DragonQuest Rules Clone

tarot-fool[1]It’s time for a retroclone of the DragonQuest RPG.  It’s past time, really, so there’s no point in delaying further.

Yes, that’s correct, it is April 1st.  But when better to undertake such a fool’s errand?

I have been thinking about getting a clone version of DragonQuest for a long time.  That’s ostensibly what the Yahoo DQ-RULES group was for.  There is also the mostly dormant DragonQuest Rules blog that has been a collecting point for some of the revised rules (along with some tangential stuff).  And recently, I’ve been thinking about making my Patreon about creating re-written rules for DQ with an eye toward developing a set of clone DQ rules.

Last month, Jarrod Shaw of Mythoard (a recent convert to DragonQuest compared to some of us grognards) was asking about a clone version of the DQ rules (in the spirit of the many other OSR games out there).  And that got me thinking, once again, about moving forward on a full retroclone of DQ.

Over the past year, I’ve seen a lot of OSR material and found a widespread community producing materials and engaged with these games.  There are many throwback RPGs, and each has its following.  Not only are there versions of every stripe of old D&D, but even games like RuneQuest now have retro-clone versions (OpenQuest).  DQ may never have had the fan base that some other games had, but it’s definitely a game with its merits and that ought to be brought up to date.

The original idea for Antherwyck House Games was to produce DragonQuest materials, and that is part of what we are doing.  While  I’m definitely intersted in continuing that,  there hasn’t seemed to be much support or interest, so we’ve been working in some other directions.  But let’s see how much interest this discussion generates now.

So is a retread of DQ a sacrilege?

The game many of us regard as canon was written in 1981. D&D is on its 5th edition (or more, depending on how you count things).  Third Edition DQ is less a new edition than  tinkering with a few rules and excising some of the “frightening material.”  But really, nothing has changed since the 80’s.  That was last millennium, folks!

What about copyright and trademark and so forth?

From what I know of copyright and the law in this area (and IANAL, but I’ve looked at this question more than a little bit), it is the specific expression of the rules (the particular language used to describe the rules) that is covered by copyright.  The ideas of the rules themselves (such as having six characteristics for a character in a range from 3-18) can’t be copyrighted.

But every rule needs to be uniquely re-written in a new way.  This is what’s behind many of the OSR clones, as I understand it.  The general ideas are the same, and are compatible and interoperable with the games they descended from.  But they are fresh and new (and often introduce some new angles to the system to avoid being a cut-and-paste of what had come before.

As far as trademark goes, the DragonQuest mark has been abandoned by TSR/Wizards/Hasbro, so it would presumably be available (although there is also the Japanese video game of the same name, which is always confusing), but a new name might be better.

What would a new DQ be like?

In all, there’s going to be a lot more discussion about what should and should not be a part of any such thing, so treat all of this as starting points for discussion, rather than anything that has been completely settled.

DQ has always been a modular system, and the designers’ intent seemed to be to have a system that allowed for extension and adaptation.  New Colleges of magic were built into the system almost from the outset, and Arcane Wisdom almost made it to production.

The DQ-rules group on Yahoo was originally started to create a consensus version of new DragonQuest rules.  I think a more open-ended numbering system, to allow for new rules to be added in a more orderly fashion, would be important.  Being able to add or delete certain elements without breaking the whole system would be important.

Should DQ become a D20 based system?

That’s something that Chris Klug was looking at a while ago.  A DQ/D20 system would make it much more accessible to the much larger audience of gamers, and might increase the number of players.  I’m not sure that’s the direction I want to go with it.  D20 is very familiar, though, and there could be some merit to adapting things to be more cross-compatible with That Other Game.  On the other hand, there are a lot of other options already out there that offer that compatibility, and I don’t think that’s what DQ is best at.

What are the key elements of DQ that need to remain in order for things to stay compatible with existing DQ materials?

  • Stats and stat ranges (or an easy conversion system if things are changed)
  • World with multiple Colleges of Magic (but to remain exclusive?)
  • Skills
  • Non-super-heroic system/Human-scale (a game where even an advanced hero might be cut down by a simple peasant with a knife, and where dragons remain a terrifying opponent no matter how good you’ve gotten)

But there are also some elements where I wonder if they are as important to retain in their current form:

  • Extensive ability breakdowns (individual spells, weapons, etc.)
  • Fine granularity in rules
  • Experience and progression

So now what?

If you’ve read this far, then you’re definitely in the interest group and your feedback about this idea.  What would you like to see in a new DQ?  What are the things most in need of revision?  What are the parts that represent the essence of DQ that need to remain as they are?
 

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

3 Responses to “DragonQuest Rules Clone”

  1. Lonny Eckert Says:

    Open DragonQuest or OpenDQ could work. The latter may be safer. You wouldn’t want a TM infringement case brought against you even if it is likely your company would win it.

    How would you like to go about submittals?

  2. Andreas Davour Says:

    After having spent some time generating characters for a one shot, and not having had any experience at all with DQ as a player, I have some issues with the rules as they are.

    1. Having the characters roll for how many points they get to place on stats feels kind of redundant. It would be easier to compare characters and their abilities if all had the same amount of points.

    2. With a minimum of 5 on each stat, who not just remove 30 points off the total as those are not available for distribution anyway?

    3. Perception is low, and ridiculously expensive to increase. There are some things which all adventurer types do, like Stealth. But, I’d suggest Perception is also one of these. If you do not agree about that, I’d suggest that the Skill Ranger is all but useless for beginning characters. Most of the Ranger abilities are based on Perception, and in order to get a decent Base Chance they need to spend 1750 pts to get a 10 and more than a 50/50 chance to be effective.

    In general, it feels like it’s way to easy to make a dumb hack and slash character than it is to make a “thinker” or a “social guy” and part of that is due to the cost of PC. You should be able to select to play a perceptive character, just as you choose to play a strong brute.

    4. The XP allotment to begin with is broken. The root cause for some of the above is that the beginning XP is generated randomly, and even when rolling really well you don’t get much.

    I totally agree about the less than super human scale of DQ, but many of the characters I rolled up could not even buy level 0 of anything with the “100 pt discount” as they had less than 100 XP to begin with!

    These days I don’t think people like to “grind” their characters, and I’d suggest a flat xp amount to start with for all characters, and it should be significantly above 100! Probably something like 2000.

    Those are my 4 (euro)cents!

  3. Lonny Eckert Says:

    A sheet that lists out commonly used formulas would be handy. Maybe once I have finished up on the Priest skill I will work on that; uploaded v0 to DQ Rules site a couple evenings ago.

    I had made a list of combat options that can be given to players.

    Love the idea of colleges. Some colleges need tweaks here and there. I don’t mind that colleges are different in that for example Fire Magics is a very offense-oriented college, but in my opinion every college should have some sort of light damage spell (or an equivalently good defensive spell).

    Agree with Andreas that starting XP allotment is a bit low.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: