Back in Why-Is-BRP-Not-More-Popular the topic, we got into a side conversation about DQ, which prompted this:

Quote from: Larsdangly;1014625A new edition of Dragonquest that sorted out some of its wonky details but kept the heart of it really intact would be amazing. The magic system rocks the party, but should have been organized like the skills, where you just track your level in one thing and all the little gears that this implies (chances at various skills, etc.) track with that number. That would be better than having to keep track of separate ranks in a jillion separate spells. Same with weapons. And you shouldn't get like 1000's of EXP in free stuff just because you declare you are an adept when a non-adept starts with bare bones skills. But those are little things.

As I've alluded at times, this is a high interest subject to me.  I'm curious what those of you with some interest in DQ would say about how they would like it done.

Full disclaimer:  My homebrew system still under development is very much an "inspired by" DQ type of game in many respects, but not all.  One of the big things that I wrestle with constantly is what to keep semi-faithful to the source material, and what to change--often simplifying.  I've said elsewhere that I think you can could rewrite 3rd edition DQ in two-thirds of the words and retain 80% to 90% of it.  On the other hand, a great deal of its charm is how specific it is, and the wordiness can be a big part of that.  And of course, people might not agree on the 10% to 20% that would get dropped.

So what would you keep?  What would you change?  What, if anything, would you throw out entirely?  Add anything?  And then the various cross-section questions, such as how far, if any, to unify some of the mechanics or address those "jillion separate spells"?

Keep the "tactical display" hex-grid combat. That pushes the right buttons for me and there's relatively few games that do it.

Lose the outlined rules writing style.

These first two replies are great examples of the tension involved.  

The "tactical display" is often cited by fans as one of the reasons they like DQ, but it's also one of the most convoluted parts of the rules.  Simplifying that but keeping it mostly true to the original is something that would require a lot of play testing.  (Any change would require some testing, but that one would be impossible to get right without many iterations.)  It doesn't help any that it is my least favorite part of the system, while being well aware of its popularity--and that parts of it are great.

On the outlined rules, that's also part of the charm of the original.  Or rather, the outline system with florid text mixed together is.  Though I think any new rewrite would almost be forced to drop it.  It's practically a unique style in RPGs, a mix of the interests of the original authors mixed with SPI's writing guidelines, I suspect.  I don't think I could reproduce something that would mimic it, even were I inclined.  The best you could hope for would be to come across like some of the later Conan writers trying to imitate Howard--which is hardly encouraging.

Change it?  No, I don't think so, the only real issue is that there should be a base price for becoming an adept.  Compile it, repackage it a bit, more battle maps miniatures.  Hear me out here, Iron Wind Metals has most of Ral Partha's old collector's series available as Chaos Wars packs,  Why not stick 2 dozen in a premium DragonQuest boxed set?

1 million percent required: Keep both tactical hex sheet combat and the engineer-nerd numbered outline of the rules. Those are two of several distinctive parts of the game, and removing them would mean you are wasting your time and should just go write your own game.

The major changes I think would improve the game are consolidation of the number and diversity of experience point costs for the various weapons and spells so that they work more or less in the same way as the skill bundles. Second, make it so that all characters start play with a common range of EXP, rather than giving adepts a bunch and everyone else few. Have initial EXP expenditures follow the same rules as EXP expenditures during play. And it might be enjoyable to make the social class system a bit more nuanced and to add one or two new skill bundles that round out the sorts of characters who are possible. But don't go nuts here: the game should not radically change in scope.

Does WoTC have the rights to this from the SPI takeover? If so, then possibly interested gamers could lobby them to make it a POD title through OBS.

Quote from: Spellslinging Sellsword;1015463Does WoTC have the rights to this from the SPI takeover? If so, then possibly interested gamers could lobby them to make it a POD title through OBS.

WotC has the rights.  The chances of them ever letting it see the light of day again are so low as to be practically zero.  Thus the reasonable approaches will involve some amounts of serial number filing off, "inspired by" changes, and complete rewrites of text.  Then whatever streamlining or other improvements prompted the effort in the first place. So I think practically, if you don't want to run any chance of legal problems, you have to "write your own game," as Larsdangly says--even if you are going to keep some of the central elements.  Once having made that decision, however, there are still plenty of things that should be kept in an "inspired by" game that aren't strictly required for someone with a license to do an official rewrite.  A tactical combat game on a grid might be near the top of that list.

Definitely keep the outline style for the rules as it makes them so much easier to learn and reference.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1015488WotC has the rights.  The chances of them ever letting it see the light of day again are so low as to be practically zero.  Thus the reasonable approaches will involve some amounts of serial number filing off, "inspired by" changes, and complete rewrites of text.  Then whatever streamlining or other improvements prompted the effort in the first place. So I think practically, if you don't want to run any chance of legal problems, you have to "write your own game," as Larsdangly says--even if you are going to keep some of the central elements.  Once having made that decision, however, there are still plenty of things that should be kept in an "inspired by" game that aren't strictly required for someone with a license to do an official rewrite.  A tactical combat game on a grid might be near the top of that list.

It was one of the only games ever purchased specifically to be killed. They will never let it see the light of day again, as a branded product. So, if it is to be distributed in a new format it will have be a knock off.

I highly doubt they are concerned with it competing with D&D in 2017. If Star Frontiers is any indication you guys just need to file for a trademark to get it up on OBS.

Keep the SPI numbered rules format for nostalgia, but use sidebars to explain major points in plain English.  Make the hex-map tactical display optional, or give guidelines for theater of the mind play. The hex map is a love or hate thing for most players.

I 'm currently playing in a Dragonquest campaign with some hard-core 80s DQ grognards. I generally like the game and their enthusiasm is contagious BUT I have the strong suspicion that the DQ fanbase considers the cryptic organization, complex math, endless charts, and lack of a unified mechanic to be selling points, not liabilities. It's a very nerdy, very eighties thing.

I wonder if the the numbered rules would be more acceptable if they were done with a lighter touch, and an eye towards only numbering things that people are likely to want to reference?  Number the major sections, and then maybe key rules to call them out.  Put don't keep the DQ thing of putting the first sentence summary of the rules in the heading itself.  That would probably be easier to read.  Of course, being a compromise, it might annoy old fans and new potential fans alike.  

To give readers without the book an idea of just how bad it can get, here's the section 2 headings and subheadings with my comments from the ongoing RPGGeek read through of 3rd edition.  Some of the headings are extraneous, some could be collapsed into a single "Materials for Play", and some don't even belong in this section and/or are repeats from elsewhere:

2. Requirements for Play

2.1 The DragonQuest rules are intended to guide the GM, not to restrict him.

We are told again that the GM is the final authority on the rules of the campaign.

2.2 A Tactical Display is used in conjunction with the Combat rules.

It's a hex grid, with each hex considered 5 feet across.

2.3 The figures occupying the display are either miniatures, cardboard counters, or other suitable markers.

Hey, you can use miniatures if you want, but anything will do in a pinch, even chess pieces or dice.

2.4 Percentile dice will be needed by both the players and the GM.

Didn't they say two 20-sided dice just last section? Yep, and still say that here. Old gamers will know why, but they don't explain in 2.4, only that it's a good idea to have more than one set.

2.5 The players must provide themselves with some miscellaneous play aids.

Either players or GM or both also need character sheets, the "Adventure Record" (which we have not seen a link to yet), a blank hex grid, filled out hex grids for locations, markers for characters and monsters, and finally scrap paper, pens, and pencils. This sections is six short paragraphs making this all quite clear, if it wasn't already.

2.6 The abbreviation 'D' stands for 'die' or 'dice'.

Here we get told how to roll percentile dice, with the assumption that the 20-sided dice are numbered 0-9 twice (as many old dice are, and a few still are). We also learn how to roll 2d10, 1d10+modifier, and even 1d5.

2.7 The roll on a single or percentile die-roll may never be modified below 1.

2d10 can't be less than 2 even if you have a negative modifier.

2.8 The gamemaster is advised to keep some information, particularly dice-rolls, secret during adventure.

The ensuing advice is mainly geared towards not giving away information by the mere act of rolling, making phantom rolls, and so forth. Nothing is said about fudging.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;1015653I 'm currently playing in a Dragonquest campaign with some hard-core 80s DQ grognards. I generally like the game and their enthusiasm is contagious BUT I have the strong suspicion that the DQ fanbase considers the cryptic organization, complex math, endless charts, and lack of a unified mechanic to be selling points, not liabilities. It's a very nerdy, very eighties thing.

Well, aren't they selling points?  If you undid all of that, it wouldn't be DQ anymore.  In particular, the math, charts, and non-unified mechanics are in service to a very particular experience.  It makes all the specific things stand out as specific things in the world, not game items.  

My question, and I'd be very interested in their responses to this, is how far could you go towards something like unified mechanics in sub systems, if not the entire game?  Maybe one unified mechanic for combat, another for magic, another for skills, etc.  I've also played around with a partially unified mechanic for everything but the mechanic is incomplete to leave room for variation in the particular sub systems.