Re: [dq-rules] DQ vs. newer systems (long read)

[William Hough <houghpt@yahoo.com>]

In many ways, I still believe DQ to be an "infinite
improvement over D&D for flexibility". I cite and
agree with Mr. Hoffman's assessment of D&D to support
this.

I'm not sure how many of you remember, but just four
or five years ago, when Magic the Addiction was at its
peak, the #1 rumor in gaming was the fear that the
"mindless" card games would wipe out RPGs forever and
ever, Amen. The gaming circles were talking about the
need for strengthening RPGs into a 100% modular system
that would incorporate all genres, and meet any
unanticipated rules interpretations with a universal
approach.

I believe the D20 System was designed in response to
this need, but I wouldn't know how effective it is
since I have yet to try it. In any event, the call for
modularity was shot down as quickly as it rose up.

For example, at a particular gaming convention I
attended in 1997 (back when I still had the time and
money for such diversions), there was a free seminar
on modular gaming systems. I was surprised at what I
interpreted to be a high amount of hostility towards
the very idea. Some claimed that modular systems
already existed; it depended simply on your viewpoint.
For example, in GURPS, I understand you can design
*any* character concept that you can come up with. The
modularity here of course is the flexibility of the
system. Others claimed that modularity would further
damage the "magic" that certain existing RPG systems
had, making them more generic and sacrificing
atmosphere for convenience. I believe Mr. Thorm
touched upon flexibility and the dangers of genericism
in his assessment of the GURPS system.

Now, DQ may not be entirely modular, but it sure as
hell has atmosphere. Tell me you cannot "taste" the
fantasy element when you play this game.

Another system I wish to address, and one I have
brought up before, is the HERO System, aka Champions.
The fantasy version is formally titled Fantasy HERO.
First things first: GURPS is a copycat version of this
system, period. It is the HERO system that first
introduced the concept of advantages and
disadvantages, it is the HERO system that introduced a
full point-based character-generating structure.

With that said, I believe the only difference between
the two is that GURPS is more unbalancing and more
unrealistic. Unbalancing because it is far too easy to
have a beginning character with an ungodly amount of
skills, all with very agreeable success chances.
Unrealistic because, as Mr. Thorm has reminded us, the
amount of disadvantages you have to pile onto your
being just to be a merchant is flabbergasting. With
the HERO system, disadvantages are much more realistic
and you don't need that many of them to play a fantasy
character. Also, the system tends to encourage a
variety of skills in a new character without the high
success chances characteristic of an advanced persona.
My only real problem with HERO system is what I
perceive to be that lack of special flavor that I
attributed to DQ above. I feel, when I am playing
Fantasy Hero, that I am not in a swords 'n sorcery
world, but a modern day world where the people simply
happen to be carrying swords and spellbooks instead of
suits and briefcases.

Overall, I think what killed DQ in the end is that is
was too good for its time. It was (and is in my
opinion) a simple but effective system surprising in
its ease of play and at the same time managed to
combine solid elements of realism and atmosphere. And
that is a hard balance to achieve. No wonder WotC
doesn't want to share it with the others. Too much
marketshare invested with AD&D to turn back now.

Pat Hough (aka Shadekur)

--- "manx2600 <johncfranklin@hotmail.com>"
<johncfranklin@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I still run a DQ version 1 campaign on the rare
> occasions when 
> the old group gets together. I stick with DQ because
> I know the 
> rules cold, have added my own variations, and out of
> affection for 
> old times and the glory of SPI. But I was wondering
> if any of you 
> have kept up with the development of RPGs over the
> last 20 
> years, and still think that DQ, while it was once an
> infinite 
> improvement over AD&D for flexibility, offers real
> advantages over 
> systems like GURPS (I also hear that the new WOTC
> D&D is 
> quite good). Or do you all still play DQ for the
> same reasons I 
> do?
>  jcf
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com