, and every group finds what
suits them best from within the canon set.  For
example, the rules for fatigue loss during the day for
overland travel get ignored in my campaign, as do the
rules for required practice to maintain skills.  In my
campaign, Illusions don't exist.  There has not been
an Illusionist character, and I don't use Illusionist
NPCs.  It doesn't suit my campaign or my style as a
GM.  I don't think I'm a bad DQ GM; these are just my
personal adaptations.   

But that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be
deleted, nor on the other hand should all new rules be
automatically added.  Some changes are better than the
original rules they revise and should be included;
some new rules cover material that was not addressed
in the original published set, and should also be
included.

There is still a place for an 'official' canon of
growing and adapting DQ rules.  Having an 'official'
set of rules which is constantly being reviewed and
adapted is a project for the DQ community as a whole. 
GMs will still choose what to adapt for their own
campaigns.  I don't expect that would ever change. 
But let's have an organized system to pull things
together and clearly identify that these things are
for everyone to use and to be shared.  Let's identify
the authors and at the same time allow others to
fairly use the material that has been produced for
everyone.  There's room for NEW 'official' DQ.

(Please don't take this a picking on you or flaming
you Bruce.  I completely agree with the validity of
your position as well, on one level.  But I also think
that a broader position needs to be considered, as
I've outlined above.)

--- Bruce Probst <bprobst@netspace.net.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 08:28:05 -0700, Rodger
> Thorm<dqn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >With SPI long gone and dead, there is no one to
> judge what is 'official' DQ and what is not, and
> some reluctance (my own included, it must be
> admitted) to publish based on that.
> 
> I don't think that's hard to decide at all. 
> "Official" is what was actually
> printed, with a further modifier of being qualified
> for each edition;
> "Official 3rd edition" and "official 2nd edition"
> being not quite the same
> thing after all.
> 
> Technically, "Arcane Wisdom" is not "official",
> except for those portions of
> it which were reprinted in 3rd edition and elsewhere
> (issues of Ares
> magazine, for example).  However, the combined
> publication of "Arcane
> Wisdom" was so close to being published that I'm
> happy to call it "official
> 2nd edition material".
> 
> Everything else is "house rules".
> 
> In my DQ game, for example, I base everything on 2nd
> edition, supplemented
> by stuff "stolen" from other works, modified by what
> my experience says
> "works" and "doesn't work" (in terms of rules and
> play balance).  The whole
> mess comprises my "house rules" and works for me and
> my players; if someone
> were to "officially" publish a new edition of DQ I
> would find that
> interesting, but barring any new ideas I could steal
> for my own game it
> wouldn't have any great impact on the game as I play
> it now.
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce Probst              bprobst@netspace.net.au   
> ICQ 6563830
> Melbourne, Australia      MSTie #72759  SCA #80160
> "Rock and roll Martian."
> ASL FAQ             
> http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com