rdesai at chartermi.net
Sun Sep 23 23:26:49 EST 2012
BTW, we had this same POW vs MP discussion in the 90's when we were replacing RQ2 with RQ3. At the time, it seemed like Avalon Hill introduced MP because they didn't like the idea that casting a spell would reduce your ability to resist spells cast at you. We fiddled with POW vs POW, MP vs MP, and MP vs POW, trying to get a feel for it. The rules didn't help, and would sometimes mistakenly say POW when they meant MP (and visa versa).
We generally regarded the addition of MP to the rules as a mistake, but one we couldn't really fix by simply ignoring it. We settled on POW vs POW, using MP only to determine how many spells you could cast.
We weren't rules experts, and I'm not one now by any means, and I'd be interested in hearing other people's take. I wonder if we did it wrong all that time?
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 22, 2012, at 8:06 PM, Peter Maranci <pmaranci at gmail.com> wrote:
> I also had to deal with the whole issue of overcoming and resistance. Is it MP vs. MP, or POW vs. POW? I feel stupid asking this, since I've been playing the system for so many years, but this became a huge point of contention - and the rules weren't clear. I suspect that it's MP vs. MP.
> Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com
> Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm
> The Diary of A Simple Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Runequest