The Quest Rules Committee

Guidelines

As discussed and passed by the committee.

Special rules

PCs may not have abilities which are not in the rule book. Exceptions to this policy include (but are not necessarily limited to): RC-approved playtests, GM-created game-(or gameworld)-specific abilities, and racial kits (for example, Toughness and special disads).

Grandfather clause: current exceptions will not be revoked (for example, the Black Company kit). Special rules can continue to be used, regardless of rules changes, until the RC either modifies or rescinds the special rules (and informs the player, who should have been part of the discussion anyway).

Playtests

Playtests should generally be limited to testing significant changes in major rules systems (for example, combat, magic, stealth/awareness).

Conversion of NPCs to PCs

For an NPC to become a PC, the character must fit into the following restrictions:

1. The character must not have previously been a PC.
2. The character must be accurately re-created by the standard Quest rules set with the points available to the player.
3. The character must have been a minor character, must not have been put in a position of power over the PCs, and must not have appeared to have had abilities or influence beyond those of a normal PC. (A minor character may be defined as a character whose individual existence and actions were unimportant to the game's plot. If in doubt, ask a GM.)
4. The conversion must have the approval of the Game World Committee and the GMs of any games in which the character appeared.

The GWC has the power to alter these restrictions as they see fit, provided that they notify the Rules Committee when they do so.

Number of spell levels

We, the RC, only want 9 levels of spells to be available to PCs.

Alchemy potion list spells

Here are guidelines for which spells should and should not be included in the potion list:

• If there are two spells with the same effect but with different ranges, we should only include one. For attack spells, we should include the version that's closest to Sight range.

• Certain spells are "special", and should be excluded. (Resurrect, Divine Wrath, Safe spells)
• Spells which inherently affect more than one person should be excluded. (Mana Gift, Martyrdom, Mass spells)
• Spells which affect an area, an item, or have otherwise "external" effects should be excluded.
• Spells which make potions which poison the user should be excluded, because it's in all ways better to make a dose of poison. (Poisoned Grasp, Poison)
• Spells which make potions which cause physical damage to the user should be excluded. (spells which are absorbed by protection, Shatter Limb)
• Grasp and Bolt spells should be excluded, because potions of these spells should not harm the user.
• Holy spells should be excluded, because potions should be "neutral", and not have special effects on holy or unholy beings.
• Holy, Spirit, and Undead spells should be excluded, because they aren't fictionally appropriate.

• Healing spells should be included.
• Defensive and enchancement spells should be included.
• Mind-affecting spells should be included.
• Information-gathering spells should be included.
• Miscellaneous harmful spells should be included.

Changing Natural Advantages

When changing a Natural Advantage, the RC should determine whether the change is significant enough to allow existing characters to take it, when they're being altered to fit the new rules.

Weapons Costs

Weapons costs should be kept to multiples of 3 when possible, although it's all right to have a few exceptions on the fringes. However, all of the primary weapons costs (edged weapons above 3 points, shields, and armor) should be a multiple of 3 points, as they provide the baseline against which other weapons will be measured.

Heroic Honor codes

Even though anyone can take a personal Honor code once it has been passed, due to the private nature of the code and the low publication rate, most players are unaware of the range of personal Honor available. As such, it would be an unfair advantage to allow any player to pass an Honor code that was competitive with the other 1/2-point disads. Therefore, although a personal Honor code need not be as restrictive as a 1-point disad, it should be more restrictive than the published 1/2-point disads.

Most Honor codes are made up of a number of restrictions, none of which are individually as restrictive as a 1/2-point disad. Some of these restrictions (e.g. not eating meat) have no meaningful in-game effect. Although these restrictions affect the coherence and internal logic of the Honor code (and could matter a great deal to the GWC), they are not a part of the RC's game balance analysis.

Instead, as a general guideline, the RC should look for at least three restrictions that could make it as a "1/4-point" disad. If the restrictions don't overlap, the combined "3/4 points worth of restrictions" are usually enough to make an Honor code acceptable.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent players from passing Honor codes that are more restrictive than this, or are built around one or two restrictions that could fly as 1/2- or 1-point disads. (For example, an Honor code that included a provision that stated "I abide by the rules of Peaceful, unless someone assaults my mother's honor, in which case, I attack, abiding by the rules of Foolhardy" would clearly qualify as restrictive enough.)

When considering if a restrictions is meaningful or worth a 1/4 point, the following are worth considering:

• How often would the restriction come into play? If it rarely comes into play, it's not worth much unless the impact is large.
• Would the restriction prevent the player from taking the optimal "adventure solving" course of action? If the restriction only forces the player to make the most effective decision, it's not much of a restriction.
• Is the restriction similar to an existing disad? Similarities to existing disads can give a good sense of the size of the restriction. Take care to note that not all 1/2-point disads are equally restrictive, and a similarity to a less restrictive disad does not mean as much as a similarity to a more restrictive disad. Also, take care to ensure that difference between the proposed restriction and the published disad doesn't eliminate the most restrictive part of the published disad.