For those familiar with DragonQuest, feel free to wax nostalgic about what you appreciated and what were the "too baroque to tolerate" aspects of the game. For my part:

• The wargamer in me appreciated the sensible from-the-base-up approach to everything: detailed chargen including social standing and birth aspects, "skill bundles" (Assassin, Thief, Military Scientist), classless PC advancement, deadly and option-filled combat requiring good tactics and planning, an extremely flavorful and distinctive magic system and monsters which were challenging to overcome.
• Settingless, but with an implied European Middle Ages dropback; strangely, clerics were absent, but demons abounded.
• RAW character advancement was glacial: both a boon (for the Ref) and a bane (as a player).
• Compact, concise rules: only one book, if you got the 2nd or 3rd edition.
• Classless PC advancement was achieved by spending XP on *everything*: characteristics, weapon skills, individual magic talent/spells/rituals, "skill bundles". This, in the end, was probably the biggest reason we moved on to other games eventually (or combined DQ magic with Harnmaster, for example): to create advanced characters took quite a while, and sometimes we wanted that vs. the zero-to-hero climb.
• The learning curve is substantial: it'd take a patient Ref to teach it to new folks, or the increasingly rare person who wants to read 80's wargamese chapter & verse.

Still, I look over my books, and the various files I collected on-line, and it seems it would be fun to introduce it to some new players.

All good points. 

In the interest of not repeating myself here, I'll link to the 60K words on DQ 3E that I wrote back in 2017 as commentary/review, with broken down into linked sections in the first forum post there.  I no longer post on RPGGeek, but if you want to engage here about what I wrote there, I'll be happy to do so.  Let's Read DragonQuest

I'll give an example of something I've tweaked in a prototype "Inspired by DQ" game, not a DQ clone.  Though this is the kind of thing that I'd do in a clone, too, in the interest of simplification and learning curve for new players, while retaining most of the DQ feel.

Let's consider critical hits.  In the DQ rules, there are two levels of critical hits.  Using the roll under, percentage system, if you roll a number 15% or less of the percentage needed to hit, the damage goes straight to "Endurance" instead of reducing "Fatigue" first (think Wound Points/Hit points).  If you roll a number 5% or less of the percentage needed to hit, the hit is also a "Grievous Injury" that prompts lookup on a table for additional effects.  That 15%/5% threshold is calculated as a multiple of the "modified strike chance", which is the percentage you have to hit considering all modifiers.  So if you've got 50% chance to hit, that threshold for you is in the 7 or 8% range for the first level (i.e. 50 x .15 as percentage, I forget the rounding rules).

But wait, there's more!  The modified strike chance is not something you can entirely pre-calculate, because there are a lot of modifiers that affect your chance, such as striking from the flank or rear.  So in effect, it is a table lookup every time you roll low enough that you might be under one or both thresholds.

Finally, the Grievous Injury table does not always do additional damage.  It's a percentage roll based on one of three damage types (effectively piercing, slashing, or crushing), with many of the entries being no effect.

My simplification is to change to it a flat 10% chance for one type of critical hit, still relative to your modified strike.  If you roll below your percentage and get a hit, and you also roll doubles, you get a Grievous Injury roll.  Damage bypasses armor and then you roll a second percentage based on the weapon that if high enough sends you to the critical hit table to see the additional effects.  Note there is no lookup required except one right at the end, and the slight downgrade in deadliness can be addressed in the tables.  (Or given how nasty the system already is, simply let slide, which is what I did.) 

There's a pacing effect here, too.  In the basic rules, the outcome of a low roll is, "Woohoo, maybe did something extra.  Stop play to calculate/lookup.  Sadness or Joy".  In the revised version, getting that double is a clear signal that something extra was done, and now we check to see if you got even more.  It's subtle, but it is rising excitement instead of whiplash.  I don't know, maybe some people like the whiplash aspect.

The downside to that change is that you need to make the rolls go from 00 to 99 instead of 01 to 100 to make it work out cleanly.  However, the upside of doing that is that it cleans up all kinds of edge cases in the basic mechanic when applied to automatic failures and the like.  But that's another point.

I guess I would say more generally that the problem with DQ is not that it is complex or requires math.  It's often got a level of mechanical detail appropriate for what is intended in its design.  Rather, I'd say that frequently the mechanics pile on more complexity on top of that appropriate complexity for way too little game/simulation payoff for that additional complexity.

It's like you went out to buy dinner.  For $20, you can get this great steak, sides, fresh baked bread, this salad to kill for with whatever dressing you want, and for +2$, they'll toss in your favorite ice cream. Or, you can pay double, and the waiter will sing to you when he brings the food--probably a little off key and some random song that you may or may not like.  Not seeing the value in the second option.

Excellent breakdown of the potential bogdown/pendulous nature of combat, and your solution closely mirrors Harnmaster's "crit on a roll ending in 0 or 5 <= your skill %".

I feel similarly about the magic system: while great in concept, the idea of ever getting good at Telekinetic Rage while improving in anything else, for example, was a pipe dream. I've thought a simple fix would be to "somehow" allow Adepts to improve their whole repertoire simultaneously: i.e., when they go up in Rank all of their known talents/spells/rituals increase in Rank accordingly (much like in OpenQuest, where sorcerers have a single "Sorcery" skill, and a bunch of spells in a grimoire). But then you'd have to overhaul all the other experience tracks, and by then it's almost a whole rewrite.

Thanks for the pointer to RPGGeek, I'll take a look when I have a 60k-word length break. 

It's kind of strange, now that I think back on it, that I never bought this game when it came out.  Maybe my flgs never stocked it or something.  My only exposure to it was the Arena of Death minigame from Ares magazine.  It seemed pretty cool but I never did try to play it. 

One thing that confused me was where were the rules that determined how you started out as an adept casting magic.

Quote from: estar on February 10, 2022, 09:56:08 PM
One thing that confused me was where were the rules that determined how you started out as an adept casting magic.

Sec 34: you can be an Adept of only one college (34.5), and you begin play with all Talents and General Knowledge Spells & Rituals at Rank 0 (34.4). You can then spend any of your starting experience to improve those or learn a Special Knowledge Spell or Ritual.

This is referenced in 8.7, just like there are references to buying equipment and purchasing other skills with initial XP.

Yeah, DQ is a poster child for the problem of all RPGs past a certain level of complexity, what order do you explain the rules and character options when there is a mesh of cross-references needed to understand it?

They are trying to handle it with the war-game rule notation, but aren't being consistent about it.  Of course, TSR's lazy pass at the 3rd edition didn't help at all.  SPI's DQ 1E can be somewhat excused on the grounds when it was made and material was obviously evolving rapidly in play.  Not at all bad for a war-game company taking a first crack at it.  DQ 2E is about rules consolidation more than layout, IIRC.  (Don't have a copy, and been ages since I saw it.).  3E is chunks of new material from supplements almost just inserted somewhere without changing layout at all, not even correcting obvious typos or problems.  That is, the game's a lot better than its presentation serves it (whatever other faults it may have). 

For an analogy that might resonate here, think if AD&D 2E had been done this way instead of the reorganization that it was.  New classes and spells from the late 1E supplements?  Just keep their exact supplement layout and insert them as pages after the relevant sections in the 1E order, with no other changes to that order, and not even a note that there might be more.   

Quote from: rhialto on February 11, 2022, 06:00:49 AM
This is referenced in 8.7, just like there are references to buying equipment and purchasing other skills with initial XP.

Thanks, and man that is a real "blink and you will miss it reference". So basically like with weapons ALL characters can pick a college of magic regardless of background and stats.

Of course if the relevant attributes suck you are not going to very good at casting spells.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 11, 2022, 08:15:12 AM
Yeah, DQ is a poster child for the problem of all RPGs past a certain level of complexity, what order do you explain the rules and character options when there is a mesh of cross-references needed to understand it?

I don't think DQ is particularly complex as these things go. It just sufficiently quirky combined with is SPI wargame organization that makes it looks more complex than it really is.

For example any character can use any weapon. They may not be GOOD with all weapons but they can pick up a cestus and use it. And also as it was just pointed out all character can pick a college of magic. They might not be good with it but they have the option and learn all the general knowledge elements of that college.

Don't get me wrong it is a RPG with a lot of Details but when compared to Rolemaster, Basic Roleplaying (yellow book), or GURPS especially with supplements like Martial Arts, it not exceptional in that regard.

Some logistics stuff relevant to Dragonquest RPG.

So I am not sure people realize that Wizards now has a very liberal fan content policy.
https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy

There is a Dragonquest Open Source floating around
https://www.zimlab.com/dq/

So people want to give DQ a little love they can do more than wink wink nudge nudge and share original material outright. As long as they follow the above policy.

Quote from: estar on February 11, 2022, 08:42:00 AM

Quote from: rhialto on February 11, 2022, 06:00:49 AM
This is referenced in 8.7, just like there are references to buying equipment and purchasing other skills with initial XP.

Thanks, and man that is a real "blink and you will miss it reference". So basically like with weapons ALL characters can pick a college of magic regardless of background and stats.

Of course if the relevant attributes suck you are not going to very good at casting spells.

Well, since you allocate your characteristic points where you want you can guarantee a good Magic Aptitude, if that's your priority. That leaves you fewer points for your other characteristics though, so making a "fighter-adept" was balanced that way. The randomness in characteristics comes in the form of the pool of points available and the highest a characteristic could be (with fewer points allowing higher max characteristics and more points a lower max).

So, dare I ask what a fifth edition of Dragonquest would look like?

I always wonder if there's something I could do to make The Arcane Confabulation appeal to Dragonquest fans but case numbering and hex grids is about all I ever come up with

Quote from: rhialto on February 11, 2022, 08:59:08 AM

Quote from: estar on February 11, 2022, 08:42:00 AM

Quote from: rhialto on February 11, 2022, 06:00:49 AM
This is referenced in 8.7, just like there are references to buying equipment and purchasing other skills with initial XP.

Thanks, and man that is a real "blink and you will miss it reference". So basically like with weapons ALL characters can pick a college of magic regardless of background and stats.

Of course if the relevant attributes suck you are not going to very good at casting spells.

Well, since you allocate your characteristic points where you want you can guarantee a good Magic Aptitude, if that's your priority. That leaves you fewer points for your other characteristics though, so making a "fighter-adept" was balanced that way. The randomness in characteristics comes in the form of the pool of points available and the highest a characteristic could be (with fewer points allowing higher max characteristics and more points a lower max).

Well, allowing for any adjustments for races that you might try for and not get, and always remembering that wearing metal interferes with magic ...

Quote from: rhialto on February 10, 2022, 05:22:38 PM
For those familiar with DragonQuest, feel free to wax nostalgic about what you appreciated and what were the "too baroque to tolerate" aspects of the game. For my part:

• The wargamer in me appreciated the sensible from-the-base-up approach to everything: detailed chargen including social standing and birth aspects, "skill bundles" (Assassin, Thief, Military Scientist), classless PC advancement, deadly and option-filled combat requiring good tactics and planning, an extremely flavorful and distinctive magic system and monsters which were challenging to overcome.
• Settingless, but with an implied European Middle Ages dropback; strangely, clerics were absent, but demons abounded.
• RAW character advancement was glacial: both a boon (for the Ref) and a bane (as a player).
• Compact, concise rules: only one book, if you got the 2nd or 3rd edition.
• Classless PC advancement was achieved by spending XP on *everything*: characteristics, weapon skills, individual magic talent/spells/rituals, "skill bundles". This, in the end, was probably the biggest reason we moved on to other games eventually (or combined DQ magic with Harnmaster, for example): to create advanced characters took quite a while, and sometimes we wanted that vs. the zero-to-hero climb.
• The learning curve is substantial: it'd take a patient Ref to teach it to new folks, or the increasingly rare person who wants to read 80's wargamese chapter & verse.

Still, I look over my books, and the various files I collected on-line, and it seems it would be fun to introduce it to some new players.

The wargame outline-style manual got on my nerves. But I had to march through it just like with all the other SPI games.