Re: [dq-rules] DQ vs. newer systems

[" Rodger Thorm"<dqn@earthlink.net>]

Like most of us, I have stuck with DQ because I got into it 20+ years ago.  I
had a very long running campaign with my old group, and am running a campaign
about once a month using the same world setting (and even one of the old
players) but in a different region, so I don't have to worry about overlap. 
For me, I think it is a combination of the rules and the setting together
(I've put a *lot* of hours into the campaign world).

Everyone else so far has addressed D&D, so let me talk about something else. 
I've looked at GURPS briefly, though I've never played it in a sustained
campaign.  I've also played in a couple of (Metagaming's) Fantasy Trip
(Melee/Wizard/ITL/etc.) camapigns.  

GURPS has always left me cold, because it is too flat and too generic.  In
order to create play balance, everything is too broken down into individual
pieces.  

The skills in DQ are narrow enough that you don't have character classes (a la
D&D), but still broad enough that you have some flavor to them.  [With just 3
of the 12 skills selected, you have 1320 different combinations available, and
that's without taking magic into account.]  

A DQ Merchant has a number of abilities, where in GURPS you would have to have
several skills just to match the breadth that Merchant provides.  And so most
characters end up with much narrower sets of abilities that don't have the
same richness that DQ skills do.  (I'm certain that good players and GMs could
do well using GURPS, but the system doesn't offer anything within it.)

I also strongly dislike the Advantages/Disadvantages system in GURPS.  Where
are you going to find the most skilled mercenaries to hire?  The psycho ward. 
To be a really great character, you need to be a one-eyed, drunken, leper with
a paralyzing fear of his own shadow.  I'll pass, thanks.

Fantasy Trip is a good light system (a beer-n-pretzels game), but it can be
even bloodier than DQ, and the system for advancement is not nearly as well
developed.  There's a lot less difference between an apprentice and a hero in
that game.  It also is a 2D6 system, which I find very problematic.  There's
not enough room for little advantages, which are possible with DQ.

I have also heard other people saying good things about 3rd Ed D&D, but at
this point, I'm not interested in spending a whole lot more money for   a new
game system.  Maybe some pieces of it will get adapted and incorporated into
DQ as people continue to write and modify new rules.  But for the forseeable
future, I'm going to stay with DQ.

Thanks for opening up a good discussion for the new year.

Rodger Thorm