Quest Digest 28/4/96 From: ">>-Josh->" <J.P.Gallagher@durham.ac.uk> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0000 ___ _ / _ \ | | 28th April 1996 | |_| |UEST__| |IGEST \__ | / _ | | |_ | |_| | An e-mail discussion forum for the fantasy |_ / \___/ play by mail game; "Quest". Compiled by Josh Gallagher. J.P.Gallagher@durham.ac.uk o This isn't one of those automatic list thingies, so could all articles be sent clearly marked with paragraphs initalled to me. o If you want off the list, just say! No hassle, no pressure. o All material here is the exclusive property of the author and may not be used elsewhere without their permission. ___ / _ \ Hello and welcome to another Quest Digest. This week | __/DITORIAL you are treated to a special late night publication in \___| which the editorial will be mercifully short and all the stuff I have to say will be said at the end when I remember what it is I intended to put in this section. So, without further ado, on with the inclusions (for which I would like to heartily thank the authors): -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 11:18:50 BST From: BHOYZ IN DA HOOD <cfm125@ujvax.ulst.ac.uk> Question: What happens if you fail to pay back a loan to a money-lender within the alloted time ? What happens if you only pay part of the sum owed back within the alloted time ? Any help would be greatfuly accepted by this newbie. (JPG> The long and short of it is, I think, that nothing really happens, but don't be trying to use the banking facilities on Kharne for a while if you don't intend to repay the debt.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: list_s@svhdev.bt.co.uk Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 14:03:19 +0100 Roy Thomas asked in the digest recently if anybody had come across any undead anywhere. I don't seem to recall anybody replying. If there are no undead at the moment, what chance is there of seeing undead implemented in the near future? Spellcasters appear to have spells which are currently useless! The introduction of undead would give a different slant to monster combat. Re e-mail games - count me out. I fax mine in as it's convenient for me to do so, but have them sent back by snail mail, which means that I always have a hard copy of every turn. If I want to look back at some of them, I can do this without having to print them out first. I look forward to receiving each envelope from KJC (well, nobody else writes to me!). I happen to think that speeding up the game might lead to some players getting bored quicker. (JPG> Not wishing to have to clarify the point _too_ many times, see my comment at the end about the game I was suggesting...) By the way, what should the frequency be for editions of First Class? I last had one about eight months (maybe more?) ago! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 96 09:07:58 EST From: Mike Summerfield <MSUMMERF%ESOC.bitnet@listserv.gmd.de> In-Reply-To: note of 96-04-23 11:05 >TL>2- What happens when a group steals from your HQ? I think that a failed >robber should have a chance of getting caught by the groups currently >staying in the alliance, and a battle should occur. this would make it >possible for alliances to raid each others cities and attack the alliance >HQs. If the raider wins then they should be able to get away with some >money or something...there are going to be problems with this idea- for >example what if more than one group is staying in the HQ, who gets the >priviledge of defending it? (or does the raider have to fight them all >heh heh :) MDS>I think this is a very good idea. Stealing from an alliance HQ is an excell ent way of hitting an alliance where it hurts the most, in the money belt. I do however think that if a robbery fails the perpetrator should have to face ALL the groups currently staying in the HQ. This may sound a little tough but lets face it, if you are awoken in the middle of the night by somebody riffling through your own or alliance equipment, your going to kick butt big time!! MDS> Has anyone out there actually been brave/stupid enough to take on a Dragon ? If so, are they really that tough? If you have battled a Dragon, how about posting the results of the scrap. (JPG> Yes, about the 7th turn of my first group in Quest. It killed a character and I went back for the character's body (about 3 years early, implementation wise) only to get attacked again because it hadn't moved.) MDS> Has anyone used the resurrection service and had to pay for it? It says 1000+ for the cost in the shop, but how is the "+" calculated? MDS> Has anyone compiled a list of spells/miracles that are effective/ineffecti ve against monsters types and what the monsters special attacks are? If such a list does not already exist I am willing to compile one if all you monster bashers out there are prepared to send me details of any encounters you have. When I have compiled enough information I will post it to Josh for inclusion in the Quest Digest. So get that info flowing. My e-mail is msummerf@esoc.esa.de. (JPG> I think plant control proved useful against a Dark Oak.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 10:09:05 +0100 (BST) From: THOMAS LARKIN <TLARKIN@tcd.ie> TL> On the subject of an email game, I think that it would be a good idea. I would be for an option of snailmail/email (depending on preferences and distance from the company mailing you) but with newsletter and correspondence via email. this would lead to people actually writing to people they bump into or share a city with (Imagine!!) and generally make the game a little more lively. If KJC ran it it would also be a handy place for playtesting new ideas they have, as the quick communication could lead to faster decisions on whether or not things work... naturally we get it for a cheaper price because of this :)) (JPG> I think phrases with sentiments similar to 'dream on' would be issuing from Kevin's mouth if he were to read this...) TL>I would also like some sort of preset alliances- perhaps people should get a choice at the start of the game what alliance they join, and each alliance could be limited to a certain number, and therefore you could have two evil alliances etc etc. this idea of preset alliances will help to split up the "powerplayers", and encourage roleplay. each alliance could have a HQ, but a computer-moderated one perhaps...if there are less people in the game than usual then perhaps we could have a mini kharne?? rather than some vast ghost world... TL>that is my tuppence worth on the subject.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 11:12:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Paul Burke <PAUL.BURKE@UCG.IE> PB> Here are a few points with regard to a the idea of a new quest game, with players drawn from the ranks of those who are on the Digest: 1: It definitly should have both an email and snail-mail option, as i would like to get most of my results by mail (as Josh has said, it gives a feeling of value for your money), but for catch-up turns, email would be more useful. Of course, the email option would be included mainly for the benefit of the non-UK players, who have to wait a few days, even a week for results as it is. 2: Whether a player recieves their turn by email or snail-mail, the price for turns in this game should be a cheaper than usual either way (much cheaper for email turns hopefully). KJC should be reminded that most of the players who will be involved have been playing quest with them for quite a few years (over 5 in my case), and therefore deserve some extra special treatment- remember, we played when the turns were printed on poor quality paper, on bad dot-matrix printers, and there were about half as many orders as there are today!! (JPG> See comment about 'dream on' above... not that I'm objecting, you understand!) 3: It should not be open to new groups (first timers) only older players, as any new group to abandon NA status (and I for one don't want the cities crammed with NA groups- as they are in game 6 now) would be crushed easily by the other 'new groups', who could have death-spells by turn 20 or so. Anyway, I think the idea is a good one, and I for one would be involved, but it remains to be seen if you can pull it off, Josh! Good luck in trying. (JPG> Cheers!) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 16:41:37 +0100 From: Paul Noble <editor@elbon.demon.co.uk> PN> Concerning a email pbm type thing - would there be much interest from the quest digest readers and anyone reading this on rec.games.pbm about a totally email Super Quest type affair? PN> The basic idea is pretty much the same - you have a party of characters who would wander the world killing and stuff but there would be sooooo much more indepth things like actual employment by certain npc kingdoms to raid enemy forts and camps. Armies of NPCs fighting each other, npc and pc bounty hunters, once a week turn around. A totally new magic system with a different emphasis unlike the two tier magic of mages and priests in quest. A vastly bigger realm with the capacity of around 25 thousand groups. A much more highly developed sense of role play with each character have different traits and racial prejudices. Monsters who also have likes and dislikes with a semblence of AI. A fully graphical interface with a 3d perspective view of the surrounding terrain. A turn builder which would not allow mistakes. Important events and time lines running as the players play - with hand moderated player involvement in the time line. PN> This is just a part of Project X which my brother is doing for his college project, what he wants is feed back on what type of price the player would want to pay, how often the player wants his turns and also what sort of system does the player use to access the net. PN> Any comments please email me on editor@elbon.demon.co.uk -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 19:38:32 +0200 From: peter.moster@megadolt.inka.de (Peter Moster) (JPG> This was in response to my request for archiving or web access to Digests, from the guy who originally started archiving them for me!) The Archive is on my ftp site. ftp.inka.de/sites/megadolt/games/questdigest it contains the digestes of Jan - Nov 1995, Chris's faq and a readme file. (JPG> The archive will be updated in May...) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 96 13:11:36 GMT From: Dave Rees <chaos@thanes.demon.co.uk> DR> Greetings everyone. I have to rather agree with Rolands sentiments about the Email version of Quest. I wouldn't be interested in playing in a game which is no different to ordinary Quest. I've seen some of the Email turns which come back from D.G. and bar the character map and typefaces, it really isn't that different once printed out yourself. > CO> Does anyone agree that the increase in the amount gained for temple > quests is spoiling the game somewhat. DR> Without a doubt. It is redicularse. > TL> Strength skills at the moment are far too cheap. DR> I do feel that KJC were a little too generous in allowing OA's to keep all the cash form training, although I think they were a little undergenerous in the amounts that could be charged. Personally I feel that the OA should be allowed to charge what they like for the service but only recoup a small percentage of the income. Somewhere in the region of 10 to 25%. This would easily bring a bigger nightmare for OA's trying to raise cash for +3 equipment. > TL> What happens when a group steals from your HQ? DR> An interesting proposion. It would be excellent in aiding OA Vs OA wars. I feel that every group in a HQ should have to defend it if it were attacked, on a rotation system (possibly flee factor? Highest defends first) with the loser getting thrown out (attacking) or losing OA funds (defending). Although There are some problems involved though, NA alliances would be a bit of a problem as the groups won't fight and you couldn't allow an automatic victory for the attacker. Secondly, if several groups decended on a HQ in one turn, the defending side would be on for a real beating with the advantage being with the attacker. DR> I would like to see a greater range of items, especially powders and it would be excellent to be able to offer transport services between HQ's. These could be set up as other training services with initial cost and cost per turn. I suppose somewhere in the region of 10000gp would be an unrealistic cost for a cart and a couple of nags with them being fed on the best smoked salmon for around about 200gp a week. DR> Wth OA's seeming to be a bit of a flavour this week, how are some of the other OA's out there, fairing? The BKA has found it far too easy to become too powerful without abusing the strength skill to any extent. Without serious opposition in the game, G14 has been strangled to the extent that the BKA newsletter will be running a 'Groups that aren't NA' list. Anyway here's how the BKA stands at the end of my last turn: HQ's : 3 (#4 being bought next turn) Cash : 267,282gp Services : Strength Skill (200gp), Weapon Skill (200gp) Current Stock : +3 Axe 31, +3 Sword 37, +3 Bow 45, +3 Armour 5, +3 Shield 5. +1 Axe 33, +1 Sword 35, +1 Bow 33, +1 Armour 19, +1 Shield 20. Chain Mail 27, Large Shield 25, Great Axe 24. Magic Ring 3. With Potions being added next turn and very little else of interest to buy, we intend to open 3 more HQ's as the money supply allows. > > JPG> Just as a last note; one of those little bugs in Quest: Why does a > party shout a battle cry at a dead opponent? I overkilled the spell > casting on a werewolf, and once a single arrow hit it (so much for > Enchant Weapons III) it snuffed it. Yet still my party warned the corpse > to prepare to be eliminated. *sigh* DR> Stop casting Battle Lust and snorting Braincrystal at the same time then: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- JPG> This is 'that comment at the end' about the game I suggested. Although many people have got the correct idea about the game, perhaps I ought to explain it in a slightly different way to clarify it for others. The idea is to have a game differing only from a normal postal game in two respects: 1) It's based around people with internet access so that everyone in the game should be able to contact everyone else in the game by email, cutting out the lengthy delays in replies, encouraging more player interaction and hopefully producing a more interesting and above all _frequent_ game newsletter. 2) There should be an option to send the turns to the player by email if they want. JPG> In no way does this description of the game preclude turns being sent in by post/email/fax/phone/semaphore or morse code.... There are no requirements to receive turns by email either, and the pace of the game needn't differ from that of current postal games. It will just be a game in which interplayer communications do not require a stamp! If it has email-returns too, then overseas players can participate. It's all as simple as that! JPG> I do like the idea of KJC using it as a testing base for new ideas, only because I'd always like to be trying the new stuff first, but as for quick feeback about it, I think they would be better using a two a week turnaround game for that. JPG> Some people are pointing out that they wouldn't join a game that was essentially the same as whatever Quest game they were playing in at the moment (game wise, not interaction wise I presume). I too would like to play in an markedly improved game of some form, and I think that one of the best ways this could be done is by hand moderation. However, I don't know how any of the current systems (proposed or in working order) actually function. Could anyone enlighten me? Is it noticeably better to play? What are the differences? JPG> Right, that's the lot for the night! Thanks again to all those who contributed; keep the stuff flowing in. For all those students out there; take time out from those long and hard revision sessions I'm sure you're all doing and write me some stuff! ;-) Happy Questing, folks! >>-Josh-> "You can't always get what you want" - Rolling Stones Up