Talk to me of Dragon Quest
(http://www.primeplusoneseo.com/wp-content/no.jpeg)
Sorry, couldn't resist. :D
On a more serious note, I don't really know jack about it, so now I'm curious too.
Here is a detailed discussion.
http://www.advanceddungeonsandparenting.com/2011/04/d-is-for-dragonquest.html
I know nothing of it either... except that it's NOT got anything to do with the old Dragon's Lair video game... though that's where my brain goes every time I hear the name.
One of my groups' DMs ran an adventure based on Dragon's Lair. Cool but didn't quite work due to 3.5 issues (we were about level 18, so he had anti-magic running in practically every room so we couldn't just fly or otherwise magic past most of it).
On topic: I got the Enchanted Wood adventure for DQ - written by Paul (Jennelle) Jacquays who also did a few highly regarded RQ things. It is sort of cool but is really very weird.
Well, I'll start with a mechanical run-down. I'm most familiar with second edition but it's probably been twenty or more years since I owned it.
Dragon Quest is a broad skill based fantasy rpg by hex and counter wargame manufacturer SPI that attempts to model fantasy literature and myth using methods from wargaming.
Characters are created by spending points from a pool. The size of the pool is determined by rolling on a table the more points you get the lower your maximum score is.
There are random rolls required to play a non-human or a woman (women are exempted but can always opt to play a man).
Skills are purchased with another pool of points, as are spells. Equipment is bought with silver pennies. If I remember right there's a background table to roll on. Anyhow skills are bought in ranks, generally costing around 200 points for rank one and ascending from there. Weapon skills and spells are specific whereas non-weapon skills are broad to the point of being more akin to classes like Spy, Thief, and Courtesan (yes they went there). Skill chances are generally calculated as Stat + Stat + n x rank where n is often five but sometimes only three.
Combat in first edition used action points. Second edition simplified this by using tactical movement rate expenditures. Combat is, of course, hex based and there are some lovely shots of old Ral Partha figures in the book. There are rules for parries and ripostes based on the attack roll as well as critical hits and fumbles with the attendant tables. Damage is 1d10 +n for weapon type. Characters have Fatigue and Endurance points which absorb inflicted damage and armor is subtracted from damage. It plays fairly fast if you work out your numbers in advance and very slowly if you have to look them up and work them out on the spot.
Magic is divided into colleges including the usual air, earth, fire, and water but also including black magic with demonic pacts and familiars, naming incantations, and summoning. Each College contains general knowledge spells that would be known to any initiate and special knowledge spells and rituals which would be available only to adepts. The magic system is really evocative and tries to hand out the various spells and powers where they were traditionally found. There is a very nice selection of demons from the Lesser Key of Solomon which was left out of the third edition TSR published as was the black magic.
The range of creatures provided is pretty standard. I can't recall any exceptional creativity or brilliance there-in. There's a bit of stuff in the GM's section about the adventurer's guild and writing party charters and an adventure about a Hobgoblin Adept who is working with a group of Arab bandits. I can't remember too much more about it except that the adventure suggested that if the bandits were defeated and he escaped, he would probably respect the PCs rather than hating them.
Well, that's all I've got. It was an interesting thing and I often think I like GURPS with its hex based movement in part because it reminds me of Dragon Quest.
Dragonquest is a wonderful game that deserves better than it got, as an old abandoned system. At its peak, it had a following not unlike Runequest or Tunnels and Trolls, and its foundation was quite sound — you could easily picture it having a semi-infinite run of editions, adventures, settings, etc. much like these contemporaneous systems. But, TSR purchased it, printed a fucked up version, and then abandoned it. It is hard not to imagine this was simply an assassination of a rival system for generic FRP.
Anyway, there are a number of things about DQ that are distinctive. Some of these differences are noticeable but, in the end, trivial (e.g., point buy character generation; types of stats). Others are quite innovative and significant:
1) Most importantly, the skill system is perhaps the smartest, most satisfying to play compromise between 'skill' and 'class and level' systems I've encountered. Basically, most skills occur as package deals, like 'thief' or 'ranger' or 'healer' — each is effectively a package of class-like abilities. One purchases levels in them by expending experience points, and one is free to mix and match at will. It effortlessly achieves a diversity and balance among class-like roles that D&D has long struggled to achieve. Yet it retains the strength of class-based systems because you don't need to keep track of a million separate abilities. A shorthand note of your level with a couple of skill packages functionally contains all the information you would get in a whole sheet of skills in Runequest.
2) The magic system is filled with fun, creepy, flavorful spells. The experience and advancement system for magic is a bit fucked, but it is easy to picture how you could generalize the approach to skill packages (above) and make it more manageable.
3) Combat has the tactical X's and O's of The Fantasy Trip, the skill-based abilities and damage reducing armor of Runequest, and its own innovation for damage and injury — separation of 'hit points' (effectively) into an easy-come-easy-go category (fatigue) and a physical harm category (endurance). I actually prefer the 1st edition, where you use action points. But I understand this is a matter of taste. Fortunately it is an easy choice — 2nd edition removes the action point system but is otherwise closely similar.
I could go on, but these are the high points. This is a game that would be amazing it a well-crafted modern edition were put out — i.e., something that is to DQ as RQ6 is to original Runequest.
Of note. It is d10 and percentile based like SPI's other RPG, Universe.
I have one module from TSR which is a combined Dragonquest/AD&D module by Paul Jaquays.
Well, I could be wrong (probably am) but I vaguely remember reading a review of Dragon Quest in Dragon Magazine back in the early 80's. I remember the reviewer saying there were only two character classes: warrior and wizard, and the wizard was far more powerful and useful. Warriors had their uses but were basically sidekicks to wizards. Don't remember much about about the game from the review.
I never knew anyone who played it and can't even recall seeing it on the store shelves back then.
(Wasn't that the game with the cover of a grinning warrior holding a sword and severed head?)
That's not a very good description of the power dynamic in the game. Magic can be powerful but it takes a long time to get so good at it that you can reliably take down non-magical characters of similar experience level.
In my small Midwestern college town it had quite a following: It was what the "Cool" older gamers (Guys who would now be in their fifties) played instead of D&D*. In the 90's (After the game was unceremoniously snuffed by TSR but before Internet downloads allowed any obscurity to be reborn) there were a lot of privately printed spiral-bound bootleg copies floating around. I wish I had bought one when I had the chance. I would almost rather have one of those bootlegs than a real printing, for nostalgia reasons.
I did get to play in a long campaign of it. It's very eighties and has some eccentricities but it's a solid system and the rules never got in the way of the fun. The "Naming" college of magic, where you got power over someone by knowing their birth name, was really flavorful and cool (It wasn't from the core book IIRC).
*RuneQuest & Tunnels & Trolls never came here, even in the heady days of the eighties when we had a really bustling gaming scene. There was a very small cult of RoleMaster.
Quote from: Doughdee222;785973Well, I could be wrong (probably am) but I vaguely remember reading a review of Dragon Quest in Dragon Magazine back in the early 80's. I remember the reviewer saying there were only two character classes: warrior and wizard, and the wizard was far more powerful and useful. Warriors had their uses but were basically sidekicks to wizards.
)
As I recall: No actual "Character classes". Every character could learn a college of magic. In fact, you were sort of encouraged to... In the DQ implied world, you weren't a well-rounded person unless you knew some sorcery. If you didn't learn magic, you got a +25% bonus to rolls to resist magic -a kinda shitty token consolation prize.
The game was admittedly pretty crap at modeling Conan-types, but very good at modeling Elric or The Grey Mouser "I know a little of everything" types.
Another note. The books are laid out in standard SPI format and once you are used to SPIs structuring about all their games become easy to read through.
The weapons and armour listings are in the same format as used in Universe if I recall correctly.
Grevious injuries I recall being particularly brutal. One player recounted how they took a grevious wound to the head and was bedridden for a game year. ow. His friend had his face laid open with a cut and actually GAINED a point of Beauty!
Dragonquest is notable for an early RPG to have cantrips.
Thanks very much for the feedback guys. I played this for 5-6 sessions when I was 19 at Uni and I remember it very fondly. So fondly that I have, as you all wrote, sourced both a copy of 2nd ed SPI and also 3rd ed TSR, both for pocket money prices or swapsies, and I am going to sit down and read it.
I remember some bits very well, the colleges, the astrology in the character gen, the split between proper hit points and temporary ones. I have to say that is it had gone to Victory Games with the SPI guys or SPI hadn't been bought out by TSR many more people would be playing it.
Since I got one copy by agreeing to run it, for someone who also played it years ago at school, I'll report back when I do!
:D
They REALLY like their demons dont they?
Does Commando use the same baser system as DragonQuest and Universe share?
DQ has a lot of careful design, nuanced and flavorful and balanced.
By default, you don't start with much in the way of skills. Some folks might prefer to start with a lot more experience points (maybe about 3000). Others will dig getting right into play without additional prep.
The 2nd ed. mentioned a supplement title in passing, in reference to the College of Shaping Magics. I never got that supplement, but found the College (I think that one) in an adventure TSR published.
Quote from: Larsdangly;785960Dragonquest is a wonderful game that deserves better than it got, as an old abandoned system. At its peak, it had a following not unlike Runequest or Tunnels and Trolls, and its foundation was quite sound — you could easily picture it having a semi-infinite run of editions, adventures, settings, etc. much like these contemporaneous systems. But, TSR purchased it, printed a fucked up version, and then abandoned it. It is hard not to imagine this was simply an assassination of a rival system for generic FRP.
Anyway, there are a number of things about DQ that are distinctive. Some of these differences are noticeable but, in the end, trivial (e.g., point buy character generation; types of stats). Others are quite innovative and significant:
1) Most importantly, the skill system is perhaps the smartest, most satisfying to play compromise between 'skill' and 'class and level' systems I've encountered. Basically, most skills occur as package deals, like 'thief' or 'ranger' or 'healer' — each is effectively a package of class-like abilities. One purchases levels in them by expending experience points, and one is free to mix and match at will. It effortlessly achieves a diversity and balance among class-like roles that D&D has long struggled to achieve. Yet it retains the strength of class-based systems because you don't need to keep track of a million separate abilities. A shorthand note of your level with a couple of skill packages functionally contains all the information you would get in a whole sheet of skills in Runequest.
No, not at all. With RuneQuest, I'd have the skill percentages right there at hand and it wouldn't take a whole sheet. With DQ, I've got formulas to look up, and some things call for recalculation in play.
Not a complaint against DQ, which I like as something interestingly different; just a reality check.
Quote2) The magic system is filled with fun, creepy, flavorful spells. The experience and advancement system for magic is a bit fucked, but it is easy to picture how you could generalize the approach to skill packages (above) and make it more manageable.
3) Combat has the tactical X's and O's of The Fantasy Trip, the skill-based abilities and damage reducing armor of Runequest, and its own innovation for damage and injury — separation of 'hit points' (effectively) into an easy-come-easy-go category (fatigue) and a physical harm category (endurance). I actually prefer the 1st edition, where you use action points. But I understand this is a matter of taste. Fortunately it is an easy choice — 2nd edition removes the action point system but is otherwise closely similar.
I could go on, but these are the high points. This is a game that would be amazing it a well-crafted modern edition were put out — i.e., something that is to DQ as RQ6 is to original Runequest.
SPI was, as I recall, selling the advanced combat game as a separate item when 2nd ed DQ was on the market. So you could have both, if you wanted.
That would be a Arena of Death, originally published as a magazine game in Ares. The framework was a series of gladiatorial combats.
Quote from: Phillip;786490No, not at all. With RuneQuest, I'd have the skill percentages right there at hand and it wouldn't take a whole sheet. With DQ, I've got formulas to look up, and some things call for recalculation in play.
Not a big fan of recalculation in play of formulae..
Quote from: Phillip;786486The 2nd ed. mentioned a supplement title in passing, in reference to the College of Shaping Magics. I never got that supplement, but found the College (I think that one) in an adventure TSR published.
Yeah, the TSR version had the shaping and rune magic instead of the demon summoning and black magic.
Quote from: tzunder;786513Not a big fan of recalculation in play of formulae..
It's not a big deal, maybe on occasion you have to adjust your Agility. Funkier, though, than just taking a flat 5 or 10 point penalty to relevant skills.
But the notion that "Thief 2" ís a convenient shorthand like in old D&D (which has a table showing the chance to pick a lock, disarm a trap, etc.) seemed even more misleading than the suggestion that it would take more space with RQ. Actually, it takes - at least with editions of similar vintage -
less.
I get it; you think that was a stupid suggestion re. the simplified character sheets. You are wrong, but I hear you loud and clear.
Something I find interesting to contemplate is what would have happened if Dragonquest had undergone a significant revision after the mid 1980's — the high point of mechanically funky games. It is easy to imagine a version of the game that cuts through all the cruft for calculating percentage abilities with various skills, spells and weapons (e.g., d20 roll under mechanic, target number is half your stat for no skill; full stat plus rank for all ranked skills). This would leave all the essential elements of the game's structure intact, cut page count significantly, and leave you with a mechanic that is always obvious. Plus the basic success chances would be functionally similar (though a mechanic for target numbers over 20 would be needed, perhaps a-la Pendragon).
I find it interesting to note the different details different compilers of rules sets include or leave out.
DQ has no Intelligence score, but it has Perception. Also, it distinguishes between Manual Dexterity and bodily Agility.
No treatment of religion, but you get skills such as Courtesan and Merchant.
Want to know just how many seconds it takes to pick a lock? There's a formula.
Things related to care of riding, draft and pack animals are laid out.
Many monster descriptions seem perhaps shaped as much by D&D as by folklore, but kobolds are brownie type household helpers rather than malicious goblins. The fossegrim, on the other hand, seemed rather nastier than I had thought.
Giants and shape-shifters are among the default player-character types. The frequency of non-human characters is governed by % chance rolls when someone wishes to play one.
Everyone has covered it nicely, but I would like to pipe in that DQ is one of my all-time favorite classic fantasy RPGs.
I hold only Stormbringer 1st edition in higher regard, and I recognize that SB is a wildly unbalanced mess of a game.
I would absolutely love to see this system back in print, treated with care and updated for modern gaming sensibilities.
In my neck of the woods in the 80s, Dragonquest was awesome to get and read. To play, well not so much. It didn't click for my gaithe way Champion/Fantasy Hero/Hero System did or GURPS.
Now I want to sit down and do a comparison of systems some day between DragonQuest and Universe and see just how much they share.
They don't share much of anything at all.
I would really hate to see an updated DQ. While I'm sure I'd houserule a thing or two in an ongoing campaign, the idea of canonizing some random 3rd party's ideas is offputting to me. For example some people on RPGnet were bitching about the difficulty of casting magic; I wouldn't want the game to fall into their hands.
I'd suggest if you like the ideas in DQ, make your own game.
Incidentally, Fifth Cycle is apparently just that--a variant of DQ.
I was going to mention Fifth Cycle but decided it wasn't close enough to DQ.
The skills are flat by level values with stats providing an experience point boost for skills. In the long run it's one of the least stat impacted skill systems I've ever seen.
The magic system has a whole grid of spell colleges laid out where neighbouring colleges share about half of their spells.
It has strong similarities but it's certainly a game inspired by DQ rather than a new installment.
I would think the thing to do would be to do an Ultimate Dragon Quest volume that includes all the supplements. Beyond that I wouldn't change a single thing. I'd include the first and second edition combat systems. Let people decide for themselves and avoid the inevitable edition war.
Personally a lot of edition warring could be avoided by just sticking with the system as written.
I agree, that'd be best.
Wow, that's a blast from the past.
It was kinda-sorta based on other SPI games, like Citadel of Blood and big board/wargame that I had but don't remember.
Combat was just a little too complicated for my taste, with crippling injuries.
The magic system was flavorful, but not particularly useable. If I recall correctly, getting any real use out of it required selling your soul, which gave you 7 years before collection...and even then, you could generally do better with a club.
I think you're referring to Swords & Sorcery, the boardgame. Citadel of Blood may have had some of its setting elements drawn from S&S (both were designed by Greg Costikyan), but I'm not aware of any connection between Dragonquest and those games.
The one connection between DQ and any of SPI's boardgames that I can recall (other than Arena of Death) is that they published DQ stats for some of the characters and setting elements which had been developed for Albion: Land of Faerie. David James Ritchie wrote both DQ and A:LoF. Among his many credits was another a game that got published in Ares after TSR had taken over, called Omega War. That also had a cool setting that could use an RPG treatment; sadly, I just learned that Ritchie passed away a few years ago at 58.
Well, I could be wrong, it has been 30 years, after all...but it does seem like there were a few spell names and such that were shared in the games.
Now I'm wondering about ways to make Dragon Shadowed Lands more Dragon Questy. I think the experience levels are too built in an explicit. I guess since a level is 1000 experience points and 100 % points to distribute and skills and blocks can be increased by three per level you could go with a 10 experience points per skill point and double the cost every three points. It's a bit cludgy but it gets rid of levels. Currently experience rewards halve for every level they are below yours but levels cost 1000 experience points.
Oh well, I guess it's always going to be more C&S and Rolemaster really. I suppose I could use smaller type, case numbering, and shaded text boxes in a three column layout. Sometimes it's the look and feel of the thing and Dragon Quest did have it's own unique look and feel.
Arena of Death Ares issue 4 specifically says it is set in the world of DragonQuest. It is though a tactical board game and was sold seperately I believe. DJ Ritchie designed that. That same issue had an addendum to DragonQuest itself for the option of a quicker combat resolution system.
Citadel of Blood states characters and setting are from Swords & Sorcery. By Smith and Simonsen.
I see, I was confused--Costikyan designed Deathmaze, which is pretty generic setting-wise, and Deathmaze was the basis for CoB. I thought DM was a harmless dungeon-crawler, but CoB was the only Ares game I got rid of. Clearly my feeling wasn't widely shared.
AoD was indeed sold separately but it basically reproduces the DQ 1e combat system with just a rules framework added to provide a gladiatorial-campaign context.
One difference of detail that isn't often remarked is that AoD (and I think 1e but I'm not going to check right now) includes a bunch of non-Western weapons such as odachi in place of "two-handed sword". 2e has a more "traditional" set of medieval-fantasy-RPG weapons.
Well my copy of 2nd ed arrived today.
First thought: my, that's thin, that's not going to take too long to read.
My copy of 3rd ed is slowly getting to me from the USA.
I'll report back.
Quote from: tzunder;786904Well my copy of 2nd ed arrived today.
First thought: my, that's thin, that's not going to take too long to read.
There are a lot of subtleties to digest, though.
QuoteMy copy of 3rd ed is slowly getting to me from the USA.
I'll report back.
I never saw that. I find it more interesting that TSR published it in the first place, than that they omitted some colleges. I gather they also added some, and am curious about those.
OK. Reading dragon quest 3e. I am confused by character gen for a giant. It seems to refer one to the giant stats in the bestiary but doesn't explain how to make use of those stats in character gen. Help?
I'm pretty sure you're just allowed to spend points to buy stats in the given range.
However, and oddly for a *very* prescriptive game text, it doesn't explain that in 3e, it just makes a reference to the giant stat block and no explanation.
I shall have to ask for more help from DQ grognards.
I am enjoying reading it, it's quite straightforward, but clunky in bits but quite playable so far.
The designers probably considered it self evident.
Given that they didn't consider anything else self evident (it's one of the most preachy over explained rulesets I've read) I doubt it.
It seems likely that explanatory text got cut at some point.
Another possibility is that it was an idea that never got blind-tested before publication. A copy editor may have glanced at the section references and merely confirmed that they existed and seemed relevant, without asking the questions a player new to the work does.
Without some modifying rule, Fatigue for a player-character would simply be derived from Endurance.
This isn't really a review, more a series of notes, impressions and a final conclusion.
Very prescriptive, almost preachy, love the way they suggest the GM really query cross gender roleplaying. A rooting in boardgame rules makes it much more intolerant of interpretation.
Structure of the rules as numbered paragraphs means you never get a simple overview, you need to read it ALL to understand it all. Problem is, rpgs are not boardgames, so it's isn't possible to cover all options, hence the method can break. So I shall ignore the structure.
There is a nice range of attributes, 1-20 range for humans, and a reasonable range of non humans, although I don't know how giants work. It's point allocation and then apply non human modifiers. A PC can also be aspected to a season or life/death. Great idea, but oddly only applies for highly limited times, but you can adjust that I guess.
The system is not unified, but in basics, most chances are some variation of either
Attribute x 0.5 - 5.0 %, OR
Base Chance + Attribute + Rank * 3 or 4 %
The variability of this system is a bit clunky to read but probably not difficult in play.
You collect experience points, usually on a simple per adventure basis, and spend them on Ranks in weapons, spells, rituals,or broad 'class' like skill blocks, e.g. Ranger, Troubador, Alchemist.
A very sound combat system, not at all tricky, hex based, essentially Attack Chance minus Defence, then roll damage (all are 1d10 based), subtract armour and take off Fatigue unless all Fatigue is gone, or a special success trigger it. This system uses (and they don't use the terms so I'll steal them from BRP) crits on 5% of skill and specials on 15% of skill. There are some nice parry/riposte rules. I think combat would lay quite smoothly since most of the time the skill are predetermined and the only issue is to subtract the defence from the attack before the roll. I hate subtracting percentiles from percentiles, but many people don't mind.
Magic, depending on 2e or 3e you get about a dozen Colleges. Within the college (and I can't see how you join a college but hey) you get a few freebies Talents (some races get these as well), a bunch of General Knowledge skills, and then have to buy Special Knowledge skills. Spells can be very powerful, quite hard to cast. They cost Fatigue points to cast, the same ones you can lose in combat or in hard work, with a fallback to burning Endurance.
You are limited to your College, and modifiers adjust those that cast at or between the Colleges. 2e had an extensive range of demonic casting, nasty rituals, and curses. These have all been removed in 3e, and the game sanitised. This is why there are a variable amount of Colleges, since 3e provided new ones to remove the 'dark' ones! Magicians are potentially very powerful, but they also have a very dangerous chance of backlash, and blindness, palsy, amnesia and the like can fall upon the mage who relies on magic for too long.
Monsters, lovely range of the usual, although the weasel is fabled as a killer.. Nice dragons.
At the end of the book we have the skill system explained, but then in the adventuring section we have horsemanship and stealth dropped in unannounced!
The final adventure is pretty good, and would be fun with any system.
So, is this a playable game or a fabled artefact that let's one down after all the myths?
Weeeeeeel. I think it's a very good game for the turn of the 80s. It's a pretty damned good game system now. It's very much SPI's version of RuneQuest, and although I last played (not refereed) it in 1983, I can see it play as well as a BRP game would now. Some people would love all the little sub rules, usually based on a number plus a rank multiplied by another number, or a number multiplied by rank times a number of hours, I might just decide on a standard ruling and run as interpreted, but yes.. this is still a very good game, and one that (if you buy it cheap) you might enjoy. On the other hand.. RQ6 or BRP do it better with two or three decades of tweaking to help smooth out the edges. Oddly, if Wizards spent a month on it they'd have a good skill based percentile game system, but hey.. what would be the point in that eh?
If you want a more normal review, try this: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12828.phtml
Earlier this year I managed to get 2 copies of 2nd edition, 2 copies of the 1st adventure, 1 copy of the 2nd adventure, 2 copies of the GM screen, a 1 copy of the map for $12. Pretty nice score at the used bookstore.
My group is considering some short 1 night adventures so I might introduce DQ there. We like % systems so it has that going for it.
For Giants, you might try this:
Normal max-stat limits do not apply to PS and EN. The minimum in each is the minimum listed in the monsters section. To get your "money's worth," though (given the penalties to other stats), you'll probably want to put in more.
Other stats have at start both the standard limit and whatever is listed for that type of Giant; in the long run only the latter. (Those ranges might be representative rather than absolute, but treat them as the latter for pcs.)
Treat the Fatigue and TMR tables as going on in 3-point increments, even though they end in 2-point steps as prinnted.
The characteristics for giants reference the monster statistics because the ranges vary for different kinds of giants. A player must assign points to all of the characteristics as if human (before knowing whether the character can be a non-human); if the character is non-human, then modifiers are applied to those characteristics.
The modifiers for giants should be based on the difference between the average for the specific type of giant and the human average of 15. Third edition describes this explicitly in a note under Tactical Movement Rate (but not for Physical Strength or Endurance that I could find); first edition doesn't have TMR but there is a similar process described in both for the characteristics of a shape changer's animal form.
Quote from: Arminius;786605They don't share much of anything at all.
Actually they share a fair amount. Same base format of chapters and even sometimes the internal layout of a chapter. Some of the text at the start is cut-n-paste or very simmilar to the other.
Both use the percentile d20s and have pretty much the same stats, just renamed. Simmilar to Gamma World and D&D.
Univerese though has a massively more robust and complex character generation than Dragon Quest. Though DQs stats can go up to around 19 or so whereas Universes stats top around 12.
DQ though has a much more robust combat system than Universe, though Universe is mostly ranged focused and takes terrain into account. DQs rounds are 5 sec compared to Us 15 sec.
The Magic and Psi systems between the two share some minor simmilarities. Both have powers with backlash chances and of course are percentile based. But Psi powers do not use fatigue. DQs magic lists are alot more extensive. And of course DQ has pages and pages of demon thingys.
Skills are laid out simmilar between the two, though of course geared for their settings.
The monster layout and how encounters are determined share some simmilarities with again changes to accomodate setting. DQs list is quite a bit larger too.
Both have a introductory adventure at the back.
The hugest difference is in Universes world generation and starship building systems. That and Universe is not illustrated at all. They reuse the cover pic three times inside and thats it.
The two systems though are not really compatible without some effort.