From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Apr 1 01:24:39 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:24:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Protection Spell vs Resist Damage In-Reply-To: <20040331121748.60919.qmail@web9601.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040331152439.96212.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> --- Simon Phipp wrote: > Phil Hibbs: > > Sandy's sorcery is better: > > http://www.snark.freeserve.co.uk/docs/ > > > > BOOST ARMOR > > Touch > > Requires Intensity equal to the object's ENC. Each > additional Intensity > > past > > that adds +1 to its armor points. For instance, if > Boost Armor 8 were cast > > on a medium shield (ENC 3), the shield would > receive 5 extra armor points. > > Because of the high weight of body armor, this > spell is normally cast upon > > a > > single piece of armor at a time, rather than the > entire suit (a medium suit > > of chainmail, for instance, takes 20 Intensity, > but a chain coif only 2). > > > > So it's 1:1 like Protection, but has an overhead > to balance the Free Int > > benefit of Sorcery. > > That's an interesting idea. Can't see any problems > with it, though, which is > always disturbing :-) The only down size is that you are casting 7 spells instead of 1, therefore x7 the mp cost. Players in my group have taken to casting this spell on their left arm and then parring with it. > By the way, when we played, we had PCs with 10-15 > point armour and Shield on > top of that, say Shield 8, giving them 26-31 points > of armour. If they ahd > Damage Resistance on, which they sometimes did as we > had an Arkati sorcerer > with us, they could have Damage Resistance 5 to mop > up any damage that sneaked through. Same here. With that much armor the Damage Resistence would not have to that large to be effective, you are basically looking for that extra roll of 5% or less to stop leathal damage. > That was incredibly effective, even > some criticals were stopped on an 01 roll. We play that criticals ignor all forms of protection including spells and enchantments. Of course there are special magic items which critcals do not ignore, but these are rare. Leon __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Apr 1 01:29:36 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:29:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff In-Reply-To: <68.3d0275a2.2d9b8393@aol.com> Message-ID: <20040331152936.28562.qmail@web12407.mail.yahoo.com> --- DevinC at aol.com wrote: > Trevor > Why would Aztecs in the 1600's choose flint weapons > when the Spaniards had > cannons and metal armour and steel swords and > firearms? First, because they didn't have iron ore nor the technology to extract and work iron. Second, if you read the Conquistidor chronicles, a maquihuilt could decapitate a horse in one stroke, their swords couldn't. Aztec atlatls could penetrate the cotton jacks most of the Spanish wore. Aztec bows, slings, and atlatls could be reloaded far more rapidly than a Spanish arquebus. Aztec tactics used missile fire from rooftops and if bypassed, the Aztecs attacked from the rear; if attacked frontally, conch shell bugles and drums would concentrate counter attacks wherever there was pressure. Maquihuilt obsidian edging was far sharper than steel can ever get. It chips easily, but that usually just gets another sharp edge, while steel gets duller. The pieces of obsidian were of a standardized size. If one was shattered, they would simply heat that spot to soften the pitch, remove the fragment, and glue in another. Their spears had a longer range than the Spanish lance, and could slash as well as impale. Finally, they outnumbered the invader. The only way the Spanish were able to win was with the aid of tribes the Aztecs has conquered - and having won, promply enslaved them in far worse conditions than the Aztecs imposed. University of Oklahoma (or maybe Texas) Press has an excellent book still in print titled Aztec Warfare. Well worth studying for the subject. Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Thu Apr 1 01:57:23 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 17:57:23 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff In-Reply-To: <20040331152936.28562.qmail@web12407.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040331152936.28562.qmail@web12407.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <406AEA63.6090907@padrigu.gu.se> Paul Cardwell wrote: >--- DevinC at aol.com wrote: > >>Why would Aztecs in the 1600's choose flint weapons >>when the Spaniards had >>cannons and metal armour and steel swords and >>firearms? >> >> >[snip of long but very interesting bit about Aztec weapon technology] Finally, they outnumbered the invader. The only way the Spanish were able to win was with the aid of tribes the Aztecs has conquered - and having won, promply enslaved them in far worse conditions than the Aztecs imposed. > They also had the "good fortune" of unwittingly (at least at first) bringing spirits of disease with them that killed off huge amounts of people before the Spaniards even got to meet them. Small pox and measels where the big killers IRC and contributed a great deal to destroy indigenous societies in America. So (here comes a desperate attempt to make this posting at least closely related to the lists purpose) if you want to invade an unknown territory, be sure to bring worshippers of your local God of Disease... /Peter J From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Thu Apr 1 18:28:18 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 08:28:18 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff Message-ID: A very interresting post! (I like history) But this doesn't change Devin's point, it just needs rephrazing; if the Aztec system was the best; why didn't the Spaniards adopt their -from a ruletechically point of wiev-"superior" system? >From: Paul Cardwell >Reply-To: carpgachair at yahoo.com,"RuneQuest rules discussion." > >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff >Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:29:36 -0800 (PST) > > >--- DevinC at aol.com wrote: > > > Trevor > > Why would Aztecs in the 1600's choose flint weapons > > when the Spaniards had > > cannons and metal armour and steel swords and > > firearms? > >First, because they didn't have iron ore nor the >technology to extract and work iron. Second, if you >read the Conquistidor chronicles, a maquihuilt could >decapitate a horse in one stroke, their swords >couldn't. Aztec atlatls could penetrate the cotton >jacks most of the Spanish wore. > >Aztec bows, slings, and atlatls could be reloaded far >more rapidly than a Spanish arquebus. Aztec tactics >used missile fire from rooftops and if bypassed, the >Aztecs attacked from the rear; if attacked frontally, >conch shell bugles and drums would concentrate counter >attacks wherever there was pressure. > >Maquihuilt obsidian edging was far sharper than steel >can ever get. It chips easily, but that usually just >gets another sharp edge, while steel gets duller. The >pieces of obsidian were of a standardized size. If >one was shattered, they would simply heat that spot to >soften the pitch, remove the fragment, and glue in >another. > >Their spears had a longer range than the Spanish >lance, and could slash as well as impale. > >Finally, they outnumbered the invader. The only way >the Spanish were able to win was with the aid of >tribes the Aztecs has conquered - and having won, >promply enslaved them in far worse conditions than the >Aztecs imposed. > >University of Oklahoma (or maybe Texas) Press has an >excellent book still in print titled Aztec Warfare. >Well worth studying for the subject. > >Paul Cardwell > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. >http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den raskeste veien mellom deg og dine venner From bick10 at comcast.net Fri Apr 2 02:30:52 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2004 16:30:52 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff Message-ID: <040120041630.12245.406C43BB000A735000002FD52200737478FFCFCE949C96@comcast.net> > A very interresting post! (I like history) > But this doesn't change Devin's point, it just needs rephrazing; if the > Aztec system was the best; why didn't the Spaniards adopt their -from a > ruletechically point of wiev-"superior" system? Because they were bound by their character concepts that steel/iron is better than stone. Good roleplaying on their part. In addition they had no skill in Maquihuilt. Also they were in a hurry to get the gold before an NPC party beat them. So they didn't take the time to learn the Maquihuilt. Sure Rules-Lawering-Munckening-Spaniards might have, but these were gold greedy-role-playing-Spaniards. Jim - tongue in cheek. From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Apr 2 05:03:16 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 11:03:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff In-Reply-To: <040120041630.12245.406C43BB000A735000002FD52200737478FFCFCE949C96@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20040401190316.71803.qmail@web12402.mail.yahoo.com> --- bick10 at comcast.net wrote: > > A very interresting post! (I like history) > > But this doesn't change Devin's point, it just > needs rephrazing; if the > > Aztec system was the best; why didn't the > Spaniards adopt their -from a > > ruletechically point of wiev-"superior" system? > > Because they were bound by their character concepts > that steel/iron is better than stone. Good > roleplaying on their part. In addition they had no > skill in Maquihuilt. Also they were in a hurry to > get the gold before an NPC party beat them. So they > didn't take the time to learn the Maquihuilt. > > Sure Rules-Lawering-Munckening-Spaniards might have, > but these were gold greedy-role-playing-Spaniards. > > Jim - tongue in cheek. To clarify, flint, obsidian, chert, etc. are superior to steel only in certain applications - where a sharp edge is needed and impact is reduced. It takes a skilled knapper to shape these ignious rocks while steel can be cast, cut, or forged far easier. To muddy these waters even more, Spain should have known about the 15th century Songhai empire from the Bight of Benin to the Red Sea - they had diplomatic relations with them. While Songhai swordmaking was the equal of Toledo and Damascus, they used obsidian scalpels for surgery because the edge was better. Since the Spanish of that period, like the rest of Europe, tended to bleed the patient whatever was wrong, they never picked up on Songhai surgery (in which cataract operations were as common as with us today). However, late 20th century microsurgery finally discovered what Songhai knew a half millenium before, obsidian is the best material for scapels. Just some more advantages of anthropological role-playing - you find out about all those cool pre-gunpowder techniques. Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ From andrew at crashbox.com Sat Apr 3 07:09:13 2004 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 13:09:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff In-Reply-To: <20040401190316.71803.qmail@web12402.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040401190316.71803.qmail@web12402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Paul Cardwell wrote: > To clarify, flint, obsidian, chert, etc. are superior > to steel only in certain applications - where a sharp > edge is needed and impact is reduced. It takes a > skilled knapper to shape these ignious rocks while > steel can be cast, cut, or forged far easier. Also, imagine an adventuring party carrying enough "spares" for their obsidian weapons. Steel is a much better long-term substance. Even though it isn't as sharp in a single application, It can be resharpened in the field with minimal fuss. A war party doesn't need to carry spares or find a local source. -Andrew From lancelot at inetnebr.com Sat Apr 3 11:25:32 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 19:25:32 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff In-Reply-To: References: <20040401190316.71803.qmail@web12402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <406E128C.2030208@inetnebr.com> Andrew Mellinger wrote: >On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Paul Cardwell wrote: > > > >>To clarify, flint, obsidian, chert, etc. are superior >>to steel only in certain applications - where a sharp >>edge is needed and impact is reduced. It takes a >>skilled knapper to shape these ignious rocks while >>steel can be cast, cut, or forged far easier. >> >> > > Also, imagine an adventuring party carrying enough "spares" for their >obsidian weapons. Steel is a much better long-term substance. Even >though it isn't as sharp in a single application, It can be resharpened > in the field with minimal fuss. A war party doesn't need to carry spares >or find a local source. > > My favorite PC had a "magically" hardened obsidian bastard sword with an elemental heart bound in the hilt ... The sword ofcourse could "enflame" for an incredible amount of time with very little magic points spent and never lost its edge....We are talking fantasy here folks -- Lance Dyas Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying -- Lance Dyas Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sun Apr 4 01:31:39 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 07:31:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040403153139.40674.qmail@web12407.mail.yahoo.com> Aztecs carried plenty of spares. The principle reason for conquest (aside from the POWs to sacrifice to keep the world existing - that only for tribes resisting) was to have a vast reservoir of sweatshops knapping standard sized flints for Aztec weapons, and weaving cotton for cloth. Draw your own parallels with the World Trade Organization! Paul Cardwell --- Andrew Mellinger wrote: > On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Paul Cardwell wrote: > > > To clarify, flint, obsidian, chert, etc. are > superior > > to steel only in certain applications - where a > sharp > > edge is needed and impact is reduced. It takes a > > skilled knapper to shape these ignious rocks while > > steel can be cast, cut, or forged far easier. > > Also, imagine an adventuring party carrying enough > "spares" for their > obsidian weapons. Steel is a much better long-term > substance. Even > though it isn't as sharp in a single application, It > can be resharpened > in the field with minimal fuss. A war party > doesn't need to carry spares > or find a local source. > > -Andrew > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Tue Apr 6 00:52:25 2004 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:52:25 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff Message-ID: And if even with an "inferior" system, the players (the spaniards) still won, that is probaby because the DM fudge the dices :D Pascal -----Message d'origine----- De : rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] De la part de bick10 at comcast.net Envoy? : jeudi 1 avril 2004 18:31 ? : RuneQuest rules discussion. Objet : Re: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff > A very interresting post! (I like history) But this doesn't change > Devin's point, it just needs rephrazing; if the Aztec system was the > best; why didn't the Spaniards adopt their -from a ruletechically > point of wiev-"superior" system? Because they were bound by their character concepts that steel/iron is better than stone. Good roleplaying on their part. In addition they had no skill in Maquihuilt. Also they were in a hurry to get the gold before an NPC party beat them. So they didn't take the time to learn the Maquihuilt. Sure Rules-Lawering-Munckening-Spaniards might have, but these were gold greedy-role-playing-Spaniards. Jim - tongue in cheek. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From bick10 at comcast.net Tue Apr 6 05:34:42 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 19:34:42 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re "realistic" characters - Rebuff Message-ID: <040520041934.26257.4071B4D1000C7B21000066912200750330FFCFCE949C96@comcast.net> OH NO!! lets not go there again. :) > And if even with an "inferior" system, the players (the spaniards) still won, > that is probaby because the DM fudge the dices > > :D > > > Pascal From Aldanata at wmconnect.com Tue Apr 6 07:15:59 2004 From: Aldanata at wmconnect.com (Aldanata at wmconnect.com) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 17:15:59 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Protection Spell vs Resist Damage Message-ID: <20.262383d4.2da3268f@wmconnect.com> Unless I misread it, you can't mix the types of magic,with the exception of shield and protection. Normally, you cannot use spirit and sorcery that do the same thing. IE. Boost STR and the Strength spell. So you couldn't stack the protection and the Damage Resistance. The only exception to this, as far as I know, is that it states under Shield that it will stack. William From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Apr 6 08:47:11 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 15:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Protection Spell vs Resist Damage In-Reply-To: <20.262383d4.2da3268f@wmconnect.com> Message-ID: <20040405224711.21783.qmail@web41109.mail.yahoo.com> --- Aldanata at wmconnect.com wrote: > Unless I misread it, you can't mix the types of > magic,with the exception of > shield and protection. Normally, you cannot use > spirit and sorcery that do the > same thing. IE. Boost STR and the Strength spell. > So you couldn't stack > the protection and the Damage Resistance. The only > exception to this, as far as > I know, is that it states under Shield that it will > stack. > > William Ahh, but Damage Resistance and Protection do not do the same thing. One acts as armor while the other is an all or nothing deal. We have alway played True Sword and Bladesharp the same way, one adds to your chance to hit while the other effects the base damage of the weapon. Leon __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Apr 6 09:10:11 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 18:10:11 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Protection Spell vs Resist Damage References: <20040405224711.21783.qmail@web41109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4071E753.7050902@earthlink.net> I can see your point re: DR and Protection but I also run them as unstackable. The same with Bladesharp and True Sword because of the damage boosting effects. On the other hand, I also run the various metals from MERP as rune metals and my campaigns have always taken place in my own world rather than in Glorantha. David Smart Leon Kirshtein wrote: >Ahh, but Damage Resistance and Protection do not do >the same thing. One acts as armor while the other is >an all or nothing deal. > >We have alway played True Sword and Bladesharp the >same way, one adds to your chance to hit while the >other effects the base damage of the weapon. > > From mechashef at bigpond.com Tue Apr 6 09:23:54 2004 From: mechashef at bigpond.com (Mechashef) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 09:23:54 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers Message-ID: <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> On a character sheet, when writing the percentage that a character has for a skill, do people include the Category Modifier? For Example: Jade has a Knowledge Modifier of +6. She knows Human Lore at 50%. For Human Lore, do people write (on the character sheet) 50% or 56%? Thanks From slposey at concentric.net Tue Apr 6 10:19:15 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 17:19:15 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers In-Reply-To: <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> References: <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> Message-ID: <4071F783.904@concentric.net> Mechashef wrote: > On a character sheet, when writing the percentage that a character has for a skill, do people include > the Category Modifier? > For Example: > Jade has a Knowledge Modifier of +6. She knows Human Lore at 50%. > > For Human Lore, do people write (on the character sheet) 50% or 56%? I always have, why would you not? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From mechashef at bigpond.com Tue Apr 6 11:04:20 2004 From: mechashef at bigpond.com (Mechashef) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:04:20 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers References: <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> <4071F783.904@concentric.net> Message-ID: <000801c41b73$250c5250$d1f08a90@P2800L> Stephen Posey wrote: > I always have, why would you not? If Jade has a 68% chance of successfully attacking with her bow (60% skill with her bow plus an 8% Category Modifier), and succeeds in an attack then (if my understanding is correct) when it comes to see if the experience results in a skill improvement, the calculation goes like this: Jade's player needs to roll over 60, but can add the 8% category modifier to the roll, so really needs to roll over 52 not 68. So even though the character sheet has 68% for Jade's sword attack, when it comes to experience rolls, the 8% needs to be subtracted from the written skill and then added to the dice roll Is this what people do? Thanks From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 6 11:35:01 2004 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 20:35:01 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers In-Reply-To: <000801c41b73$250c5250$d1f08a90@P2800L> References: <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> <4071F783.904@concentric.net> <000801c41b73$250c5250$d1f08a90@P2800L> Message-ID: <40720945.3030002@sbcglobal.net> Mechashef wrote: >Stephen Posey wrote: > > >>I always have, why would you not? >> >> > > >If Jade has a 68% chance of successfully attacking with her bow (60% skill >with her bow plus an 8% Category Modifier), and succeeds in an attack then >(if my understanding is correct) when it comes to see if the experience >results in a skill improvement, the calculation goes like this: > >Jade's player needs to roll over 60, but can add the 8% category modifier to >the roll, so really needs to roll over 52 not 68. > >So even though the character sheet has 68% for Jade's sword attack, when it >comes to experience rolls, the 8% needs to be subtracted from the written >skill and then added to the dice roll > >Is this what people do? > > I've been playing RQ since 1979, and I've never seen it played this way. Jade should roll over 68% to get experience/ Guy (Hoyle) From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Apr 6 11:44:43 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 18:44:43 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers References: <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L><4071F783.904@concentric.net> <000801c41b73$250c5250$d1f08a90@P2800L> Message-ID: <003b01c41b78$cc2fd9d0$68417442@wizard> Lessee if I am reading this aright. A character has a category modifier of 8%. From where? Is this the calculation from the character's characteristics? I suppose Category Modifier might be a RQ3 term, but I don't remember it (which doesn't prove anything). But if this is something the character has as a part of creation, then I would assume that it is subsumed in the character's current skill %ile, unless the character is just starting out. Or has no experience or training in the skill. Thus, if I am looking a character with 60% in sword attack and an 8% modifier in weapon attack, then I assume that the 60% includes the 8%. On the other hand, if the character has the beginning %ile in a weapon, say pandybat, I would add the 8% to that percentile and base all experience on the adjusted number. That becomes the starting number. Experience rolls for pandybat would be based on Base %ile plus 8%. But then I'm still not sure what you mean by Category Modifier. Steve Perrin, who admits that a lot of silly things got past me in RQ3. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mechashef" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 6:04 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers > Stephen Posey wrote: > > I always have, why would you not? > > > If Jade has a 68% chance of successfully attacking with her bow (60% skill > with her bow plus an 8% Category Modifier), and succeeds in an attack then > (if my understanding is correct) when it comes to see if the experience > results in a skill improvement, the calculation goes like this: > > Jade's player needs to roll over 60, but can add the 8% category modifier to > the roll, so really needs to roll over 52 not 68. > > So even though the character sheet has 68% for Jade's sword attack, when it > comes to experience rolls, the 8% needs to be subtracted from the written > skill and then added to the dice roll > > Is this what people do? > > Thanks > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From mechashef at bigpond.com Tue Apr 6 11:53:19 2004 From: mechashef at bigpond.com (Mechashef) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 11:53:19 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers References: <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> <4071F783.904@concentric.net> <000801c41b73$250c5250$d1f08a90@P2800L> <40720945.3030002@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <001301c41b79$fdbecff0$d1f08a90@P2800L> So it looks like I may have misunderstood the rules. In the section titles "Making an Experience Roll" (Page 36 of the players book - RQ III Deluxe Boxed Edition) it states: "Add the appropriate skills category modifier to the roll before determining whether the experience roll succeeded" I had just assumed that it would also be subtracted from the skill beforehand to obtain the base skill. So what I should be doing is: Writing 68% on the character sheet (Category Modifier included) When an experience check is attempted, add 8 to the roll (Category Modifier added here as well) Thanks From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Tue Apr 6 17:56:45 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 09:56:45 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers In-Reply-To: <001301c41b79$fdbecff0$d1f08a90@P2800L> References: <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> <4071F783.904@concentric.net> <000801c41b73$250c5250$d1f08a90@P2800L> <40720945.3030002@sbcglobal.net> <001301c41b79$fdbecff0$d1f08a90@P2800L> Message-ID: <407262BD.10900@padrigu.gu.se> Hi! This is how we do it, based on our interpretation of RQ2 modofid by house rules etc, etc: Skill level of 60 % goes in to the skill level spot on the character sheet Bonus/modifier of 8% goes in to the bonus/modifier slot on the character sheet The reason for this is that we believe the bonus is something that should be benefitted from when making a skill roll but not something that should lower your characters ability to make en experience roll. So, in a situation where the skill of the characters is tested, the player adds the skill and the bonus and try to roll below 68 (60+8). If the player succeed the character earns an experience check. When rolling for experience, the player has to roll above the skill level, i.e. 60, not 68. The reasons we play it like this are three: 1) We believe that you should always benefit from good stats, and not only have a small head start at the moment the character is created. 2) If the bonus is included in the skill from the start (the 8% being part of the 60%) a character with good stats are actually punished at creation as PC:s with lower stats might raise theirs and thus also raise their bonus easier than the PC with good stats at creation. 3) If a PC raise (or lower, Orlanth forbid) his or her bonus, you only have to erase and rewrite one figure, not all the skills under the skill category. Regarding the page 36 rule of RQ3 stating "add the appropriate skills category modifier to the roll before determining whether the experience roll succeeded" I have interpreted this as a way of achieving exactly what our system is doing above, i.e. a high bonus should not hinder a PC when rolling for experience. It is based on the asssumption that the skill and the bonus is already added on your char sheet however. So, to sum up, our system always separate skill and bonus making it somewhat more complicated for beginning players to understand what they should be rolling under to make a skill. On the other hand there is no confusion which figure you should roll against when making experience rolls and you don't overuse your pencil eraser. :-) /Peter J Mechashef wrote: >So it looks like I may have misunderstood the rules. > >In the section titles "Making an Experience Roll" (Page 36 of the players book - RQ III Deluxe Boxed Edition) it states: >"Add the appropriate skills category modifier to the roll before determining whether the experience roll succeeded" > >I had just assumed that it would also be subtracted from the skill beforehand to obtain the base skill. > >So what I should be doing is: >Writing 68% on the character sheet (Category Modifier included) When an experience check is attempted, add 8 to the roll (Category Modifier added here as well) > > >Thanks > From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Tue Apr 6 18:02:15 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:02:15 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Skill Category Modifiers Message-ID: I do not add the skill modifier directly to the skill, but ask the player to do the quick math each time, because : - you need to deduct it from the skill for the experience roll - multipliers/dividers to skills (from spells, such as fanaticism) or from circumstances (two attacks if skill above 100%) do not affect the skill modifier, which is added to the result after the calculation. - probably other rules reason I can't remenber. Anyway, I am envisaging to get rid to the skill modifier as a general rule because in most cases, the bonus/malus has a low addded value (especially as the skill itself improves) compared to the complex calculation, and you have to classify skills into categories to be able to use the correct modifier, which is somewhat limittive. For instance, physical skills can include, in addition to the physical capacity to do the job, the theoritical knowledge surrounding the use of that skill. Sames goes from relational skills, whihc include cultural knowledge, ...and so on... A solution would be to increase dramatically the number of skills to cover all such possibilities, but I prefer, on the contrary, reducing the number of skills in my game, using general rule of malus, special or critical to use broad skills in specialised matters. Alain. http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Tue Apr 6 21:46:00 2004 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 12:46:00 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Stacking spells Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97F3F@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Leon Kirshtein: >We have alway played True Sword and Bladesharp the >same way, one adds to your chance to hit while the >other effects the base damage of the weapon. ?! No way! I've never come across any game that would allow Truesword and Bladesharp on the same weapon. Phil Hibbs ======================================================= This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorised to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. ======================================================= From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Tue Apr 6 21:49:14 2004 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 12:49:14 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Protection Spell vs Resist Damage Message-ID: We played that when two spells generates the same effect, only the highest spell effect is applied. i.e if you use BladeSharp and True Sword, you will only apply the damage bonus of True sword but you will still have the skill bonus effect of Bladesharp. Pascal -----Message d'origine----- De : rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] De la part de D. Smart Envoy? : mardi 6 avril 2004 01:10 ? : RuneQuest rules discussion. Objet : Re: [RQ-Rules] Protection Spell vs Resist Damage I can see your point re: DR and Protection but I also run them as unstackable. The same with Bladesharp and True Sword because of the damage boosting effects. On the other hand, I also run the various metals from MERP as rune metals and my campaigns have always taken place in my own world rather than in Glorantha. David Smart Leon Kirshtein wrote: >Ahh, but Damage Resistance and Protection do not do the same thing. >One acts as armor while the other is an all or nothing deal. > >We have alway played True Sword and Bladesharp the same way, one adds >to your chance to hit while the other effects the base damage of the >weapon. > > _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Apr 6 22:06:40 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:06:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Protection Spell vs Resist Damage/Skill Category Modifiers In-Reply-To: <20040406010501.7405F222740@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040406120640.2883.qmail@web9601.mail.yahoo.com> David Smart: > I can see your point re: DR and Protection but I also run them as > unstackable. > > The same with Bladesharp and True Sword because of the damage boosting > effects. > > On the other hand, I also run the various metals from MERP as rune > metals and my campaigns have always taken place in my own world rather > than in Glorantha. > > David Smart > > Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > >Ahh, but Damage Resistance and Protection do not do > >the same thing. One acts as armor while the other is > >an all or nothing deal. > > > >We have alway played True Sword and Bladesharp the > >same way, one adds to your chance to hit while the > >other effects the base damage of the weapon. We generally played that sorcery and spirit magic with similar effects were incompatible, spirit magic/sorcery and divine magic were generally compatible and divine magic with similar effects were incompatible. So, Bladesharp/Truesword - OK, Bludgeon/Truemaul - OK, Bludgeon/Crush - OK, Bludgeon/Truemaul - NOT OK, Slash/Trueaxe - NOT OK, Bladesharp/Slash - OK, Bladesharp/Damage Boosting - NOT OK, Protection/Damage Resistance - NOT OK, Protection/Shield - OK, Damage Boosting/Shield - NOT OK. Spirit Resistance/Spell Resistance/Damage Resistance were all mutually incompatible unless they were multispelled together in which case they were allowed. Since Protection/Countermagic/Spirit Shield were mutually incompatible and Protection/Damage Boosting, Spirit Shield/Spirit Resistance and Countermagic/Spell Resistance were incompatible due to the similarity case, it followed that Protection/Countermagic/Spirit Shield/Spirit Resistance/Spell Resistance/Damage Resistance were all mutually incompatible. Similarly, Strength/Vigour were incompatible, Enhance STR/Enhance CON were also ruled incompatible unless Multispelled and Strength/Vigour/Enhance STR/Enhance CON were incompatible. Glamour/Co-ordination/Strength was allowed as it is not banned in the rules, so Enhance DEX/Enhance APP was also allowed, but Glamour/Enhance APP and Co-ordination/Enhancee DEX were incompatible. Are you following this? If the PCs wanted to try a combination they hadn't used before, e.g. Ironhand/Truefist then I would rule on the spot unles it was obvious - here Ironhand/Truefist is allowed but Ironhand/Damage Boosting wasn't. If I was consistent, the players never minded and it was very easy to maintain and remember. Mechashef: > On a character sheet, when writing the percentage that a character has for > a skill, do people include the Category Modifier? > > For Example: > Jade has a Knowledge Modifier of +6. She knows Human Lore at 50%. > > For Human Lore, do people write (on the character sheet) 50% or 56%? Generally, we wrote down the skill that included the bonus, so we would write down 56%. It makes it easier to run combat without having to add the bonus in each time. Stephen Posey: > > On a character sheet, when writing the percentage that a character has > for a skill, do people include > > the Category Modifier? > > For Example: > > Jade has a Knowledge Modifier of +6. She knows Human Lore at 50%. > > > > For Human Lore, do people write (on the character sheet) 50% or 56%? > > I always have, why would you not? Because it makes it easier when rolling for experience to have a base skill and a bonus. Also, there are some people who insist on keeping base skill and bonus separate, so that if characteristics are increased, all they need do is to change the bonus rather than change all the skills. There are also some people who keep base skill/bonus/magical adds/terrain bonuses separate, but they must REALLY enjoy the book-keeping phase. Personally, I lump all of them together to get a skill at the end and then try and roll it, not caring how much is for base skill, how much for Bladesharp, how much because I am attacking from behind with surprise, height advantage and Fanatical. The only time I have not done this is when the PCs had teleported onto the back of a True Dragon (don't ask) and they worked out that they had a 1000% or something bonus to hit, because of its size, so they could almost auto-critical. I ruled that this was silly and in this case, and this case only, the size adds did not apply. They argued that because it was so big, the scales did not join up very well and they could easily stick swords and spears through the gaps - hence the auto-crit. A good argument but one that fell on deaf ears. Mechashef: > Stephen Posey wrote: > > I always have, why would you not? > > > If Jade has a 68% chance of successfully attacking with her bow (60% skill > with her bow plus an 8% Category Modifier), and succeeds in an attack then > (if my understanding is correct) when it comes to see if the experience > results in a skill improvement, the calculation goes like this: > > Jade's player needs to roll over 60, but can add the 8% category modifier > to > the roll, so really needs to roll over 52 not 68. > > So even though the character sheet has 68% for Jade's sword attack, when it > comes to experience rolls, the 8% needs to be subtracted from the written > skill and then added to the dice roll > > Is this what people do? Pretty much, yes. It's quicker to subtract the bonus for the experience roll at the end of a scenario than to have to add it to each skill throughout combat. By the way, we had a player who, allegedly, used to include his bonus in his skills, but when he rewrote his character sheet because it was dirty, had coffee spilled over it or had been ripped, would then add the bonuses into the skills again. I, of course, never believed that a player could do such a thing, but the other players moaned about it and wrote in big letters on the character sheet "SKILL BONUS INCLUDED", just so he knew. Allegedly. See Ya Simon ____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Apr 6 22:25:56 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 05:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Stacking spells In-Reply-To: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97F3F@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Message-ID: <20040406122556.42098.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com> --- "Hibbs, Phil" wrote: > No way! I've never come across any game that would > allow Truesword and Bladesharp on the same weapon. Why not, nothing in the rules that says you can't. Besides, its fun to do. Oh by the way, I let Fireblade and Truesword stack as well. Fireblade replaces the base damage of the weapon, while Truesword doubles it. The only time I do not let spells stack is if it says in the spell that it does not stack with other spells (like Protection) or if the two spells do exactly the same thing, like increasing strength. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Apr 6 22:33:16 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:33:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Skill Category Modifiers In-Reply-To: <20040406010501.7405F222740@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040406123316.33520.qmail@web9604.mail.yahoo.com> Mechashef: > Stephen Posey wrote: > > I always have, why would you not? > > > If Jade has a 68% chance of successfully attacking with her bow (60% skill > with her bow plus an 8% Category Modifier), and succeeds in an attack then > (if my understanding is correct) when it comes to see if the experience > results in a skill improvement, the calculation goes like this: > > Jade's player needs to roll over 60, but can add the 8% category modifier > to > the roll, so really needs to roll over 52 not 68. > > So even though the character sheet has 68% for Jade's sword attack, when it > comes to experience rolls, the 8% needs to be subtracted from the written > skill and then added to the dice roll > > Is this what people do? Actually, no, even though I said yes before. It's been so long since we rolled for experiance that I had forgotten how we did it. We rolled 1D100, then added the skill bonus (because adding is far easier than subtracting, especially after a long session involving no sleep and some alcohol), if it was equal to or higher than the skill or was over 100 then the roll succeeded. This confused my dice as a good roll was high and my poor dice were specially trained to roll low :-( So, in the above example Jade would roll 1D100, get 65, add 8 to give 73, this is higher than 68% and gets experience. If she rolled 59, adds 8 to get 67, she fails the roll. Easy peasy. For skills over 100, the adjusted roll had to be over 100 to work, so if Jade had 110% Sing and Communication Bonus of 5, then she would need to roll 96 or higher to get a skill increase. This is not ideal as someone with a big attack bonus, say, can quickly increase skills past 100, damned trolls. In the end, I assigned a certain number of Experience Points per scenario, the players could allocate those to their ticked skills for automatic skill increases. This was fairer, cut down on a certain player's bad luck and another player's good luck and allowed the PCs to specialise by focussing on the few good skills they wanted to increase and ignoring the rest, so no more skill chase. A real gaming quote - "Pick Locks? I can do that!!" (barges his way to the front) "What's the Basic?" - thanks, Ian. See Ya Simon ____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Tue Apr 6 23:18:32 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:18:32 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers In-Reply-To: <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> References: <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040406061533.02169690@incoming.verizon.net> At 04:23 PM 4/5/2004, you wrote: >On a character sheet, when writing the percentage that a character has for a skill, do people include the Category Modifier? > >For Example: >Jade has a Knowledge Modifier of +6. She knows Human Lore at 50%. > >For Human Lore, do people write (on the character sheet) 50% or 56%? Always... if a player doesn't remember to put it in the final score he looses that much from his final score as I will assume it is in after the game starts. The one exception is with weapons. The final skill is in the weapon data block (hit/parry/damage/etc...) so the listing to the side that I use is the raw skill plus bonus, and doesn't include the weapon's on modifier. I did this because of a rule that allows for superior and inferior weapons that modify the base hit of the weapon. Bo From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Tue Apr 6 23:23:14 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:23:14 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers In-Reply-To: <4071F783.904@concentric.net> <000801c41b73$250c5250$d1f08a90@P2800L> References: <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> <4071F783.904@concentric.net> <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> <4071F783.904@concentric.net> <000801c41b73$250c5250$d1f08a90@P2800L> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040406061939.0217ea60@incoming.verizon.net> At 06:04 PM 4/5/2004, Mechashef wrote: >Stephen Posey wrote: >> I always have, why would you not? > > >If Jade has a 68% chance of successfully attacking with her bow (60% skill >with her bow plus an 8% Category Modifier), and succeeds in an attack then >(if my understanding is correct) when it comes to see if the experience >results in a skill improvement, the calculation goes like this: > >Jade's player needs to roll over 60, but can add the 8% category modifier to >the roll, so really needs to roll over 52 not 68. > >So even though the character sheet has 68% for Jade's sword attack, when it >comes to experience rolls, the 8% needs to be subtracted from the written >skill and then added to the dice roll > >Is this what people do? > >Thanks No, I use the final skill WITH the bonus. The main reason is because there is a Experience Bonus that is the point where the character will always learn (in RQ1 it was INT, in RQ3 it is (INT-12) x 3). So, even if the skill is 1000% and the Experience Bonus is 12% the character will always learn a 1% skill add on a roll of 1-12 on 1D100. So, to hold down on the math I use a flat rate system. Bo From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Wed Apr 7 01:06:45 2004 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:06:45 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Truesword and Bladesharp In-Reply-To: <20040406120653.F35FA22273A@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20040406120653.F35FA22273A@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <1081264005.4072c785b800c@webmail4.leeds.ac.uk> IIRC Count Julian from, Strangers in Prax has both Bladesharp and Truesword cast on his weapon, with combined effect according to the stats. Could be wrong though. From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 7 01:25:16 2004 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 08:25:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Category Modifiers and Skill Checks In-Reply-To: <20040406120653.96CA5222739@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040406152516.51026.qmail@web21101.mail.yahoo.com> < From: "Mechashef" > In the section titles "Making an Experience Roll" > (Page 36 of the players > book - RQ III Deluxe Boxed Edition) it states: > "Add the appropriate skills category modifier to the > roll before determining > whether the experience roll succeeded" I read that to mean, using the example of a character with a 68% skill that included 8% bonus from stats: List the skill as 68%, and list 8% in the category bonus slot (e.g. AGILITY). Success in using the skill is based on rolling below 68%. Advancing the skill requires rolling above 60% (you need to get a roll above 68%, but you add the 8% ABILITY modifier to your roll). The net effect is the bonus from characteristics is a 'free' bump to success chances -- it doesn't make it harder to advance the skill. Having said that, I'm doing something different overall. My players have started suspecting that the campaign is just a testbed for rule testing (the first tip-off was when the "Rules Adjustment" section became a permanent part of the monthly newsletter). I'm allowing the Category Modifier (e.g. AGILITY) to go up over time. Every time a skill in that category crosses a "10s" boundary (10, 20, 30) the Category Modifier goes up by one. I've split the skill lines on the character sheet into Base + Bonus = Skill, so no one has to do the calculation on the fly, and we avoid the "Oh, I forgot to add the bonus in, so I'm going to do it now...for the fifth straight game in a row" cheat. The idea is to reward characters who specialize in a cluster of related skills, and frankly to boost advancement a little -- we're playing about 10 times a year and everyone wants to see some real progress. For a while I was toying with making unused skills atrophy at the end of each month, but that ended up being too much of a bookkeeping nightmare. Steve __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Apr 7 01:44:54 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 10:44:54 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Stacking spells Message-ID: <31675878.1081266295005.JavaMail.root@thecount.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Now THAT's a good reason to allow. *grin* For me, though, it becomes a hassle as a GM; it makes challenging my players much more difficult. I offset it with my Middle Earth metals, the sources of which I find much easier to control . David -----Original Message----- From: Leon Kirshtein Sent: Apr 6, 2004 7:25 AM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Stacking spells Why not, nothing in the rules that says you can't. Besides, its fun to do. From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Wed Apr 7 02:47:33 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 09:47:33 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Stacking spells In-Reply-To: <31675878.1081266295005.JavaMail.root@thecount.psp.pas.eart hlink.net> References: <31675878.1081266295005.JavaMail.root@thecount.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040406094240.02184ed0@incoming.verizon.net> At 08:44 AM 4/6/2004, you wrote: >Now THAT's a good reason to allow. *grin* > >For me, though, it becomes a hassle as a GM; it makes challenging my players much more difficult. I offset it with my Middle Earth metals, the sources of which I find much easier to control . > >David > >-----Original Message----- >From: Leon Kirshtein >Sent: Apr 6, 2004 7:25 AM >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Stacking spells > >Why not, nothing in the rules that says you can't. >Besides, its fun to do. One easy way to fix players that use the combo is to have them attacked by a sorcerer with a long bow... +15 damage to the normal at 80 meters makes the True Sword/Bladesharp 4 combo kind of a mute point! LOL On the other hand, if the players have True Sword they either had to sacrifice POW for the one-use of it, or are Rune Lords. If so the bonuses from True Sword are a minor add to their character... about what Bladesharp was when they worked a season to earn the treasure to buy it at level 4 from their Rune Priest. By this time they are probably facing other Rune Lords and major critters of Chaos where they will need the help. It may be time to retire them to the Temple and start new characters that will come to them for training. Bo From slposey at concentric.net Wed Apr 7 03:19:23 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 10:19:23 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Skill Category Modifiers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4072E69B.1060509@concentric.net> RAMEAU Alain wrote: > I do not add the skill modifier directly to the skill, but ask the player > to do the quick math each time, because : > - you need to deduct it from the skill for the experience roll > - multipliers/dividers to skills (from spells, such as fanaticism) or > from circumstances (two attacks if skill above 100%) do not affect the > skill modifier, which is added to the result after the calculation. > - probably other rules reason I can't remenber. > > Anyway, I am envisaging to get rid to the skill modifier as a general rule > because in most cases, the bonus/malus has a low addded value (especially > as the skill itself improves) compared to the complex calculation, and you > have to classify skills into categories to be able to use the correct > modifier, which is somewhat limittive. For instance, physical skills can > include, in addition to the physical capacity to do the job, the > theoritical knowledge surrounding the use of that skill. Sames goes from > relational skills, whihc include cultural knowledge, ...and so on... A > solution would be to increase dramatically the number of skills to cover > all such possibilities, but I prefer, on the contrary, reducing the number > of skills in my game, using general rule of malus, special or critical to > use broad skills in specialised matters. Yeah, I sort of buy that. Some systems get around that problem by having each skill derive its base chance directly from a set of stats rather than having skill categories per se, that way each skill effectively can have its own custom modifier. E.g. in FGU's Aftermath! & Daredevils the characteristics are Strength (Str), Health (Hlh), Deftness (Dft), Speed (Spd), Wit (Wt), and Will (Wl). There are also seven "Talents" indicating the Character's proclivities: Charismatic (CHAR), Combative (COMB), Communicative (COMM), Esthetic (ESTH) , Mechanical (MECH), Natural (NATU), Scientific (SCIE). Base skill chance is a sum of the ratings in these: Archery Dft+Wt+Comb Beast Riding Wt+Dft+Natu Blacksmithing Dft+Wt+Mech Climbing Str+Dft+Natu Driving, Automobile Dft+Wt+Mech First Aid Wt+Dft+Scie Literacy (specify lang) Wt+Wt+Comm Lock picking Dft+Wt+Mech Natural Pharmacology Wt+Wt+Natu Search (Urban/Rural) Wt+Wt+Natu Spot Hidden Wt+Wt+Natu Stealth Dft+Wt+Natu Swimming HLH+Str+Natu Tracking (Urban/Rural) Wt+Nat+Natu Weaponsmithing Dft+Wt+Mech GURPS sort of does the same thing with its physical and mental skills based directly off DEX or IQ. I've thought of trying something similar for BRP but never got around to it. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Apr 7 06:21:28 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 13:21:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Stacking spells In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040406094240.02184ed0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <20040406202128.94028.qmail@web41106.mail.yahoo.com> --- Bo Whitten wrote: > >Why not, nothing in the rules that says you can't. > >Besides, its fun to do. > > One easy way to fix players that use the combo is to > have them attacked by a sorcerer with a long bow... > +15 damage to the normal at 80 meters makes the True > Sword/Bladesharp 4 combo kind of a mute point! LOL Not going to scare anyone in the games I play an ref. Now if you want something scary try this: Great Troll with a trollmaul, Bluedgeon 6, Truemaul, Crush 4, Seal Wound. That is scary > On the other hand, if the players have True Sword > they either had to sacrifice POW for the one-use of > it, or are Rune Lords. If so the bonuses from True > Sword are a minor add to their character... about > what Bladesharp was when they worked a season to > earn the treasure to buy it at level 4 from their > Rune Priest. By this time they are probably facing > other Rune Lords and major critters of Chaos where > they will need the help. It may be time to retire > them to the Temple and start new characters that > will come to them for training. Actually, I call this a start of the campaign. :) ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ From Michael.Christian at corbis.com Wed Apr 7 07:31:21 2004 From: Michael.Christian at corbis.com (Michael.Christian at corbis.com) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 14:31:21 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Stacking spells Message-ID: <306F012D0A00D611BC9D0008C791927404ACA324@seamail1.continuum.corbis.corp> This would also require the spell cast on each arrow rather than the bow itself. That's the way I always played it, since the bow itself does no actual damage. Accuracy increasing spells work on either, but damage boosting must be on specific missles. Michael =========== One easy way to fix players that use the combo is to have them attacked by a sorcerer with a long bow... +15 damage to the normal at 80 meters makes the True Sword/Bladesharp 4 combo kind of a mute point! LOL _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From lancelot at inetnebr.com Wed Apr 7 07:34:27 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:34:27 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers In-Reply-To: <407262BD.10900@padrigu.gu.se> References: <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> <4071F783.904@concentric.net> <000801c41b73$250c5250$d1f08a90@P2800L> <40720945.3030002@sbcglobal.net> <001301c41b79$fdbecff0$d1f08a90@P2800L> <407262BD.10900@padrigu.gu.se> Message-ID: <40732263.8050201@inetnebr.com> Well I like what you are saying but we have one problem left... difficult skills advance faster than easy skills .skills with low percentages starting out are often seem to be difficult/complex skills.but everyone advances faster at them. Peter Johansson wrote: > Hi! > > This is how we do it, based on our interpretation of RQ2 modofid by > house rules etc, etc: > > Skill level of 60 % goes in to the skill level spot on the character > sheet > Bonus/modifier of 8% goes in to the bonus/modifier slot on the > character sheet > > The reason for this is that we believe the bonus is something that > should be benefitted from when making a skill roll but not something > that should lower your characters ability to make en experience roll. > > So, in a situation where the skill of the characters is tested, the > player adds the skill and the bonus and try to roll below 68 (60+8). > If the player succeed the character earns an experience check. > > When rolling for experience, the player has to roll above the skill > level, i.e. 60, not 68. > > The reasons we play it like this are three: > 1) We believe that you should always benefit from good stats, and not > only have a small head start at the moment the character is created. Yes I disliked folks catching up easily on the highly talented character.. > 2) If the bonus is included in the skill from the start (the 8% being > part of the 60%) a character with good stats are actually punished at > creation as PC:s with lower stats might raise theirs and thus also > raise their bonus easier than the PC with good stats at creation. well I would say they advance slower but start higher it is balanced... > 3) If a PC raise (or lower, Orlanth forbid) his or her bonus, you only > have to erase and rewrite one figure, not all the skills under the > skill category. > yup... > Regarding the page 36 rule of RQ3 stating "add the appropriate skills > category modifier to the roll before determining whether the > experience roll succeeded" I have interpreted this as a way of > achieving exactly what our system is doing above, i.e. a high bonus > should not hinder a PC when rolling for experience. It is based on the > asssumption that the skill and the bonus is already added on your char > sheet however. > > So, to sum up, our system always separate skill and bonus making it > somewhat more complicated for beginning players to understand what > they should be rolling under to make a skill. On the other hand there > is no confusion which figure you should roll against when making > experience rolls and you don't overuse your pencil eraser. :-) -- Lance Dyas Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying -- Lance Dyas Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Wed Apr 7 08:01:43 2004 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 17:01:43 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040406061939.0217ea60@incoming.verizon.net> References: <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> <4071F783.904@concentric.net> <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> <4071F783.904@concentric.net> <000801c41b73$250c5250$d1f08a90@P2800L> <6.0.3.0.0.20040406061939.0217ea60@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <407328C7.8010604@sbcglobal.net> FWIW, in Sandy Petersen's game, the Skill Category Modifier is figured into the skill percentage. For experience, we just roll higher than that number when we get a skill check. That's not to say everybody should do it that way, of course. Guy From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Apr 7 12:03:28 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 19:03:28 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers References: <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> <4071F783.904@concentric.net> <000801c41b73$250c5250$d1f08a90@P2800L> <40720945.3030002@sbcglobal.net><001301c41b79$fdbecff0$d1f08a90@P2800L> <407262BD.10900@padrigu.gu.se> Message-ID: <008801c41c44$95c00600$68417442@wizard> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Johansson" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 12:56 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers > Hi! > > snip> > When rolling for experience, the player has to roll above the skill > level, i.e. 60, not 68. > > The reasons we play it like this are three: > 1) We believe that you should always benefit from good stats, and not > only have a small head start at the moment the character is created. Actually, I generally operate on the theory that good stats are a nice start, but skill and training will eventually overcome. So put me down for the head start at creation, but no big bonus as you march along. > 2) If the bonus is included in the skill from the start (the 8% being > part of the 60%) a character with good stats are actually punished at > creation as PC:s with lower stats might raise theirs and thus also raise > their bonus easier than the PC with good stats at creation. Yes, punish the stat-mongers, I say. > 3) If a PC raise (or lower, Orlanth forbid) his or her bonus, you only > have to erase and rewrite one figure, not all the skills under the skill > category. AFAIC, the skill bonus loses all importance once the character's skill has exceeded Skill base + bonus. The skill stays the same, even if the bonus is decreased, or increased - unless the increase takes the character past the current Skill %ile, which is unlikely.. Steve Perrin, showing where he is coming from. From peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se Wed Apr 7 17:27:59 2004 From: peter.johansson at padrigu.gu.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 09:27:59 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers In-Reply-To: <40732263.8050201@inetnebr.com> References: <020601c41b65$1093b920$aabf36cb@P2800L> <4071F783.904@concentric.net> <000801c41b73$250c5250$d1f08a90@P2800L> <40720945.3030002@sbcglobal.net> <001301c41b79$fdbecff0$d1f08a90@P2800L> <407262BD.10900@padrigu.gu.se> <40732263.8050201@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <4073AD7F.4060909@padrigu.gu.se> lance dyas wrote: > Well I like what you are saying but we have one problem left... > difficult skills advance faster than easy skills .skills with low > percentages starting out are often seem to be difficult/complex > skills.but everyone advances faster at them. Ahhh, this is a good ol' problem... I agree with your concerns about relatively fast advancements for complicated skills through experience. I don't agree totally with the low base chance implying that a skill is hard to learn. Swimming for instance is a low base skill that is quite easy to learn fast. I tend to see a low base chance more of an indication of its natural usage. A high base chance means that a character will have used the skill naturally while growing up etc. I have always liked the uncomplicated but still quite sophisticated system for training in RQ2, based upon a simple formula where the number of silvers you have to pay to get a chance to increase your skill also indicates how long you will have to train to get that chance. However, as there is no equivalence for this in the experince roll system it gets a bit unbalanced. Another interesting problem about experience is which skills are suited for expeience checks. A really terrible case is a pure knowledge skill, for instance when you roll to remember the name of an ancient king, raise the skill after an experience roll, and suddenly know the names of other kings without studying... I have never bothered to do anything about it though because my players hardly ever learn knowledge skills anyway. :-) /Peter From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Wed Apr 7 18:29:30 2004 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:29:30 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Truesword and Bladesharp Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97F46@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Nikk Effingham: >IIRC Count Jul[i]an from, Strangers in Prax has both >Bladesharp and Truesword cast on his weapon, with >combined effect according to the stats. I think you're right, but all that tells me is that MOB agrees with you. Given his MGF pedigree, it would not surprise me. I'd put it down to some darn sneaky Lunar power. I'll take a look through my Heroes collection and see if there's a Q&A about it, but my mind isn't going to change on this one. RQ gets far enough out of hand already without stacking damage spells. I still fail to understand how anyone can run a rune-level game without major surgery to the game rules or fudging, and that would just make it worse. Phil Hibbs ======================================================= This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorised to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. ======================================================= From pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com Wed Apr 7 20:17:20 2004 From: pascal.dury at fr.unisys.com (Dury, Pascal) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:17:20 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Skill Category Modifiers Message-ID: If I remember correctly from the earlier drafts, a similar system has been implemented into SPQR by steve. I don't want to spoil anything so I'll let steve describe it if he want to. Pascal -----Message d'origine----- De : rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] De la part de Stephen Posey Envoy? : mardi 6 avril 2004 19:19 ? : RuneQuest rules discussion. Objet : Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Skill Category Modifiers RAMEAU Alain wrote: > I do not add the skill modifier directly to the skill, but ask the > player to do the quick math each time, because : > - you need to deduct it from the skill for the experience roll > - multipliers/dividers to skills (from spells, such as fanaticism) or > from circumstances (two attacks if skill above 100%) do not affect the > skill modifier, which is added to the result after the calculation. > - probably other rules reason I can't remenber. > > Anyway, I am envisaging to get rid to the skill modifier as a general > rule because in most cases, the bonus/malus has a low addded value > (especially as the skill itself improves) compared to the complex > calculation, and you have to classify skills into categories to be > able to use the correct modifier, which is somewhat limittive. For > instance, physical skills can include, in addition to the physical > capacity to do the job, the theoritical knowledge surrounding the use > of that skill. Sames goes from relational skills, whihc include > cultural knowledge, ...and so on... A solution would be to increase > dramatically the number of skills to cover all such possibilities, but > I prefer, on the contrary, reducing the number of skills in my game, > using general rule of malus, special or critical to use broad skills in specialised matters. Yeah, I sort of buy that. Some systems get around that problem by having each skill derive its base chance directly from a set of stats rather than having skill categories per se, that way each skill effectively can have its own custom modifier. E.g. in FGU's Aftermath! & Daredevils the characteristics are Strength (Str), Health (Hlh), Deftness (Dft), Speed (Spd), Wit (Wt), and Will (Wl). There are also seven "Talents" indicating the Character's proclivities: Charismatic (CHAR), Combative (COMB), Communicative (COMM), Esthetic (ESTH) , Mechanical (MECH), Natural (NATU), Scientific (SCIE). Base skill chance is a sum of the ratings in these: Archery Dft+Wt+Comb Beast Riding Wt+Dft+Natu Blacksmithing Dft+Wt+Mech Climbing Str+Dft+Natu Driving, Automobile Dft+Wt+Mech First Aid Wt+Dft+Scie Literacy (specify lang) Wt+Wt+Comm Lock picking Dft+Wt+Mech Natural Pharmacology Wt+Wt+Natu Search (Urban/Rural) Wt+Wt+Natu Spot Hidden Wt+Wt+Natu Stealth Dft+Wt+Natu Swimming HLH+Str+Natu Tracking (Urban/Rural) Wt+Nat+Natu Weaponsmithing Dft+Wt+Mech GURPS sort of does the same thing with its physical and mental skills based directly off DEX or IQ. I've thought of trying something similar for BRP but never got around to it. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Wed Apr 7 21:37:22 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 04:37:22 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Truesword and Bladesharp In-Reply-To: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97F46@exast02.capgemini .co.uk> References: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97F46@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040407041442.02193ec0@incoming.verizon.net> At 01:29 AM 4/7/2004, you wrote: >I still fail to understand how anyone can run a rune-level game without >major surgery to the game rules or fudging, and that would just make it >worse. > >Phil Hibbs Easy Phil, Rune Lords are Demigods... they don't have to fight the common man because the common man has enough common sense to avoid them. They do draw the Rune Lords of their god's enemies to them like flies to blood. They also draw the attention of other powerful beings. In my 26 years of running RQ I have had a number of players and even entire groups reach Rune Lord status... One has completed a Hero Quest or lived to retire. She was an Axe Maiden of Babeester Gor. She finally retired to White Wall after being a Rune Lord for 4 years. She fell in love and married a Sorcerer, had a son, and "drifted off the map" (as it were). All the rest kept running their Rune Lords as if they were just starting out with new characters. None of them bothered to read the histories of their cults I showed them, and I am not going to spoon feed them the answer to a Cult question no matter how good their INT roll unless they have Cult Lore. Even then I am going to do little beyond the answer they asked for, not real insight into the problem I based off of information about their Gods that I asked them to read and they didn't. I never did any kind of "Surgery" or "Fudging" to the system. Of all the game systems I have had the one I keep coming back to as a reference to a near perfect universal system is RQ. Even the AH version is very playable and very adaptable. It is just lethal. It is that lethality that makes it a great system. It is not an arbitrary lethality, or a system that pulls the teeth on combat for fear of a player loosing his character because he thinks leather armor and a 30% weapons skill entitles him to a Wyrm's hide. For the most part the players deaths (and most do die) are noble and meaningful. And the one that wasn't that leaps to mind was a great object lesson. He used an Initiate Divine Intervention rule to "get me out of here!" He was in the web of a giant Spider Woman. He had a POW of 15, he rolled a 15... he disappeared from the web... and from the world! He no longer exists. Everyone one of the other players threw things at him and commented on the basic problem with his request... "you couldn't have asked for US to be out of here?" In the end all of them died, the other 3 died achieving goals related to their quest in the next 3 games. But, they did accomplish what they set out to do, and almost made it into the Underworld alive. I have always felt the lethality of the game was easy enough to overcome with a little thought by the players once they started getting into the mid Initiate range of most of the Cults. Before that I do tend to move the hit locations on big damage rolls, or allow for Divine assistance in one form or another. But that is because in my games the Gods are alive and active. They can not physically appear on the plane, but they can create Avatars that do. So, your God may appear and test your faith, or skills, just to see if you are worthy. Kind of a long response... sorry. Guess I am just wordy this AM. Bo From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Wed Apr 7 22:06:46 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 05:06:46 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Truesword and Bladesharp In-Reply-To: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97F46@exast02.capgemini .co.uk> References: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97F46@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040407045746.021417d8@incoming.verizon.net> By the way... from Cults of Prax (the original system) TRUESWORD: Duration 15 min., Range handheld, Reusable. Doubles the damage done by any sword in the hand of the wielder, up to the maximum damage the sword can do. A broadsword will not do more than 9 points of damage, a greatsword will do up to 16 points, etc. This also does not increase damage due to damage bonuses or Bladesharp spells. It has no effect on a Fireblade. So, Truesword and Bladesharp 4 together on a broadsword together have the following effect +20% to hit, damage = ((1D8+1)x2)+DB+4. If an impale is archived and the damage becomes ((1D8+1)x2)+DB+13. That places the maximum damage at about 43 points for maximum human for an impale, and at 34 otherwise, with an average of 23/14 on average. As for the bonus it is likely that it raises the skill from 100+ to 120+... not much at that point in the course of things. Just wanted to be sure the situation was clear. Oh, and the original rules clearly state they work together. Bo From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Wed Apr 7 23:14:47 2004 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 14:14:47 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Truesword and Fireblade Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97F49@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> IIRC, both Truesword and Fireblade say that they act on the base damage of the weapon - one doubles it, the other replaces it. It's the word 'base' that is important. I don't have my rules to hand so I might be wrong. Phil Hibbs ======================================================= This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorised to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. ======================================================= From peter at maranci.net Thu Apr 8 00:51:24 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (peter at maranci.net) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 09:51:24 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] A RuneQuest wiki? In-Reply-To: <20040407120717.10447222733@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20040407120717.10447222733@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <56145.127.0.0.1.1081349484.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> I'm considering starting a RuneQuest wiki, and I could use some feedback. I recently had to move my site (http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm) to a new host (the old one had become completely impossible). The new guys offer a lot of cool free things, including wikis. I'm tempted, but I was wondering if an RQ wiki would get much use. Note that this would NOT be for Glorantha, or at least not for post-RQ Glorantha. And it would definitely not be for Hero Wars/Quest (although it would cover RQ-era HeroQuest(s), which adds to the confusion). I'd guess that a large chunk of it would be devoted to RQ2 and RQ3 rules, with additional coverage of classic RQ publications and materials. Please also note that unlike previous projects (such as the Chaos Project) I would not be doing the majority of the writing on this site. So are there enough people out there who would be interested in using *and adding to* a RuneQuest wiki? What do you think? You guys all know what a wiki is, right? BTW, I can choose either PhpWiki or TikiWiki. Can anyone recommend one over the other? PhpWiki looks better to me, but I'm just guessing. ->Peter peter at maranci.net From Aldanata at wmconnect.com Thu Apr 8 01:02:39 2004 From: Aldanata at wmconnect.com (Aldanata at wmconnect.com) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 11:02:39 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers Message-ID: <7f.44cd116b.2da5720f@wmconnect.com> In our group we seperate the bonus and the skill. ie 60% in theblank and 8% in the modifier slot. Since the rule states that you add the mod to the roll to see if you are over your skill for experience, our way you only have to roll over the number in the blank. From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Apr 8 01:53:49 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 10:53:49 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] A RuneQuest wiki? Message-ID: <9420897.1081353229170.JavaMail.root@statler.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Uh.."wiki"? David Smart -----Original Message----- From: peter at maranci.net Sent: Apr 7, 2004 9:51 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] A RuneQuest wiki? I'm considering starting a RuneQuest wiki, and I could use some feedback. I recently had to move my site (http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm) to a new host (the old one had become completely impossible). The new guys offer a lot of cool free things, including wikis. I'm tempted, but I was wondering if an RQ wiki would get much use. Note that this would NOT be for Glorantha, or at least not for post-RQ Glorantha. And it would definitely not be for Hero Wars/Quest (although it would cover RQ-era HeroQuest(s), which adds to the confusion). I'd guess that a large chunk of it would be devoted to RQ2 and RQ3 rules, with additional coverage of classic RQ publications and materials. Please also note that unlike previous projects (such as the Chaos Project) I would not be doing the majority of the writing on this site. So are there enough people out there who would be interested in using *and adding to* a RuneQuest wiki? What do you think? You guys all know what a wiki is, right? BTW, I can choose either PhpWiki or TikiWiki. Can anyone recommend one over the other? PhpWiki looks better to me, but I'm just guessing. ->Peter peter at maranci.net _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From peter at maranci.net Thu Apr 8 02:43:05 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:43:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] (no subject) Message-ID: <58599.127.0.0.1.1081356185.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> *David Smart wrote: > Uh.."wiki"? Oops. A wiki is a sort of open online enyclopedia, basically. Users can add their own articles and internal links. They're searchable, and can be very useful reference tools. There are wikis covering all sorts of topics, plus more general ones of course. A google for "wiki" will turn up a lot. There's an entry for RuneQuest at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/), but a RQ wiki would contain much more detailed information. Perhaps I shouldn't say it, but it might even contain a lot of RQ (2 & 3) rules, making it a handy online reference guide. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From MurfNMurf at aol.com Thu Apr 8 02:49:15 2004 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:49:15 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] A RuneQuest wiki? Message-ID: <1f1.1d59bdee.2da58b0b@aol.com> In a message dated 4/7/2004 9:51:25 AM Central Standard Time, peter at maranci.net writes: I'm considering starting a RuneQuest wiki, and I could use some feedback. I recently had to move my site (http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm) to a new host (the old one had become completely impossible). The new guys offer a lot of cool free things, including wikis. I'm tempted, but I was wondering if an RQ wiki would get much use. Note that this would NOT be for Glorantha, or at least not for post-RQ Glorantha. And it would definitely not be for Hero Wars/Quest (although it would cover RQ-era HeroQuest(s), which adds to the confusion). I'd guess that a large chunk of it would be devoted to RQ2 and RQ3 rules, with additional coverage of classic RQ publications and materials. Please also note that unlike previous projects (such as the Chaos Project) I would not be doing the majority of the writing on this site. So are there enough people out there who would be interested in using *and adding to* a RuneQuest wiki? What do you think? You guys all know what a wiki is, right? BTW, I can choose either PhpWiki or TikiWiki. Can anyone recommend one over the other? PhpWiki looks better to me, but I'm just guessing. I have several pretty large RQ-related documents I'd be happy to send to your new site, Pete, just tell me where :) You don't mind if its stuff thats already appeared on the RQ Rules list, do you? Me, I don't have the *slightest* what wiki is, but if its similar to your Chaos Project site, then I think I grasp the concept ;) Best. -Ken Murphy- "One of his tricks of persuasion was to cut open the breast of a victim, pull out the still beating heart, and gnaw upon it with great relish while the next menu object looked on in stark terror. No wonder few withheld information from L'Olonais" --Blackbeard, AH Games From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Apr 8 04:15:04 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 13:15:04 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] (no subject) Message-ID: <16015701.1081361704417.JavaMail.root@bert.psp.pas.earthlink.net> So no one validates the data being posted? Interesting. Sounds kinda like some of the old bulletin boards I used to frequent before the Web took off. David -----Original Message----- From: Peter Maranci Sent: Apr 7, 2004 11:43 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] (no subject) *David Smart wrote: > Uh.."wiki"? Oops. A wiki is a sort of open online enyclopedia, basically. Users can add their own articles and internal links. They're searchable, and can be very useful reference tools. There are wikis covering all sorts of topics, plus more general ones of course. A google for "wiki" will turn up a lot. There's an entry for RuneQuest at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/), but a RQ wiki would contain much more detailed information. Perhaps I shouldn't say it, but it might even contain a lot of RQ (2 & 3) rules, making it a handy online reference guide. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From peter at maranci.net Thu Apr 8 05:11:13 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:11:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] A RuneQuest wiki? Message-ID: <33645.127.0.0.1.1081365073.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> *David Smart wrote: > So no one validates the data being posted? Interesting. Sounds kinda like > some of the old bulletin boards I used to frequent before the Web took > off. The short answer is that the administrator (me, in this case) has the ability to remove data, or (I believe) to require prior validation. I have quite a bit of editing experience, of course, but my hope is that I wouldn't have to do much. I'd think that the people who post would be trustworthy. That has apparently been the experience of most wikis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Apr 8 06:31:44 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 21:31:44 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Truesword and Bladesharp In-Reply-To: <20040407120717.57F6B222738@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040407203144.5708.qmail@web9604.mail.yahoo.com> Phil Hibbs: > Nikk Effingham: > > >IIRC Count Jul[i]an from, Strangers in Prax has both > >Bladesharp and Truesword cast on his weapon, with > >combined effect according to the stats. > > I think you're right, but all that tells me is that MOB agrees with you. > Given his MGF pedigree, it would not surprise me. I'd put it down to some > darn sneaky Lunar power. I'll take a look through my Heroes collection and > see if there's a Q&A about it, but my mind isn't going to change on this > one. RQ gets far enough out of hand already without stacking damage spells. In RQ2 a Truesword doubled damage to a maximum of the weapon damage and Bladesharp was restricted to 4 points, so the spells did not stack to do a huge amount of extra damage. In RQ3. Truesword rolls weapon damage twice and Bladesharp is unlimited, so you can have massive amounts of damage, especially if you retain the RQ2 rules for slashing. A slashing RQ3 Greatsword with Truesword does 8D8 damage (2D8 normal damage, slashes for 4D8, Truesworded to 8D8) so adding a couple of points of Bladesharp isn't going to make much difference overall. > I still fail to understand how anyone can run a rune-level game without > major surgery to the game rules or fudging, and that would just make it > worse. Unfortunately, you have to play in one for a while to fully appreciate how they work properly. Bo Whitten: > >I still fail to understand how anyone can run a rune-level game without > >major surgery to the game rules or fudging, and that would just make it > >worse. > > > >Phil Hibbs > > Easy Phil, Rune Lords are Demigods... they don't have to fight the common > man because the common man has enough common sense to avoid them. They do > draw the Rune Lords of their god's enemies to them like flies to blood. > They also draw the attention of other powerful beings. Nah, demigods are demigods, Rune Lords are just Rune Lords. They do draw lots of nasty attention, though. > In my 26 years of running RQ I have had a number of players and even entire > groups reach Rune Lord status... One has completed a Hero Quest or lived to > retire. She was an Axe Maiden of Babeester Gor. She finally retired to > White Wall after being a Rune Lord for 4 years. She fell in love and > married a Sorcerer, had a son, and "drifted off the map" (as it were). > > All the rest kept running their Rune Lords as if they were just starting > out with new characters. None of them bothered to read the histories of > their cults I showed them, and I am not going to spoon feed them the answer > to a Cult question no matter how good their INT roll unless they have Cult > Lore. Even then I am going to do little beyond the answer they asked for, > not real insight into the problem I based off of information about their > Gods that I asked them to read and they didn't. To be fair, that has nothing to do with playing Rune Lords, but everything to do with not being particularly interested in Glorantha, or the world being played in. Some people enjoy getting involved in the cult and its history, chasing after cult enemies, befriending cult allies and so on. Some people take a more simplistic point of view - "Humakt gives free sword training and free Bladesharp 4 - cool!". Basically all you need to start off with is "Storm Bull hates Chaos, Humakt hates undead and loves honour, Orlanh hates chaos and lunars, Aldrya hates trolls and dwarves" and so on. > I never did any kind of "Surgery" or "Fudging" to the system. Of all the > game systems I have had the one I keep coming back to as a reference to a > near perfect universal system is RQ. Even the AH version is very playable > and very adaptable. It is just lethal. It is that lethality that makes it a > great system. It is not an arbitrary lethality, or a system that pulls the > teeth on combat for fear of a player loosing his character because he > thinks leather armor and a 30% weapons skill entitles him to a Wyrm's hide. We had loads of house rules and extensions to the rules, mainly to make the game flow better and to extend to higher levels. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. Did it work? Yes, absolutely. Bo Whitten: > By the way... from Cults of Prax (the original system) > > TRUESWORD: Duration 15 min., Range handheld, Reusable. > Doubles the damage done by any sword in the hand of the wielder, up to the > maximum damage the sword can do. A broadsword will not do more than 9 > points of damage, a greatsword will do up to 16 points, etc. This also does > not increase damage due to damage bonuses or Bladesharp spells. It has no > effect on a Fireblade. > Oh, and the original rules clearly state they work together. So, there! (Sticking tongue out) Simon ____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Thu Apr 8 07:34:33 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 14:34:33 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Truesword and Bladesharp In-Reply-To: <20040407203144.5708.qmail@web9604.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040407120717.57F6B222738@boomstick.screwheads.net> <20040407203144.5708.qmail@web9604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040407142934.021e9ec0@incoming.verizon.net> At 01:31 PM 4/7/2004, you wrote: >In RQ2 a Truesword doubled damage to a maximum of the weapon damage and >Bladesharp was restricted to 4 points, so the spells did not stack to do a >huge amount of extra damage. In RQ3. Truesword rolls weapon damage twice and >Bladesharp is unlimited, so you can have massive amounts of damage, >especially if you retain the RQ2 rules for slashing. A slashing RQ3 >Greatsword with Truesword does 8D8 damage (2D8 normal damage, slashes for >4D8, Truesworded to 8D8) so adding a couple of points of Bladesharp isn't >going to make much difference overall. I disagree with this interpretation... it would be 6D8, not 8D8; Max damage of weapon for True Sword doesn't mean Max the Slash Damage. In fact the True (weapon) spell from RQ3 says it does not double any damage except the base weapon damage. Slashing is a damage bonus, not base damage. As for Bladesharp... and if a sorcerer were to cast his Damage Boost spell on the sword (having an INT of 21) he could add a +20 to the damage... he could also cause a 20 AP effect on the target if he was friends with it and had Damage Reduction. So the "extreme" damage is really a relative idea. Bo From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Apr 8 07:51:17 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 14:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Truesword and Bladesharp In-Reply-To: <6.0.3.0.0.20040407142934.021e9ec0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <20040407215117.60405.qmail@web41102.mail.yahoo.com> --- Bo Whitten wrote: > I disagree with this interpretation... it would be > 6D8, not 8D8; Max damage of weapon for True Sword > doesn't mean Max the Slash Damage. In fact the True > (weapon) spell from RQ3 says it does not double any > damage except the base weapon damage. Slashing is a > damage bonus, not base damage. We have always played that it would be 8d8. An impaling scimitar would do 2d6+2+14. > As for Bladesharp... and if a sorcerer were to cast > his Damage Boost spell on the sword (having an INT > of 21) he could add a +20 to the damage... or +22 depending on rule interpretation (that is why RQ3 sorcery is out the window in my campaing.) > So the "extreme" damage is really a relative idea. Yes, agree. I have once seen a character do 134 points of damage on a blow. I would consider that extreme, 30 to 50 pts on the other hand is not unusual in games I play. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Apr 8 08:04:23 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 17:04:23 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] A RuneQuest wiki? Message-ID: <4569701.1081375463565.JavaMail.root@grover.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Peter, I gotta admit.. I find the concept intriguing. David Smart -----Original Message----- From: Peter Maranci Sent: Apr 7, 2004 2:11 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] A RuneQuest wiki? *David Smart wrote: > So no one validates the data being posted? Interesting. Sounds kinda like > some of the old bulletin boards I used to frequent before the Web took > off. The short answer is that the administrator (me, in this case) has the ability to remove data, or (I believe) to require prior validation. I have quite a bit of editing experience, of course, but my hope is that I wouldn't have to do much. I'd think that the people who post would be trustworthy. That has apparently been the experience of most wikis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From steve at perrinworlds.com Thu Apr 8 12:09:38 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 19:09:38 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] A RuneQuest wiki? References: <20040407120717.10447222733@boomstick.screwheads.net> <56145.127.0.0.1.1081349484.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> Message-ID: <00ae01c41d0e$9bf09740$68417442@wizard> I am currently working with a Tiki Wiki as I work on Chris Allen's GMFANGS game (which is starting to work out to something rather special). The Tiki Wiki is not special. Apparently there are several inherent bugs which make saving anything to the file very tedious and repetitive. And the Wiki formatting is a real pain. Don't know anything about the other kind. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 7:51 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] A RuneQuest wiki? > I'm considering starting a RuneQuest wiki, and I could use some feedback. > snip< > > You guys all know what a wiki is, right? > > BTW, I can choose either PhpWiki or TikiWiki. Can anyone recommend one > over the other? PhpWiki looks better to me, but I'm just guessing. > > ->Peter > peter at maranci.net From phil.hibbs at cgey.com Thu Apr 8 18:05:05 2004 From: phil.hibbs at cgey.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:05:05 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Skill Category Modifiers Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97F4F@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Aldanata at wmconnect.com: >Since the rule states that you add the mod to the roll >to see if you are over your skill for experience, our way >you only have to roll over the number in the blank. I do the same, but it causes confusion when you get to within your category modifier of 100%. RE: Truesword and Bladesharp Simon Phipp: >A slashing RQ3 Greatsword with Truesword does 8D8 damage >(2D8 normal damage, slashes for 4D8, Truesworded to 8D8) What is this "slashing" to which you refer? A special success with a non-impaling weapon does an automatic knockback, but no extra damage. My party hate dragonsnails and spiders, because you get no bonus for a special success against them with large or blunt weapons. Also, the only spell that stacks with impaling damage is Fireblade, which replaces the base weapon damage. Bonuses are clearly not doubled on an impale. Phil Hibbs ======================================================= This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorised to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. ======================================================= From andrew at crashbox.com Thu Apr 8 22:03:57 2004 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 05:03:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] A RuneQuest wiki? In-Reply-To: <33645.127.0.0.1.1081365073.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> References: <33645.127.0.0.1.1081365073.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> Message-ID: I've used some nice wikis and some that I didn't like. They serve a definite niche that Forums and Lists don't cover. My biggest gripe about some of them is that it is hard to get you head around the whole mass of material. Wikis are soup of data, generally poorly organized and some don't give you access to the 'index' of things that they link to. It is hard to browse at a high level and see all that a particular Wiki has to offer. When you choose one, please make sure it has the index or title option. Here is a good choice tree: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiChoicetree -Andrew On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Peter Maranci wrote: > Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:11:13 -0400 (EDT) > From: Peter Maranci > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: [RQ-Rules] A RuneQuest wiki? > > *David Smart wrote: > > So no one validates the data being posted? Interesting. Sounds kinda > like > some of the old bulletin boards I used to frequent before the Web > took > > off. > > The short answer is that the administrator (me, in this case) has the > ability to remove data, or (I believe) to require prior validation. I have > quite a bit of editing experience, of course, but my hope is that I > wouldn't have to do much. > > I'd think that the people who post would be trustworthy. That has > apparently been the experience of most wikis: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections > > ->Peter > -- > Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net > Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From peter at maranci.net Thu Apr 8 22:45:29 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 08:45:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] A RuneQuest wiki? Message-ID: <58076.127.0.0.1.1081428329.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> *Ken Murphy wrote: > I have several pretty large RQ-related documents I'd be happy to send to > your new site, Pete, just tell me where :) My regular email address would be fine. But it might be better to wait until I set up the wiki, and then put them in yourself. I should probably mention that part of what a wiki is means that other people can and probably *will* edit your work, or at least comment on it, so it's apparently SOP that anything in a wiki is copyleft. > You don't mind if its stuff thats already appeared on the RQ Rules list, > do you? Hell no! If that was a problem, a good portion of my RQ site wouldn't exist. :D *Steve Perrin wrote: > The Tiki Wiki is not special. Apparently there are several inherent bugs > which make saving anything to the file very tedious and repetitive. And > the Wiki formatting is a real pain. Don't know anything about the other > kind. Thanks for the tip. Yeah, the Tiki Wiki did look confusing and, well, just plain bad. The Php Wiki was *much* better looking, and their web site was much more coherent - which doesn't mean the software is necessarily better, but it's a good sign. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Fri Apr 9 00:37:34 2004 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (alan richards) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 15:37:34 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 4, Issue 4 In-Reply-To: <20040406202141.F230F222741@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <4661D965-896A-11D8-B9FB-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> Apologies first. 1. I'm going to address several threads in one e-mail. Laziness on my part I am afraid. OK here we go. 1. Stacking spells I don't allow Truesword and Fireblade to stack. Possibly a follower of a Fire and War God might be able to use both on the same weapon. But in Glorantha there isn't one. And I never felt the need to allow Cults in other worlds to do this. I do allow Bladesharp to stack with either. The Bladesharp only increases 'skill' not damage in this case. 2. Cultural superiority I was fascinated by the Aztec v. Spaniards discussion. Here's another one: The Mongols wipe the floor with European Knights and were only prevented from further conquest when their leader died and they all returned home. The Mongols used the concepts of 'fire and movement', of promoting officers on the basis of merit not accident of birth and used lightweight composite fabric armour. None of these lessons were learned by the west until after WW1! The ruling/warring classes just closed their eyes to the lessons and went back to business as usual. 3. Category bonuses. I haven't used the RQ category bonuses and skill base chances for years but when I did I kept the category separate. Partly to make it (slightly) easier to roll for experience but also because when characteristics are improved permanently (i.e. training) or temporarily (i.e. Co-ordination spell) it is less effort and has less chance for error or 'error' to change the category modifier than it is is to alter all of the skills in that category. As an aside due to a touch of retentiveness on my part I made the experience roll: [100 - Current skill] + skill category modifier or less on d100. The [ ] brackets indicate a 'step function'. Which is ignored if the contents are less than 1. So a character always has a chance equal to their skill category modifier to improve a skill. Regards Alan From Aldanata at wmconnect.com Fri Apr 9 02:17:46 2004 From: Aldanata at wmconnect.com (Aldanata at wmconnect.com) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 12:17:46 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Skill Category Modifiers Message-ID: <11c.2d9aeb1e.2da6d52a@wmconnect.com> In a message dated 4/8/04 3:05:39 AM Central Daylight Time, phil.hibbs at cgey.com writes: > Aldanata at wmconnect.com: > >Since the rule states that you add the mod to the roll > >to see if you are over your skill for experience, our way > >you only have to roll over the number in the blank. > > I do the same, but it causes confusion when you get to within your category > modifier of 100%. > When the skill reaches that point we go one of two ways, players choice. Either roll under the modifier to go up or roll over 100-mod From tiberius at runequest.za.org Sat Apr 10 22:02:34 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 14:02:34 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers Message-ID: <1142.155.239.185.61.1081598554.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Mechanshef wrote: So it looks like I may have misunderstood the rules. In the section titles "Making an Experience Roll" (Page 36 of the players book - RQ III Deluxe Boxed Edition) it states: "Add the appropriate skills category modifier to the roll before determining whether the experience roll succeeded" I do not have the rules in front of me but believe that the official errata mentioned something about making exp rolls. Check out the consolidated rule book (RQ3 deluxe single book) or look on the net for errata, they may clear soem things up. Tony -- Vacca Foeda! From tiberius at runequest.za.org Sat Apr 10 22:21:38 2004 From: tiberius at runequest.za.org (tiberius at runequest.za.org) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 14:21:38 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RuneQuest Wiki Message-ID: <1183.155.239.185.61.1081599698.squirrel@webmail.wack.co.za> Peter Maranci wrote about starting a rQ Wiki. I am keen - thanks for explaining what a wiki was:) Will the engine allow other people to add oon or correct other peoples entries? So if you miss a point or someone wants to elaborate the can? Tony -- Vacca Foeda! From soltakss at yahoo.com Sun Apr 11 03:06:53 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 18:06:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Truesword and Fireblade In-Reply-To: <20040407213505.06A2122274F@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040410170653.12611.qmail@web9603.mail.yahoo.com> Phil Hibbs: > IIRC, both Truesword and Fireblade say that they act on the base damage of > the weapon - one doubles it, the other replaces it. It's the word 'base' > that is important. I don't have my rules to hand so I might be wrong. That's why we played that Truesword and Fireblade were incompatible. Bo Whitten: > At 01:31 PM 4/7/2004, you wrote: > >In RQ2 a Truesword doubled damage to a maximum of the weapon damage and > >Bladesharp was restricted to 4 points, so the spells did not stack to do a > >huge amount of extra damage. In RQ3. Truesword rolls weapon damage twice > and > >Bladesharp is unlimited, so you can have massive amounts of damage, > >especially if you retain the RQ2 rules for slashing. A slashing RQ3 > >Greatsword with Truesword does 8D8 damage (2D8 normal damage, slashes for > >4D8, Truesworded to 8D8) so adding a couple of points of Bladesharp isn't > >going to make much difference overall. > > I disagree with this interpretation... it would be 6D8, not 8D8; Max damage > of weapon for True Sword doesn't mean Max the Slash Damage. In fact the > True (weapon) spell from RQ3 says it does not double any damage except the > base weapon damage. Slashing is a damage bonus, not base damage. We read it as meaning that weapon damage was increased/rolled again, so a slash does weapon damage twice, an impale does weapon damage + max weapon damage. The way we played, that meant that a slashing Greatsword does 4D8 RQ Truesword doubles it up to 32, a Truespear would impale to 1D8 + 10 doubled to a max of 18. We only considered weapon damage + dmage bonus + additional damage, not having a concept of base damage or, indeed, base attack %. Makes things a lot simpler. Otherwise you have silly effects like - I am attacking a werewolf with an iron sword and a 2D6 damage bonus, but I only use the 1D8+1 damage as the 2D6 is not iron damage. I know this is how some people play it, but it is too complex for a simple soul like me. Simon ____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Sun Apr 11 03:15:58 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 18:15:58 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: Truesword and Bladesharp In-Reply-To: <20040410170706.E82DC22270A@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040410171558.14437.qmail@web9603.mail.yahoo.com> Phil Hibbs: > Simon Phipp: > >A slashing RQ3 Greatsword with Truesword does 8D8 damage > >(2D8 normal damage, slashes for 4D8, Truesworded to 8D8) > > What is this "slashing" to which you refer? A special success with a > non-impaling weapon does an automatic knockback, but no extra damage. My > party hate dragonsnails and spiders, because you get no bonus for a special > success against them with large or blunt weapons. Sorry, this is an RQ2 rule that we carried over to RQ3. A slashing type of weapon, e.g. a sword or axe, does extra damage on a special that is similar to an impale but not as good, you roll weapon damage twice, not weapon + max. There are rules about it sticking in, but we never used those. We thought the RQ2 slash/crush/impale were better than RQ3 specials so we kept them, except that we changed Crush (RQ2 - weapon damage + Damage bonus + max damage bonus) to weapon damage + DB + DB, so a troll maul with a 2D6 DB would do 2D8 + 4D6 on a special. I'm not saying that this is how everyone should play it, just how we played it. > Also, the only spell that stacks with impaling damage is Fireblade, which > replaces the base weapon damage. Bonuses are clearly not doubled on an > impale. Depending on your personal interpretation. We played that weapon damage clearly WAS doubled on an impale, this was RQ2, and we carried on through the flawed RQ3 system. See Ya Simon ____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Apr 12 22:42:28 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 12:42:28 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Skill Category Modifiers Message-ID: well, I don't add them together, because of all the extra work if someone increases their DEX, etc. (Then you lot will have to alter all the skills on the sheet, where I only have to alter on the skills-modifiers)-if that's what this discussion has been about (I play RQ3) _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From bick10 at comcast.net Mon Apr 12 23:44:47 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:44:47 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Skill Category Modifiers Message-ID: <041220041344.25056.407A9D4F0001B40D000061E02200750744FFCFCE949C96@comcast.net> > well, I don't add them together, because of all the extra work if someone > increases their DEX, etc. (Then you lot will have to alter all the skills on > the sheet, where I only have to alter on the skills-modifiers)-if that's > what this discussion has been about (I play RQ3) I much prefer that the Modifiers are added to the skills on the character sheet. Then I never have to question if are they adding it in when they roll, or not. Having dealt with players that cheated, I made a ruling that is now a house rule. "The player doesn't add the skill modifier in at the character creation then they loose them." As for increasing stats, then needing to redo all their skills... Good. It has the added benefit of driving home all that the stat increase/decrease does. One player that used sorcery to increase DEX had two percentile numbers written for each affected skill. One for without the spell, and one with the spell in affect. Jim Bickmeyer From carpgachair at yahoo.com Tue Apr 13 01:25:55 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 08:25:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Skill Category Modifiers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040412152555.4320.qmail@web12401.mail.yahoo.com> What extra work? Most players I know consider the changes on the character sheet part of celebrating the advancement and rejoice in it. Paul Cardwell --- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > well, I don't add them together, because of all the > extra work if someone > increases their DEX, etc. (Then you lot will have to > alter all the skills on > the sheet, where I only have to alter on the > skills-modifiers)-if that's > what this discussion has been about (I play RQ3) > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets > beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Tue Apr 13 02:53:43 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 09:53:43 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Skill Category Modifiers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040412095311.0218bec0@incoming.verizon.net> At 05:42 AM 4/12/2004, you wrote: >well, I don't add them together, because of all the extra work if someone increases their DEX, etc. (Then you lot will have to alter all the skills on the sheet, where I only have to alter on the skills-modifiers)-if that's what this discussion has been about (I play RQ3) I just reenter the data on the spreadsheet and reprint... it is even easier than yours. LOL From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Tue Apr 13 23:33:45 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:33:45 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Skill Category Modifiers Message-ID: Jim wrote: >I much prefer that the Modifiers are added to the skills on the character sheet. For combat, if you split your skill when above 100%, or multiply it by magic (Fanaticism), if I remember correctly the RQ3 rules, the skill modifier is not so divided or multiplied, but you add it to your skill after such calculation. E.g. A 108% Swordman having a +10% combat skills modifier, could make two attacks, each with (108/2)+10=64%. So how could you do so if the skill directly includes the modifiers ? >One player that used sorcery to increase DEX had two percentile numbers written for each affected skill. One for without the spell, and one with the spell in affect. OK if the sorcerer always uses the same intensity in his spell. But if he decides to use the spell with a different intensity, the DEX increase will be different, and the skill modifier also different ! That's to avoid all these calculations that I envisage to simply drop skill modifiers. When you reach a fair level in a skill, what the point of doing all such bookkeeping and calculate all the modifiers for a mere +2% or so ! Alain http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/rq.htm From peter at maranci.net Tue Apr 13 23:37:29 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 09:37:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] The RuneQuest Wiki is now ready for input Message-ID: <60507.127.0.0.1.1081863449.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> I've taken the bull by the horns and started the RuneQuest wiki. It's still mostly blank, of course, but you can add to it (or edit my mistakes) at http://maranci.net/ . The History section is mostly copied from my own History of RQ article on my site. It was a quick copy & paste job, so yes, please feel free to correct or rewrite it as needed - that's what a wiki is about, after all. The original text of the article is here: http://www.maranci.net/rqpast.htm I put down a few starter notes for information about the RQ3 system, too. By the way, you can also add comments to any page in the wiki. It's kind of fun! ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Apr 14 09:07:38 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:07:38 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: RQ-Rules Digest, Vol 4, Issue 4 Message-ID: >Here's another one: >The Mongols wipe the floor with European Knights and were only prevented >from further conquest when their leader died and they all returned home. > >The Mongols used the concepts of 'fire and movement', of promoting officers >on the basis of merit not accident of birth and used lightweight composite >fabric armour. > >None of these lessons were learned by the west until after WW1! > >The ruling/warring classes just closed their eyes to the lessons and went >back to business as usual. Well, that's where culture and peremises comes into the picture. Mongol warriors were born and raised on horseback, european Knights weren't. Their wiev on the role for a warrior made it impssible to convert to the mongol way. (this is not to be meant as an opposing mail, just my comments on a topic I find extreamely interresting.) An author of a book on warfare (cannot remember either the name of the author or the book) has a thesis on how to wage war as symetrical and asymetrical warfare: Symetrical warfare is when the war is waged in patterns of a game, where the opponents respect eachother, and follow the rules. Casualties are usually low, and there's an increasing occurrance of ritualisation. Examples are: Male Deer duels, (norht)indian warfare(prior to the white man) and european warfare from the 17th century up to the 1st world war. This is a thin balance easily disrupted by evolution of new technology. If new technology establishes itself too quick to let the rules compensate or a superior enemy opposes you, warfare has a tendency to turn into asymetrical warfare, characterized by a hunter-prey-mentality where the superior part tend to disrespect the opponent. Examples are: Mongol warfare in (eastern)europe, predators hunting deer, Imperialist europeans fighting natives in asia and africa (the hollow point bullet was forbidden in an arms conference in 1850, but the english were later allowed to use it against Zulus and Xhosas due to their "savage nature"...) and submarine warfare in 1st and 2nd WW. So why didn't the europeans try to adopt to the Mongol superior way of waging war? I'd say it's because: -they disapered before anybody got time to alter their tactics. -it is very expensive to train and field elite horse archers. -tradition rendered that kind of warfare as highly dishonourable. _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Wed Apr 14 09:13:10 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:13:10 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Skill Category Modifiers Message-ID: >As for increasing stats, then needing to redo all their skills... Good. It >has the added benefit of driving home all that the stat increase/decrease >does. One player that used sorcery to increase DEX had two percentile >numbers written for each affected skill. One for without the spell, and >one with the spell in affect. > >Jim Bickmeyer ....and your point is??? Well, people can cheat just as much by adding the skills as not. In my games, I state that you don't add the skill modifier to the skill, and I manage to monitor my players (they don't ever cheat, by the way; powergamers are excludet from my sessions). I still find it easier for -say a sourcerer; with a stat increasing spell to just have to write down the modified stats on the skill modifiers rather than the entire skills list of some 60 skills.... _________________________________________________________________ Last ned MSN Messenger gratis http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From peter at maranci.net Sat Apr 17 04:11:21 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:11:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ Wiki Message-ID: <44865.127.0.0.1.1082139081.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> Just a small explanation about the wiki: You can click on links just like an ordinary web page. If a link has a ? at the end, though, that means that page doesn't exist yet. You can create that page just by clicking on the question mark and entering your text. It's instant. You can also create links to new, as yet uncreated pages by simply enclosing whatever you want in brackets, [like this]. Of course you can also use ordinary html links to reach external sites. You can also easily edit any entry, or add comments - the links are right on each page. The link to directly jump to the RQ wiki is http://www.maranci.net/index.php?RuneQuest And now I'll lay off the subject, at least for a while. :D ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From peter at maranci.net Tue Apr 20 00:53:15 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:53:15 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Differences between RQ1 and RQ2? Message-ID: <52868.127.0.0.1.1082386395.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> I've put in some more work on the RQ Wiki (http://www.maranci.net/index.php?RuneQuest), and I've run into a problem. I've started to describe the differences between RQ2 and RQ3, but since I don't have RuneQuest 1 I don't have any idea what changes were made from that version. Does anyone know? Just to repeat, ANYONE can edit, change, or add material to the wiki. Several people already have, in fact; unfortunately they didn't sign their work (which is okay, signatures are not required), so I can't thank them personally. Except here, of course. Oh yeah, there's also a section for RuneQuest links. Please feel free to add some. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Apr 20 01:32:26 2004 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:32:26 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Oliver J and RQIV In-Reply-To: <20040419145335.19EC422270C@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <4083FF1A.22593.50096DF@localhost> Someone tell me what just did happen to Oliver Jovanovic.. -- Tom Zunder - tom at zunder.org.uk ICQ: 152799 YM!: tzunder AOL: tomzunder MSN: (as email) http://tavern.elric.org.uk http://www.zunder.org.uk From slposey at concentric.net Tue Apr 20 02:43:17 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:43:17 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Differences between RQ1 and RQ2? In-Reply-To: <52868.127.0.0.1.1082386395.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> References: <52868.127.0.0.1.1082386395.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> Message-ID: <408401A5.4050401@concentric.net> Peter Maranci wrote: > I've put in some more work on the RQ Wiki > (http://www.maranci.net/index.php?RuneQuest), and I've run into a problem. > I've started to describe the differences between RQ2 and RQ3, but since I > don't have RuneQuest 1 I don't have any idea what changes were made from > that version. Does anyone know? > > Just to repeat, ANYONE can edit, change, or add material to the wiki. > Several people already have, in fact; unfortunately they didn't sign their > work (which is okay, signatures are not required), so I can't thank them > personally. Except here, of course. > > Oh yeah, there's also a section for RuneQuest links. Please feel free to > add some. I have both RQ1 and RQ2. The differences are pretty minimal IIRC; mostly on the order of correcting some typoes and a few misc. clarifications. I'll try to have a look at them over the next few days and make some notes. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From esoteric at crashbox.com Tue Apr 20 03:19:25 2004 From: esoteric at crashbox.com (Brad Furst) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:19:25 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Oliver J and RQIV In-Reply-To: <4083FF1A.22593.50096DF@localhost> References: <4083FF1A.22593.50096DF@localhost> Message-ID: >Someone tell me what just did happen to Oliver Jovanovic.. When? Ever? Or do you mean that something new happened in recent days/weeks? If you mean to inquire of his personal life at the time of the demise of RQIV, then you can discover his trials and tribulations by googling his name. His personal life is probably off-topic for this list, though. -- Brad Furst esoteric at crashbox.com From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Apr 20 06:56:00 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:56:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Differences between RQ1 and RQ2? Message-ID: <14452870.1082408160198.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Could someone describe to me the physical manifestation (if any) of the RQIII sorcerous spell "Skill of Life"? Since the spell doesn't block the effects of strangulation by garrote/hands/chokehold, I'm of the opinion that it's some kind of physical/energy/magical membrane that forms over the mouth and nose. Is there some kind of official/generally accepted writeup on the spell that provides this kind of detail? David Smart From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Apr 20 06:56:47 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 15:56:47 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] "Skin of Life" Details? Message-ID: <2854691.1082408207305.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Could someone describe to me the physical manifestation (if any) of the RQIII sorcerous spell "Skill of Life"? Since the spell doesn't block the effects of strangulation by garrote/hands/chokehold, I'm of the opinion that it's some kind of physical/energy/magical membrane that forms over the mouth and nose. Is there some kind of official/generally accepted writeup on the spell that provides this kind of detail? David Smart From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Apr 20 07:05:19 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:05:19 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Fireblade and water? Message-ID: <33241667.1082408719917.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> More questions, I'm afraid. Does dunking a Fireblade completely underwater extinguish it? If not, could the wielder get burns from steam, boiling water, etc.? David Smart From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Apr 20 07:19:13 2004 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:19:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Fireblade and water? In-Reply-To: <33241667.1082408719917.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> References: <33241667.1082408719917.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: In my game (IMG) I would say that no, it wouldn't go out. I would argue that the fire is magical, and would require a magical water source (or spell) of equal magnitude to be countered. However, I would rule that you wouldn't actually see flames underwater, and the blade wouldn't be hot. (Because it isn't a heat metal spell.) IMG: The fire wouldn't function underwater, but the spell wouldn't be canceled either. So, if you dunked a Fireblade underwater, it wouldn't go out, but it wouldn't work. It would 'relight' when pulling it out. IMG I'd say no on the steam burns. -Andrew On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, David Smart wrote: > More questions, I'm afraid. > > Does dunking a Fireblade completely underwater extinguish it? If not, could the wielder get burns from steam, boiling water, etc.? > > David Smart From talmeta at talmeta.net Tue Apr 20 07:31:56 2004 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:31:56 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] The Glowring Message-ID: <4084454C.1040905@talmeta.net> In case any of you happen to be members, or thought about being members... I recently became the ringmaster for the old Glowring webring... somewhere along the line it got renamed/reoriented towards general rpgs, and I'm hoping to turn it back to RQ/Glorantha based sites... http://K.webring.com/hub?ring=gloring if you're interested in joining... -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - I am sick unto death of obscure English towns that exist seemingly for the sole accommodation of these so-called limerick writers and even sicker of their residents, all of whom suffer from physical deformities and spend their time dismembering relatives at fancy dress balls. -- Editor of the Limerick Times (Limerick, Ireland) From mechashef at bigpond.com Tue Apr 20 09:13:59 2004 From: mechashef at bigpond.com (Mechashef) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:13:59 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Strike Ranks Message-ID: <001701c42664$02176810$cde38b90@P2800L> I know that many people run RQ II / RQ III hybrids. Which set of SR values do people who are running RQ III (or a hybrid) use? RQ II RQ III Their own custom ones. Thanks From bick10 at comcast.net Tue Apr 20 12:15:45 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (Jim Bickmeyer) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:15:45 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Fireblade and water? References: <33241667.1082408719917.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <002b01c4267e$0a85eb60$6401a8c0@attbi.com> > More questions, I'm afraid. > > Does dunking a Fireblade completely underwater extinguish it? If not, could the wielder get burns from steam, boiling water, etc.? > > David Smart IMG when it happened in a river, the fireblade was half value while submerged and full value when out of the water. Magic water would suppress the fireblade for only as long as the magic water was in affect. (IMG of course) Jim Bickmeyer From lancelot at inetnebr.com Tue Apr 20 09:38:49 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:38:49 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Differences between RQ1 and RQ2? In-Reply-To: <52868.127.0.0.1.1082386395.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> References: <52868.127.0.0.1.1082386395.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> Message-ID: <40846309.3050405@inetnebr.com> Well the RQ2 page so far is mostly my work ... shrug. Peter Maranci wrote: >I've put in some more work on the RQ Wiki >(http://www.maranci.net/index.php?RuneQuest), and I've run into a problem. >I've started to describe the differences between RQ2 and RQ3, but since I >don't have RuneQuest 1 I don't have any idea what changes were made from >that version. Does anyone know? > >Just to repeat, ANYONE can edit, change, or add material to the wiki. >Several people already have, in fact; unfortunately they didn't sign their >work (which is okay, signatures are not required), so I can't thank them >personally. Except here, of course. > >Oh yeah, there's also a section for RuneQuest links. Please feel free to >add some. > >->Peter >-- >Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net >Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > >. > > > -- Lance Dyas Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying -- Lance Dyas Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds From mechashef at bigpond.com Tue Apr 20 10:25:37 2004 From: mechashef at bigpond.com (Mechashef) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:25:37 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] History of RuneQuest Message-ID: <003601c4266e$043bc320$cde38b90@P2800L> I have just read the "History of RuneQuest" from the Wiki. It occurred to me that if you replaced the word RuneQuest with the name of an empire, the saga would make a pretty good history for the rise and fall of an Empire. Reading it was like reading the history of the Carmanians, or EWF etc. Ok - maybe I'm just strange! From jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Apr 20 13:13:18 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:13:18 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Strike Ranks References: <001701c42664$02176810$cde38b90@P2800L> Message-ID: <4084954E.4010902@earthlink.net> RQIII here. David Smart Mechashef wrote: >I know that many people run RQ II / RQ III hybrids. > >Which set of SR values do people who are running RQ III (or a hybrid) use? >RQ II >RQ III >Their own custom ones. > > >Thanks >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > From MurfNMurf at aol.com Tue Apr 20 17:38:06 2004 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 03:38:06 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Headhangers Message-ID: <1e9.1e22f171.2db62d5e@aol.com> Hi gang, I was looking through the creature book section of the RQ3 rules, and got to wondering about the Headhanger. Does anyone know if this beastie is rooted in any sort of RW myth or folklore? Thanks. -Ken Murphy- From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Apr 20 17:51:30 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:51:30 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Differences between RQ1 and RQ2? Message-ID: >Peter Maranci wrote: >> I've put in some more work on the RQ Wiki >> (http://www.maranci.net/index.php?RuneQuest), and I've run into a problem. >> I've started to describe the differences between RQ2 and RQ3, but since I >> don't have RuneQuest 1 I don't have any idea what changes were made from >> that version. Does anyone know? > >I have both RQ1 and RQ2. The differences are pretty minimal IIRC; mostly >on the order of correcting some typoes and a few misc. clarifications. > >I'll try to have a look at them over the next few days and make some notes. > >Stephen Posey My memories of playing RQI (with the Louise Perrin painting rendered in sepia on the cover of the saddle stapled rulebook and the character sheets quite obviously 'layed out' on a type-writer) are (God!) a quarter century old and I haven't had that copy of the rules for most of it... When was the change from Defence to Dodge? IIRC it was II->III, but I may be wrong given Dodge appears in Stormbringer I and CoC. Also, didn't some spells change from RQI->II? It was, as Stephen says, mostly a minor revision, nothing like the whole scale re-jig of RQII->III. Wish I'd kept my copy of the colour covered 2nd edition saddle stapled rulebook though, it may have been less robust than the GW perfect bound but it looked much nicer... If inspiration strikes I'll pass anything I remember on but I think Stephen's perusal is your best bet Peter, unless Steve can remember any details? Cheers, Nick Middleton From gianni at basicrps.com Wed Apr 21 00:46:46 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:46:46 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Differences between RQ1 and RQ2? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1082472406.408537d652849@imp.webhuset.no> Hello all I've only played RQ (II) for about three years, but my GM has played for 20-25 years. He tells me the only differences between RQI and RQII are the ones printed on the back cover of the GW edition, i.e., next to nothing (like abandoning 1d12 in favour of 2d6 and other minor alterations/errata) Cheers Gianni Vacca Cergy, France From gianni at basicrps.com Wed Apr 21 00:49:35 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:49:35 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Differences between RQ1 and RQ2? In-Reply-To: <1082472406.408537d652849@imp.webhuset.no> References: <1082472406.408537d652849@imp.webhuset.no> Message-ID: <1082472575.4085387fbb803@imp.webhuset.no> PS I forgot to add the following -- RQII uses 'Defence', not 'Dodge'. As I wrote, changes between RQI and RQII were really minor ones. From peter at maranci.net Wed Apr 21 01:59:24 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:59:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3 Characteristic Maximums? Message-ID: <56888.127.0.0.1.1082476764.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> I was working on the Increasing Characteristics section of the RQwiki when I realized that I had totally forgotten what the mechanics are for determining characteristic maximums. For some reason two different methods of calculation are in my head: 1.5 times the original score, and the maximum plus the minimum possible rolled score. But for RQ3 which was correct? I *think* it was 1.5, but I'm not sure. Sorry, I don't have my book here. Oh, and was there ever a concensus about the "STR and CON are limited to the maximum of STR, CON, and SIZ, whichever is highest" rule? I always thought that that was a really BAD rule, because it is arbitrarily unfair to those who have nearly-equal stats, or whose STR & CON are equal and higher than SIZ. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From DevinC at aol.com Wed Apr 21 02:19:29 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:19:29 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Differences between RQ1 and RQ2? Message-ID: <6.270146dd.2db6a791@aol.com> I believe RQ1 had Int of 3D6 for humans and other sentients, and RQ2 changed it to 2D6+6. Devin From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Wed Apr 21 02:37:46 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:37:46 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Fireblade and water? In-Reply-To: References: <33241667.1082408719917.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040420093714.0208cb38@incoming.verizon.net> I would tent to agree with Andrew, and ran it that way for years. Bo At 02:19 PM 4/19/2004, you wrote: >In my game (IMG) I would say that no, it wouldn't go out. I would >argue that the fire is magical, and would require a magical water source >(or spell) of equal magnitude to be countered. However, I would rule that >you wouldn't actually see flames underwater, and the blade wouldn't be >hot. (Because it isn't a heat metal spell.) > >IMG: The fire wouldn't function underwater, but the spell wouldn't be >canceled either. So, if you dunked a Fireblade underwater, it wouldn't go >out, but it wouldn't work. It would 'relight' when pulling it out. > >IMG I'd say no on the steam burns. > >-Andrew > >On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, David Smart wrote: > >> More questions, I'm afraid. >> >> Does dunking a Fireblade completely underwater extinguish it? If not, could the wielder get burns from steam, boiling water, etc.? >> >> David Smart >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From slposey at concentric.net Wed Apr 21 02:38:24 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:38:24 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Differences between RQ1 and RQ2? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40855200.4000903@concentric.net> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > >>Peter Maranci wrote: >> >>>I've put in some more work on the RQ Wiki >>>(http://www.maranci.net/index.php?RuneQuest), and I've run into a > > problem. > >>>I've started to describe the differences between RQ2 and RQ3, but since > > I > >>>don't have RuneQuest 1 I don't have any idea what changes were made from >>>that version. Does anyone know? >> >>I have both RQ1 and RQ2. The differences are pretty minimal IIRC; mostly >>on the order of correcting some typoes and a few misc. clarifications. >> >>I'll try to have a look at them over the next few days and make some > > notes. > >>Stephen Posey > > > My memories of playing RQI (with the Louise Perrin painting rendered in > sepia on the cover of the saddle stapled rulebook and the character sheets > quite obviously 'layed out' on a type-writer) are (God!) a quarter century > old and I haven't had that copy of the rules for most of it... When was the > change from Defence to Dodge? IIRC it was II->III, but I may be wrong given > Dodge appears in Stormbringer I and CoC. Also, didn't some spells change > from RQI->II? It was, as Stephen says, mostly a minor revision, nothing > like the whole scale re-jig of RQII->III. Wish I'd kept my copy of the > colour covered 2nd edition saddle stapled rulebook though, it may have been > less robust than the GW perfect bound but it looked much nicer... > > If inspiration strikes I'll pass anything I remember on but I think > Stephen's perusal is your best bet Peter, unless Steve can remember any > details? So far I've done paragraph for paragraph comparisons of the first two chapters and, other than obvious layout changes (typeset vs. typed), the differences I've found so far consist of things like: * Rearranging of some paragraphs in CH1 * The addition of the Glorantha map at the end of CH1 in RQ2 * Some terminology changes in CH2: mostly substituting "Increase" for "Enhance" and use of the Characteristic abbreviations (e.g. "STR" for Strength) more consistently * Moving of some text on experience increases to the skills chapter * Addition of small pieces of clarificatory text in a couple of paragraphs * A few typo fixes I can list these more specifically if folks are really interested. IIRC there were more significant changes in the Magic chapters like the dropping of a spell or two and rewriting or altering of the effects of others. With 20/20 hindsight, I'd say RQ1 and RQ2 are so similar from an RPG mechanics perspective as to hardly warrant a "full version" number upgrade (RQ2 would probably have been better appelated RQ1.5 or some such), but I'm sure that's what seemed like the thing to do at the time. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From slposey at concentric.net Wed Apr 21 02:45:45 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:45:45 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Headhangers In-Reply-To: <1e9.1e22f171.2db62d5e@aol.com> References: <1e9.1e22f171.2db62d5e@aol.com> Message-ID: <408553B9.9040409@concentric.net> MurfNMurf at aol.com wrote: > Hi gang, > I was looking through the creature book section of the RQ3 rules, and got > to wondering about the Headhanger. Does anyone know if this beastie is rooted > in any sort of RW myth or folklore? > Thanks. To my knowledge it made its first published appearance in the "Other Critters" section of the Gateway Bestiary. I always assumed it was a sort of monstrous evolution of the animated head idea from the Cult of Thanatar, I don't think it's directly based on any RW source, but I could be wrong. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From slposey at concentric.net Wed Apr 21 02:50:16 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 09:50:16 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Differences between RQ1 and RQ2? In-Reply-To: <6.270146dd.2db6a791@aol.com> References: <6.270146dd.2db6a791@aol.com> Message-ID: <408554C8.4040800@concentric.net> DevinC at aol.com wrote: > I believe RQ1 had Int of 3D6 for humans and other sentients, and RQ2 changed > it to 2D6+6. AFAIK, that was a Chaosium house rule that got published in Errata lists or RuneQuestions columns. It may have made it into later printings but was not part of the original printings of RQ2 (it's not in mine). BTW, Human SIZ was also set at 2d6+6 at the same time. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Apr 21 02:52:31 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:52:31 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3 Characteristic Maximums? Message-ID: <33107029.1082479951031.JavaMail.root@waldorf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Peter, In RQIII, racial maxes on stats were limited to the minimum possible roll + maximum possible roll. So for any stat rolled with 3d6, it would be 3 + 18 or 21. As for the STR/CON limit to the highest of STR/CON/SIZ, I've personnaly never heard an "official errata" decision. My own personal opinion is STR/SIZ can affect each other's max using the 1.5 rule but CON follows the (Min + Max) rule. David Smart -----Original Message----- From: Peter Maranci Sent: Apr 20, 2004 10:59 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3 Characteristic Maximums? I was working on the Increasing Characteristics section of the RQwiki when I realized that I had totally forgotten what the mechanics are for determining characteristic maximums. For some reason two different methods of calculation are in my head: 1.5 times the original score, and the maximum plus the minimum possible rolled score. But for RQ3 which was correct? I *think* it was 1.5, but I'm not sure. Sorry, I don't have my book here. Oh, and was there ever a concensus about the "STR and CON are limited to the maximum of STR, CON, and SIZ, whichever is highest" rule? I always thought that that was a really BAD rule, because it is arbitrarily unfair to those who have nearly-equal stats, or whose STR & CON are equal and higher than SIZ. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Apr 21 02:55:42 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:55:42 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Fireblade and water? Message-ID: <8358621.1082480142424.JavaMail.root@waldorf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> And I've made it a houserule now for my campaigns. I'm also allowing a Firebladed weapon to give off a pale light equivalent to a torch. David Smart -----Original Message----- From: Bo Whitten Sent: Apr 20, 2004 11:37 AM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Fireblade and water? I would tent to agree with Andrew, and ran it that way for years. Bo At 02:19 PM 4/19/2004, you wrote: >In my game (IMG) I would say that no, it wouldn't go out. I would >argue that the fire is magical, and would require a magical water source >(or spell) of equal magnitude to be countered. However, I would rule that >you wouldn't actually see flames underwater, and the blade wouldn't be >hot. (Because it isn't a heat metal spell.) > >IMG: The fire wouldn't function underwater, but the spell wouldn't be >canceled either. So, if you dunked a Fireblade underwater, it wouldn't go >out, but it wouldn't work. It would 'relight' when pulling it out. > >IMG I'd say no on the steam burns. > >-Andrew > >On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, David Smart wrote: > >> More questions, I'm afraid. >> >> Does dunking a Fireblade completely underwater extinguish it? If not, could the wielder get burns from steam, boiling water, etc.? >> >> David Smart >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From andrew at crashbox.com Wed Apr 21 04:53:29 2004 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3 Characteristic Maximums? In-Reply-To: <56888.127.0.0.1.1082476764.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> References: <56888.127.0.0.1.1082476764.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> Message-ID: I don't like te STR, CON, SIZ max thing either. STR and CON were as you said, the highest of STR, CON or SIZ. 1.5 for APP and DEX. The min + max was for determining POW max. INT and SIZ can't be increased. -Andrew On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Peter Maranci wrote: > Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:59:24 -0400 (EDT) > From: Peter Maranci > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3 Characteristic Maximums? > > I was working on the Increasing Characteristics section of the RQwiki when > I realized that I had totally forgotten what the mechanics are for > determining characteristic maximums. For some reason two different methods > of calculation are in my head: 1.5 times the original score, and the > maximum plus the minimum possible rolled score. But for RQ3 which was > correct? I *think* it was 1.5, but I'm not sure. Sorry, I don't have my > book here. > > Oh, and was there ever a concensus about the "STR and CON are limited to > the maximum of STR, CON, and SIZ, whichever is highest" rule? I always > thought that that was a really BAD rule, because it is arbitrarily unfair > to those who have nearly-equal stats, or whose STR & CON are equal and > higher than SIZ. > > ->Peter > -- > Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net > Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Apr 21 06:43:19 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:43:19 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] And More Questions Message-ID: <2221567.1082493799228.JavaMail.root@waldorf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Re: the Skin of Life sorcerous spell.. Given the spell's name and its effects, does you all say it actually forms some kind of physical/energy-based/magical membrane over/in the target's nose and mouth that blocks the entry of smoke/water/etc? Or was the original intent "just go with it and don't worry about the mechanics"? David From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Apr 21 07:03:20 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:03:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] And More Questions In-Reply-To: <2221567.1082493799228.JavaMail.root@waldorf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20040420210320.68898.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> --- David Smart wrote: > Given the spell's name and its effects, does you all > say it actually forms some kind of > physical/energy-based/magical membrane over/in the > target's nose and mouth that blocks the entry of > smoke/water/etc? > > Or was the original intent "just go with it and > don't worry about the mechanics"? If memory serves, the original spell stated that it filled the targets lungs with oxygen and thus allowing him to survive underwater or in a smoke. >From this I alway interpreted that the user would just keep his mouth shut and only exhale. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25? http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Apr 21 07:45:18 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:45:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Skill Category Modifiers In-Reply-To: <20040419145334.AD8D322270B@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040420214518.41242.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> Alain: > Jim wrote: > >I much prefer that the Modifiers are added to the skills on the character > sheet. > > For combat, if you split your skill when above 100%, or multiply it by > magic (Fanaticism), if I remember correctly the RQ3 rules, the skill > modifier is not so divided or multiplied, but you add it to your skill > after such calculation. E.g. A 108% Swordman having a +10% combat skills > modifier, could make two attacks, each with (108/2)+10=64%. So how could > you do so if the skill directly includes the modifiers ? I thought that some people played it this way. You must really enjoy Bookkeeping. We just lumped the adds together, so someone with a 108% attack including attack bonus would have a 108/2=54% chance with each attack. Similarly, spells that increase attack chance or characteristics simply increase the original skill. So, casting Strength 3 (+9%) Coordination 3 (+3% I think), Fanaticism and Bladesharp 4 (+20%) would get a (108 + 9 + 3) x1.5 + 20 = 200%, split this into 2 attacks both at 100%. (I may have got the adds for Strength and Coordination wrong, working from memory, but the principle is sound in any case) > >One player that used sorcery to increase DEX had two percentile numbers > written for each affected skill. One for without the spell, and one with > the spell in affect. > > OK if the sorcerer always uses the same intensity in his spell. But if he > decides to use the spell with a different intensity, the DEX increase will > be different, and the skill modifier also different ! Yes, but most PCs will use fairly standard spells all the time, for ease and convenience, So he will have a set list of adds that he can quickly apply. > That's to avoid all these calculations that I envisage to simply drop > skill modifiers. When you reach a fair level in a skill, what the point of > doing all such bookkeeping and calculate all the modifiers for a mere +2% > or so ! Because it is fun. Simon ____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Apr 21 08:05:25 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:05:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Fireblade and water?/Strike Ranks In-Reply-To: <20040420073828.0DCE8222722@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040420220525.66965.qmail@web9605.mail.yahoo.com> David Smart: > Does dunking a Fireblade completely underwater extinguish it? If not, could > the wielder get burns from steam, boiling water, etc.? I think we played that it went out. Perhaps on a good day I'd hive it half damage, but I doubt it. In RQ2, when the water reached your groin, the shock would cause you to lose concentration and this active spell would go out. Mechashef: > I know that many people run RQ II / RQ III hybrids. Yep. > Which set of SR values do people who are running RQ III (or a hybrid) use? > RQ II > RQ III > Their own custom ones. I used 12 SR in a round (as RQ2) but with RQ3 3SR for changing actions. We used the RQ2 system for mltiple attacks, so someone with an attack on SR2 and a very high skill could attack on SRs 2,4,6,8,10 and 12, so beware big, fast troll Rune Lords with Troll Mauls (but perhaps that advice counts regardless of the SR system in use). Missiles were cast on DEX SR, DEX SR + 3, DEX SR + 6 and s on, so someone fast could shoot arrows on SRs 1,4,7,10. Simon ____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From phil.hibbs at capgemini.com Wed Apr 21 03:14:51 2004 From: phil.hibbs at capgemini.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:14:51 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3 Characteristic Maximums? Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97F98@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> I always ruled that xd6+y characteristic maxima were calculated differently, that each +6 counted as a +1 to the maximum, not a +6. Phil Hibbs ======================================================= This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of Capgemini UK plc. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorised to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. ======================================================= From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Wed Apr 21 08:47:09 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:47:09 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3 Characteristic Maximums? In-Reply-To: <56888.127.0.0.1.1082476764.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> References: <56888.127.0.0.1.1082476764.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040420154308.020c8dd8@incoming.verizon.net> At 08:59 AM 4/20/2004, you wrote: >I was working on the Increasing Characteristics section of the RQwiki when >I realized that I had totally forgotten what the mechanics are for >determining characteristic maximums. For some reason two different methods >of calculation are in my head: 1.5 times the original score, and the >maximum plus the minimum possible rolled score. But for RQ3 which was >correct? I *think* it was 1.5, but I'm not sure. Sorry, I don't have my >book here. In RQII (if my memory works at all... and it is in doubt) it is Max rollable plus number of dice used plus 1 for any adds: So 3d6 is 18+3 = 21, but 2d6+6 is 18 + 2 +1 = 21. A 4d6 would be 24 + 4 for 28. >Oh, and was there ever a concensus about the "STR and CON are limited to >the maximum of STR, CON, and SIZ, whichever is highest" rule? I always >thought that that was a really BAD rule, because it is arbitrarily unfair >to those who have nearly-equal stats, or whose STR & CON are equal and >higher than SIZ. I only applied it to training the stats. As I had other ways in which stats could rise (divine as well as other magical methods) I never applied it to that part of the game, just to training. Bo From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Wed Apr 21 08:49:18 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:49:18 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Fireblade and water? In-Reply-To: <8358621.1082480142424.JavaMail.root@waldorf.psp.pas.earthl ink.net> References: <8358621.1082480142424.JavaMail.root@waldorf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040420154848.020b9b30@incoming.verizon.net> At 09:55 AM 4/20/2004, you wrote: >And I've made it a houserule now for my campaigns. I'm also allowing a Firebladed weapon to give off a pale light equivalent to a torch. > >David Smart I always did... it is on fire after all. : ) Bo From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Wed Apr 21 08:53:27 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:53:27 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3 Characteristic Maximums? In-Reply-To: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97F98@exast02.capgemini .co.uk> References: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97F98@exast02.capgemini.co.uk> Message-ID: <6.0.3.0.0.20040420155113.02129010@incoming.verizon.net> At 10:14 AM 4/20/2004, you wrote: >I always ruled that xd6+y characteristic maxima were calculated differently, >that each +6 counted as a +1 to the maximum, not a +6. > >Phil Hibbs I believe it was that the add was a +1 no matter what the bonus, so +2 or +200 to the stat roll was still a total of 1 added to the max. But, I have used the +6 idea before and see not fault in it for the most part as most adds are not more than a +12 to +18 (a total of 2 or 3 added to the max). Bo From erewan at terra.es Wed Apr 21 09:04:49 2004 From: erewan at terra.es (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s_Piquer_Otero?=) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:04:49 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Differences between RQ1 and RQ2? In-Reply-To: <408554C8.4040800@concentric.net> Message-ID: <20040420230927.CDA682226D4@boomstick.screwheads.net> > I believe RQ1 had Int of 3D6 for humans and other sentients, and RQ2 changed > it to 2D6+6. Hi, temporarily coming out of lurker mode... Just flipping through my RQ2 material, RQ2 keeps 3d6 INT for sentients, there is a suggestion to change it to 2d6+6 in the Trollpak character creation rules (for trolls, but it explicitly states the possibility to make the rule extensive to elves, humans, etc). Barring magazines, that's maybe the earliest RQ2 instance of changed INT. Andres From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Apr 21 09:39:54 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:39:54 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] And More Questions References: <20040420210320.68898.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4085B4CA.7080504@earthlink.net> The exact description is: ----- SKIN OF LIFE Touch, Passive, Temporal For its duration, this spell protects the target from the effects of asphyxiation due to air deprivation, whether from drowning, smoke inhalation, or the results of the Smother spell. The target of the spell must try to breath normally -- for the spell merely provides oxygen, the lungs must still receive it. Up to 5 SIZ per level of intensity will be protected. This spell has no effect on choking due to a strong arm about the neck, a garrote, or food stuck in the throat, etc. ----- The name of the spell and the facts that the target "must try to breath normally" and the spell doesn't negate a blocked wind pipe are what led me to ponder the existence of some kind of membrane. David Leon Kirshtein wrote: >--- David Smart wrote: > > >>Given the spell's name and its effects, does you all >>say it actually forms some kind of >>physical/energy-based/magical membrane over/in the >>target's nose and mouth that blocks the entry of >>smoke/water/etc? >> >>Or was the original intent "just go with it and >>don't worry about the mechanics"? >> >> > >If memory serves, the original spell stated that it >filled the targets lungs with oxygen and thus allowing >him to survive underwater or in a smoke. > >>From this I alway interpreted that the user would just >keep his mouth shut and only exhale. > >===== >Leon Kirshtein >www.godlearner.d2g.com > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25? >http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash > > > From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Apr 21 11:26:17 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:26:17 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] And More Questions References: <2221567.1082493799228.JavaMail.root@waldorf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <006e01c4273f$b5664d60$68417442@wizard> Having been around when it was being devised, but having no input on it, I think the answer to your "either or" question is "Yes." Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Smart" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 1:43 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] And More Questions > Re: the Skin of Life sorcerous spell.. > > Given the spell's name and its effects, does you all say it actually forms some kind of physical/energy-based/magical membrane over/in the target's nose and mouth that blocks the entry of smoke/water/etc? > > Or was the original intent "just go with it and don't worry about the mechanics"? > > David > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From jurrubin at earthlink.net Wed Apr 21 13:11:35 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:11:35 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] And More Questions References: <2221567.1082493799228.JavaMail.root@waldorf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> <006e01c4273f$b5664d60$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: <4085E667.9030304@earthlink.net> *grin* Works for me! David Steve Perrin wrote: >Having been around when it was being devised, but having no input on it, I >think the answer to your "either or" question is "Yes." > >Steve Perrin > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Smart" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 1:43 PM >Subject: [RQ-Rules] And More Questions > > > > >>Re: the Skin of Life sorcerous spell.. >> >>Given the spell's name and its effects, does you all say it actually forms >> >> >some kind of physical/energy-based/magical membrane over/in the target's >nose and mouth that blocks the entry of smoke/water/etc? > > >>Or was the original intent "just go with it and don't worry about the >> >> >mechanics"? > > >>David >>_______________________________________________ >>RQ-Rules mailing list >>RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >>http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > From s.francois2 at wanadoo.fr Wed Apr 21 15:35:53 2004 From: s.francois2 at wanadoo.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane_FRANCOIS?=) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:35:53 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] And More Questions In-Reply-To: <4085B4CA.7080504@earthlink.net> References: <20040420210320.68898.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> <4085B4CA.7080504@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <40860839.8080807@wanadoo.fr> D. Smart a ?crit : > The exact description is: > ----- > SKIN OF LIFE Touch, Passive, Temporal > For its duration, this spell protects the target from the effects of > asphyxiation due to air deprivation, whether from drowning, smoke > inhalation, or the results of the Smother spell. The target of the > spell must try to breath normally -- for the spell merely provides > oxygen, the lungs must still receive it. Up to 5 SIZ per level of > intensity will be protected. > > This spell has no effect on choking due to a strong arm about the > neck, a garrote, or food stuck in the throat, etc. > ----- from the name of the spell and his description, I considered it to magically create a "Skin" of breathable air around the caster, allowing him to breathe normally even if no breathable air exist outside of the "skin". But this didn't negate the other harmful effects of hostile environment (extreme heat, cold, pressure deep underwater...). From gianni at basicrps.com Wed Apr 21 16:50:48 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:50:48 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Huan To In-Reply-To: <2221567.1082493799228.JavaMail.root@waldorf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> References: <2221567.1082493799228.JavaMail.root@waldorf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1082530248.408619c8ca261@imp.webhuset.no> Hello folks What does a Huan To look like? Cheers Gianni From stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk Wed Apr 21 19:17:39 2004 From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk (stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:17:39 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Viruses on the list Message-ID: <185975719C549A4B9961C0D59A48027302508392@ECOWV04M.Telewest.Internal> I just got two mails from the list with I-Worm.NetSky.z infections. Just thought I'd let you know in case your own virus checkers haven't picked it up. It's a relatively nasty one From Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Wed Apr 21 18:58:18 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:58:18 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hide and Sneak Message-ID: I've always been puzzled by those two skills, and I am not sure when to use one or the other. Generally, a stealthy move will use both, so why not using only one single "Stealth" skill for instance ? What are exactly the major differences between the two ? From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Apr 21 20:09:43 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:09:43 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hide and Sneak Message-ID: >I've always been puzzled by those two skills, and I am not sure when to >use one or the other. >Generally, a stealthy move will use both, so why not using only one single >"Stealth" skill for instance ? >What are exactly the major differences between the two ? Re-reading the RQIII Players Book (Page 79), Hide involves concealment from visual perception and Sneak involves avoiding making a noise. So to slip passed a guard who could either see or hear you would require a combined roll against both, but to just move quietly along the bottom of a wall on top of which a guard is standing is a Sneak roll (possibly more than one). Likewise, crossing a busy market place without the guards in the guard tower opposite spotting you has nothing to do with how quiet you are and everything to do with how well you exploit the cover of the crowd and market stalls etc, which would be Hide rolls. Since there are separate Scan and Listen rolls, it doesn't seem unreasonably to have separate opposing skills in Hide and Sneak. Although having said that, I don't think it would seriously hurt the game to fold the two together; it is one of the differences between standard d20 and Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed funnily enough, but I don't remember any BRP games combining the two. Cheers, Nick Middleton From gianni at basicrps.com Wed Apr 21 20:45:46 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:45:46 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hide and Sneak In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1082544346.408650da5eb82@imp.webhuset.no> Quoting RAMEAU Alain : > I've always been puzzled by those two skills, and I am not sure when to > use one or the other. > Generally, a stealthy move will use both, so why not using only one single > "Stealth" skill for instance ? > What are exactly the major differences between the two ? "Hide" -> the character is hidden somewhere and DOES NOT move, he wants to stay unnoticed "Sneak" -> the character IS NOT necessarily hidden, he's moving and dosn't want to be noticed (i.e., he tries not to make any noise whilst moving) Gianni From peter at maranci.net Wed Apr 21 22:28:01 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:28:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: And More Questions Message-ID: <54637.127.0.0.1.1082550481.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> * David Smart (jurrubin at earthlink.net) wrote: > Re: the Skin of Life sorcerous spell.. > > Given the spell's name and its effects, does you all say it actually > forms some kind of physical/energy-based/magical membrane over/in the > target's nose and mouth that blocks the entry of smoke/water/etc? Well, I'd *strongly* argue against it being a _physical_ membrane. Creation of physical objects has always been the most difficult thing for Gloranthan magic to accomplish in RQ. It would also tend to lead towards all sorts of weird player hacks, like someone trying to harvest the membranes and use them to build a submarine, or reverse them to make a vaccuum chamber or some damn thing. Some players really need a good kick in the @ss... :D My vote would be for a magical field, or membrane, or whatever you want to call it, that would provide oxygen to the mouth and screen out toxins and water. Sort of like a bubble. Hmm, the Smother spell might actually BE a reversal of the Skin of Life spell, on some level...oxygen goes out, but it can't go back in. Interesting. In non-Gloranthan worlds I suppose the magic might actually *prefer* (so to speak) to use phsyical manifestations. Hmm, that could be pretty freaky. I'm tempted to try to do something with that. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From andrew at crashbox.com Wed Apr 21 22:28:30 2004 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 05:28:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Viruses on the list In-Reply-To: <185975719C549A4B9961C0D59A48027302508392@ECOWV04M.Telewest.Internal> References: <185975719C549A4B9961C0D59A48027302508392@ECOWV04M.Telewest.Internal> Message-ID: I'll take a look into virus scanners. I don't have much experience running Windows virus scanners on NetBSD. Can anyone recommend one? -Andrew On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk wrote: > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:17:39 +0100 > From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk > Reply-To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Viruses on the list > > I just got two mails from the list with I-Worm.NetSky.z infections. Just thought I'd let you know in case your own virus checkers haven't picked it up. It's a relatively nasty one > > From peter at maranci.net Wed Apr 21 23:37:12 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:37:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Differences between versions Message-ID: <55832.127.0.0.1.1082554632.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> I've added a section to the RQ Wiki which will probably be of some interest: Differences between versions. Actually it already existed, but I have added headings for differences between RQ3 and the following systems: * RQ4:AIG * RQ:Slayers * Hero Wars/Quest * Basic Role-Playing games * D&D 3.5. Much of the section is still incomplete, so this is my invitation for you guys to come in and go nuts. :D Here's the link: http://www.maranci.net/index.php?Differences%20between%20versions . If that link gives you problems, there's a clickable link from the main page at http://www.maranci.net/index.php?RuneQuest . ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From peter at maranci.net Wed Apr 21 23:44:37 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:44:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Differences between versions Message-ID: <56021.127.0.0.1.1082555077.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> Whoops! I just realized that I left Steve Perrin's Quest Rules off the list. Sorry Steve! I've corrected that. I hope you don't mind having the game listed? I've linked to it as well, of course. I haven't actually listed any differences between RQ3 and SPQR, because I don't know what they are. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Apr 22 00:52:24 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:52:24 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] And More Questions Message-ID: <3462930.1082559144944.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> I considered the same thing but prefer a minimalist view of the effect, making it more of a mask-like effect similar to an medical oxygen mask. Having an air envelope covering the target's body could lead to too many questions from rules lawyers. But then I don't have any rules lawyers in my group, thank goodness. Very intelligent players who point out loopholes in spell descriptions, yes, but no rule lawyers. I find it refreshing to be able to discuss such loopholes, make a decision, and move on. Thank you, everyone, for your feedback; I find it makes me a much better GM and my campaigns more enjoyable. David Smart -----Original Message----- From: St?phane FRANCOIS Sent: Apr 21, 2004 12:35 AM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] And More Questions D. Smart a ?crit : > The exact description is: > ----- > SKIN OF LIFE Touch, Passive, Temporal > For its duration, this spell protects the target from the effects of > asphyxiation due to air deprivation, whether from drowning, smoke > inhalation, or the results of the Smother spell. The target of the > spell must try to breath normally -- for the spell merely provides > oxygen, the lungs must still receive it. Up to 5 SIZ per level of > intensity will be protected. > > This spell has no effect on choking due to a strong arm about the > neck, a garrote, or food stuck in the throat, etc. > ----- from the name of the spell and his description, I considered it to magically create a "Skin" of breathable air around the caster, allowing him to breathe normally even if no breathable air exist outside of the "skin". But this didn't negate the other harmful effects of hostile environment (extreme heat, cold, pressure deep underwater...). _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Apr 22 00:55:30 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:55:30 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Huan To Message-ID: <3777576.1082559330288.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> There's a description in the RQIII bestiary that was published separately from the RQIII rules. I'll see if I can resurrect my copy after work tonight. I've used them in a previous campaign and intend to use them in my current one. Rather nasty critters, if memory serves. David Smart -----Original Message----- From: Gianni Sent: Apr 21, 2004 1:50 AM To: David Smart , "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: [RQ-Rules] Huan To Hello folks What does a Huan To look like? Cheers Gianni _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From peter at maranci.net Thu Apr 22 00:56:31 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:56:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Huan To Message-ID: <57311.127.0.0.1.1082559391.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> * Gianni (gianni at basicrps.com) wrote: > What does a Huan To look like? Apparently, it looks like a bunch of naked people lying on top of each other. At least, according to Google's image search. Multiple photos of naked people. Mind you, I clicked away ASAP - fortunately no one was in eyeshot of my cube. Definitely NSFW (Not Safe For Work)! ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Apr 22 00:58:03 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:58:03 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Viruses on the list Message-ID: <28102607.1082559483781.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> The last time I checked web-based reviews, it looked like McAfee was edging out Norton again. We use McAfee at work but I run Norton at home. Either should be good enough though I've never run either on NetBSD. David Smart -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Mellinger Sent: Apr 21, 2004 7:28 AM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Viruses on the list I'll take a look into virus scanners. I don't have much experience running Windows virus scanners on NetBSD. Can anyone recommend one? -Andrew On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk wrote: > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:17:39 +0100 > From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk > Reply-To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Viruses on the list > > I just got two mails from the list with I-Worm.NetSky.z infections. Just thought I'd let you know in case your own virus checkers haven't picked it up. It's a relatively nasty one > > _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Apr 22 01:01:25 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:01:25 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hide and Sneak Message-ID: <4733066.1082559685978.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> The advantage of keeping them separate is they can also be combined with other skills. For example, to swim up to a guard sitting on the edge of a drawbridge, roll against Swim and Move Silently. To move through trees without being seen, roll against Climb and Hide. David Smart -----Original Message----- From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Sent: Apr 21, 2004 5:09 AM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Hide and Sneak >I've always been puzzled by those two skills, and I am not sure when to >use one or the other. >Generally, a stealthy move will use both, so why not using only one single >"Stealth" skill for instance ? >What are exactly the major differences between the two ? Re-reading the RQIII Players Book (Page 79), Hide involves concealment from visual perception and Sneak involves avoiding making a noise. So to slip passed a guard who could either see or hear you would require a combined roll against both, but to just move quietly along the bottom of a wall on top of which a guard is standing is a Sneak roll (possibly more than one). Likewise, crossing a busy market place without the guards in the guard tower opposite spotting you has nothing to do with how quiet you are and everything to do with how well you exploit the cover of the crowd and market stalls etc, which would be Hide rolls. Since there are separate Scan and Listen rolls, it doesn't seem unreasonably to have separate opposing skills in Hide and Sneak. Although having said that, I don't think it would seriously hurt the game to fold the two together; it is one of the differences between standard d20 and Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed funnily enough, but I don't remember any BRP games combining the two. Cheers, Nick Middleton _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Apr 22 01:11:16 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:11:16 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: And More Questions Message-ID: <30193018.1082560276852.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Heh. Kinda reminds me of Neo's very first experience with the agents in "The Matrix". David -----Original Message----- From: Peter Maranci Sent: Apr 21, 2004 7:28 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: And More Questions Well, I'd *strongly* argue against it being a _physical_ membrane. Creation of physical objects has always been the most difficult thing for Gloranthan magic to accomplish in RQ. It would also tend to lead towards all sorts of weird player hacks, like someone trying to harvest the membranes and use them to build a submarine, or reverse them to make a vaccuum chamber or some damn thing. Some players really need a good kick in the @ss... :D In non-Gloranthan worlds I suppose the magic might actually *prefer* (so to speak) to use phsyical manifestations. Hmm, that could be pretty freaky. I'm tempted to try to do something with that. From peter at maranci.net Thu Apr 22 01:16:24 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:16:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Viruses on the list Message-ID: <57918.127.0.0.1.1082560584.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> * David Smart (jurrubin at earthlink.net) wrote: > The last time I checked web-based reviews, it looked like McAfee was > edging out Norton again. That may be, but - if I can be OT for a second - I'd strongly urge everyone to avoid McAfee's SpamKiller. It conflicts with their VirusScan and they don't support it. There's freeware out there that's infinitely superior. Also, DON'T give McAfee permission to automatically renew your subscription with your credit card. It's really easy to sign up, but getting out again can be a nightmare. Personally, I'm switching to Norton. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Apr 22 01:21:09 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:21:09 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Huan To Message-ID: <31222192.1082560870027.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> LOL. I always include "runequest" in my Google searches just to avoid such occurences. Amazing what comes up when searching for "leather armor". I've been able to confirm the Avalon Hill publication "Gloranthan Bestiary" has a full description of the Huan To on page 24. I won't get access to it until after work but it's definitely there. David Smart -----Original Message----- From: Peter Maranci Sent: Apr 21, 2004 9:56 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Huan To * Gianni (gianni at basicrps.com) wrote: > What does a Huan To look like? Apparently, it looks like a bunch of naked people lying on top of each other. At least, according to Google's image search. Multiple photos of naked people. Mind you, I clicked away ASAP - fortunately no one was in eyeshot of my cube. Definitely NSFW (Not Safe For Work)! ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Apr 22 01:23:26 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:23:26 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Viruses on the list Message-ID: <21061481.1082561006516.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Actually, it's a good idea to never give _anyone_ permission to automatically charge your credit card. Businesses rarely make it easy for themselves to lose automatic income. David -----Original Message----- From: Peter Maranci Sent: Apr 21, 2004 10:16 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Viruses on the list * David Smart (jurrubin at earthlink.net) wrote: > The last time I checked web-based reviews, it looked like McAfee was > edging out Norton again. That may be, but - if I can be OT for a second - I'd strongly urge everyone to avoid McAfee's SpamKiller. It conflicts with their VirusScan and they don't support it. There's freeware out there that's infinitely superior. Also, DON'T give McAfee permission to automatically renew your subscription with your credit card. It's really easy to sign up, but getting out again can be a nightmare. Personally, I'm switching to Norton. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From bick10 at comcast.net Thu Apr 22 01:53:32 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 15:53:32 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] And More Questions Message-ID: <042120041553.8414.408698FC000A3821000020DE2200750330FFCFCE949C96@comcast.net> Based on the spell description, I would say no membrane but the spell creates air in the mouth and nose as the subject breaths. Thus still have to deal with the other physical aspects of surrounding material. Water will still make you wet...Smoke will still burn your eyes... This also takes care of the Area manipulation that the sorcery can apply to the spell. Those in the spell affect can breath normally but will still be wet when under water, ect... Jim Bickmeyer From: St?phane FRANCOIS > The exact description is: > ----- > SKIN OF LIFE Touch, Passive, Temporal > For its duration, this spell protects the target from the effects of > asphyxiation due to air deprivation, whether from drowning, smoke > inhalation, or the results of the Smother spell. The target of the > spell must try to breath normally -- for the spell merely provides > oxygen, the lungs must still receive it. Up to 5 SIZ per level of > intensity will be protected. > > This spell has no effect on choking due to a strong arm about the > neck, a garrote, or food stuck in the throat, etc. > D. Smart a ?crit : > > > The exact description is: > > ----- > > SKIN OF LIFE Touch, Passive, Temporal > > For its duration, this spell protects the target from the effects of > > asphyxiation due to air deprivation, whether from drowning, smoke > > inhalation, or the results of the Smother spell. The target of the > > spell must try to breath normally -- for the spell merely provides > > oxygen, the lungs must still receive it. Up to 5 SIZ per level of > > intensity will be protected. > > > > This spell has no effect on choking due to a strong arm about the > > neck, a garrote, or food stuck in the throat, etc. > > ----- > > from the name of the spell and his description, I considered it to > magically create a "Skin" of breathable air around the caster, allowing > him to breathe normally even if no breathable air exist outside of the > "skin". But this didn't negate the other harmful effects of hostile > environment (extreme heat, cold, pressure deep underwater...). > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Apr 22 02:03:17 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Differences between RQ1 and RQ2? In-Reply-To: <20040420230927.CDA682226D4@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040421160317.73267.qmail@web12406.mail.yahoo.com> --- Andr?s_Piquer_Otero wrote: > > > I believe RQ1 had Int of 3D6 for humans and other > sentients, and RQ2 > changed > > it to 2D6+6. > > Hi, temporarily coming out of lurker mode... > Just flipping through my RQ2 material, RQ2 keeps 3d6 > INT for sentients, > there is a suggestion to change it to 2d6+6 in the > Trollpak character > creation rules (for trolls, but it explicitly states > the possibility to make > the rule extensive to elves, humans, etc). Barring > magazines, that's maybe > the earliest RQ2 instance of changed INT. > > Andres Yes, even Mythworld made that goof originally, but quickly changed to 2D6+6 for both INT and SIZ. Mythworld has real height and weight figures for the SIZ numbers and rolling a three total would give 18" when the world record is supposedly 23". Thus the changes. Other species have other SIZ rolls; gargoyles, minotaurs, sasquatch, etc. are D6+6 INT, while mounts (except unicorns, pegasii, and griffinoids which are hard to ally) are a fixed two or three and like RQ, cannot cast spells. Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25? http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Apr 22 03:52:59 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:52:59 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] And More Questions Message-ID: <22029044.1082569979886.JavaMail.root@waldorf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Hmmm. I thought a "Touch" ranged spell was, by definition, not an area effect and therefore could not have its range manipulated. David -----Original Message----- From: bick10 at comcast.net Sent: Apr 21, 2004 10:53 AM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] And More Questions Based on the spell description, I would say no membrane but the spell creates air in the mouth and nose as the subject breaths. Thus still have to deal with the other physical aspects of surrounding material. Water will still make you wet...Smoke will still burn your eyes... This also takes care of the Area manipulation that the sorcery can apply to the spell. Those in the spell affect can breath normally but will still be wet when under water, ect... Jim Bickmeyer From: St?phane FRANCOIS > The exact description is: > ----- > SKIN OF LIFE Touch, Passive, Temporal From bick10 at comcast.net Thu Apr 22 04:43:15 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:43:15 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] And More Questions Message-ID: <042120041843.18015.4086C0C30005C5F00000465F2200750330FFCFCE949C96@comcast.net> I don't mean Range. I seem to recall something about Area. Or Volume... Don't have the rules handy. When I did run a game with a sorcerer, he didn't use that, so I may be imagining this. Jim > Hmmm. I thought a "Touch" ranged spell was, by definition, not an area effect > and therefore could not have its range manipulated. > > David --Me > Based on the spell description, I would say no membrane but the spell creates > air in the mouth and nose as the subject breaths. Thus still have to deal with > the other physical aspects of surrounding material. Water will still make you > wet...Smoke will still burn your eyes... > > This also takes care of the Area manipulation that the sorcery can apply to the > spell. Those in the spell affect can breath normally but will still be wet when > under water, ect... > > Jim Bickmeyer > > > From: St?phane FRANCOIS > > The exact description is: > > ----- > > SKIN OF LIFE Touch, Passive, Temporal From bick10 at comcast.net Thu Apr 22 04:50:26 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:50:26 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Skill Category Modifiers Message-ID: <042120041850.3795.4086C272000B282600000ED32200735834FFCFCE949C96@comcast.net> > > That's to avoid all these calculations that I envisage to simply drop > > skill modifiers. When you reach a fair level in a skill, what the point of > > doing all such bookkeeping and calculate all the modifiers for a mere +2% > > or so ! > > Because it is fun. > > Simon Especially for my Power/meta gamers. Most want to go through that number manipulations because they find it fun. Then of course they want my attention to explain/brag/show-off the new +2% on all those skills. Jim From andrew at crashbox.com Thu Apr 22 05:55:59 2004 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Skill Category Modifiers In-Reply-To: <042120041850.3795.4086C272000B282600000ED32200735834FFCFCE949C96@comcast.net> References: <042120041850.3795.4086C272000B282600000ED32200735834FFCFCE949C96@comcast.net> Message-ID: The big issue comes down to increases over 100%. It isn't the modifiers, but the other mechanics. If I recall correctly, skills increase if the skill roll is greater than the current skill level or greater than 100%. If this is true (i.e. I am not making this up...) then once a person reaches 100% then their chance to increase their skill is the category modifier. This can make a big difference! A person with a category modified of 10 would increase on one out of 10 experience checks, but a person with a category modifier of 20 would increase on one out of 5 experience checks. Obviosly in this situation, the hero types are the ones with high category modifiers, and raising a stat to get an extra 2% percent can make a difference in the long run. -Andrew On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 bick10 at comcast.net wrote: > Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:50:26 +0000 > From: bick10 at comcast.net > Reply-To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: Skill Category Modifiers > > > > That's to avoid all these calculations that I envisage to simply drop > > > skill modifiers. When you reach a fair level in a skill, what the point of > > > doing all such bookkeeping and calculate all the modifiers for a mere +2% > > > or so ! > > > > Because it is fun. > > > > Simon > > Especially for my Power/meta gamers. Most want to go through that number manipulations because they find it fun. Then of course they want my attention to explain/brag/show-off the new +2% on all those skills. > > Jim > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Apr 22 09:58:25 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:58:25 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Huan To Description References: <31222192.1082560870027.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <40870AA1.6080004@earthlink.net> According to Avalon Hill's "Gloranthan Bestiary": "Their heads are huge and bony, nearly as large as their torsos. They have sinewy limbs with rather large, almost bird-like talons, and fanged mouths. Huan To are usually accompanied by companies of ghouls. They are highly intelligent, and can use any type of weapon." Looking at their stats, their average STR, SIZ, and INT are 23, 26, and 17, respectively. Also, note the phrase "accompanied by _companies_ of ghouls". That's "companies" as in a military organization of troops acting in concert. These things turn their victims into ghouls in two hours or less and, once turned, not even a DI can change the victim back. Oh, yeah..one of their default weapons in the Bestiary is a greatsword that does 2d8+2d6 and they can use any form of magic but often specialize in sorcerous Tap and Dominate spells. Those that worship gods usually go with Malia, Vivamort, or Ikadz (god of torture). Yeesh! I'd forgotten how nasty these things are! They gotta be a Humakti's nightmare..or the perfect enemy, depending on the Humakti. Anyone care to draw one of these things? My artistic skills are non-existent. David Smart From steve at perrinworlds.com Thu Apr 22 11:41:38 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:41:38 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Differences between versions References: <56021.127.0.0.1.1082555077.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> Message-ID: <003801c4280b$04c70680$68417442@wizard> I actually intend to visit the Wiki Real Soon Now, but haven't so far. Main differences between most RQ versions and SPQR are: 1. No Strike Ranks 2. A definite difference between hit points (for locations) and Health 3. Completely revised sorcery system (much more like Magic World) 4. No Resistance Table (everything is opposed rolls) 5. And some cosmetic stuff. If anyone who has subscribed to SPQR has some other comments, I would love to see them. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Maranci" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 6:44 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Differences between versions > Whoops! I just realized that I left Steve Perrin's Quest Rules off the > list. Sorry Steve! I've corrected that. I hope you don't mind having the > game listed? I've linked to it as well, of course. > > I haven't actually listed any differences between RQ3 and SPQR, because I > don't know what they are. > > ->Peter > -- > Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net > Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Apr 22 21:21:06 2004 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:21:06 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Mythworld? In-Reply-To: <20040421175314.EF5C1222743@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <4087B8B2.14785.40E28AD@localhost> Sorry, what was Mythworld? -- Tom Zunder - tom at zunder.org.uk ICQ: 152799 YM!: tzunder AOL: tomzunder MSN: (as email) http://tavern.elric.org.uk http://www.zunder.org.uk From gianni at basicrps.com Thu Apr 22 22:17:38 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:17:38 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Huan To Description In-Reply-To: <40870AA1.6080004@earthlink.net> References: <31222192.1082560870027.JavaMail.root@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> <40870AA1.6080004@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <1082636258.4087b7e21096f@imp.webhuset.no> Quoting "D. Smart" : > According to Avalon Hill's "Gloranthan Bestiary": <...snip> Thanks a lot, David. No picture in the Gloranthan Bestiary? Gianni From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri Apr 23 00:28:37 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:28:37 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Huan To Description Message-ID: <16778812.1082644117405.JavaMail.root@ernie.psp.pas.earthlink.net> No pic, unfortunately. I guess anyone who's seen one either didn't survive or ran too fast. *grin* David -----Original Message----- From: Gianni Sent: Apr 22, 2004 7:17 AM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Huan To Description Quoting "D. Smart" : > According to Avalon Hill's "Gloranthan Bestiary": <...snip> Thanks a lot, David. No picture in the Gloranthan Bestiary? Gianni _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri Apr 23 00:33:42 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:33:42 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Huan To Description Message-ID: <31869358.1082644422131.JavaMail.root@ernie.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Hey! I just had a thought. Find a picture of Pumpkinhead on the web and use a graphics package to stretch out the head. That should come close. David -----Original Message----- From: Gianni Sent: Apr 22, 2004 7:17 AM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Huan To Description Quoting "D. Smart" : > According to Avalon Hill's "Gloranthan Bestiary": <...snip> Thanks a lot, David. No picture in the Gloranthan Bestiary? Gianni From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Apr 23 01:05:14 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 08:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Mythworld? In-Reply-To: <4087B8B2.14785.40E28AD@localhost> Message-ID: <20040422150514.96296.qmail@web12407.mail.yahoo.com> Is. It is still in print since 1985. It is a fantasy role-playing game with a high degree of realism (take the real world, add polytheism, magic, and a lot of equally intelligent species interacting with humans, and play. Easy to learn, but with rules to cover anything and a bestiary with such accurate data it was used to design a museum exhibit. Available for $35.00 (including postage, $5.00 more overseas), from Hippogriff, 1127 Cedar, Bonham, TX 75418. Paul Cardwell --- Tom Zunder wrote: > Sorry, what was Mythworld? > > > -- > Tom Zunder - tom at zunder.org.uk > ICQ: 152799 YM!: tzunder AOL: tomzunder MSN: (as > email) > http://tavern.elric.org.uk > http://www.zunder.org.uk > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25? http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri Apr 23 03:51:28 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 12:51:28 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Mythworld? Message-ID: <27959201.1082656288855.JavaMail.root@thecount.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Is there a website available? David Smart -----Original Message----- From: Paul Cardwell Sent: Apr 22, 2004 10:05 AM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Mythworld? Is. It is still in print since 1985. It is a fantasy role-playing game with a high degree of realism (take the real world, add polytheism, magic, and a lot of equally intelligent species interacting with humans, and play. Easy to learn, but with rules to cover anything and a bestiary with such accurate data it was used to design a museum exhibit. Available for $35.00 (including postage, $5.00 more overseas), from Hippogriff, 1127 Cedar, Bonham, TX 75418. Paul Cardwell --- Tom Zunder wrote: > Sorry, what was Mythworld? > > > -- > Tom Zunder - tom at zunder.org.uk > ICQ: 152799 YM!: tzunder AOL: tomzunder MSN: (as > email) > http://tavern.elric.org.uk > http://www.zunder.org.uk > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25? http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Fri Apr 23 14:13:44 2004 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:13:44 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Differences between RQ1 and RQ2? In-Reply-To: <20040421160317.73267.qmail@web12406.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040421160317.73267.qmail@web12406.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <408897F8.3030401@sbcglobal.net> I no longer have RQ1 (but I wish I did!), but I remember that Invisibility was available as a battle (i.e. spirit) magic spell, and that Padding (a cut-down version of Protection) was also available as battle magic. From Aldanata at wmconnect.com Fri Apr 23 22:05:25 2004 From: Aldanata at wmconnect.com (Aldanata at wmconnect.com) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:05:25 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] And More Questions Message-ID: the reason that choking will work with skin of life is that the lungs have to be able to expand and contract in order to cycle oxygen. Just haveing the oxygen provided by the spell doesn't help if there is no inhael and exhale. William From peter at maranci.net Fri Apr 23 22:56:21 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:56:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ2 Message-ID: <36172.127.0.0.1.1082724981.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> I've laid down an initial outline for RQ2 rules in the RQ Wiki, but since I haven't played the system in...jeeze, over 17 years, maybe some of you guys who still play it would like to fill it in a bit. And of course there's still a lot to do pretty much throughout the wiki. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From gianni at basicrps.com Sat Apr 24 00:13:30 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:13:30 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Differences between versions In-Reply-To: <003801c4280b$04c70680$68417442@wizard> References: <56021.127.0.0.1.1082555077.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> <003801c4280b$04c70680$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: <1082729610.4089248ab1b8f@imp.webhuset.no> about the RQ Wiki: ?Differences between RuneQuest 3 and Issaries' Hero Wars and Hero Quest: Apart from Gloranthan elements, the two systems are basically unrelated? I think this is axaggerated. I feel the main difference between the two systems is that the average power-level of the games is different (in RQ you start with an average adventurer, in HW/HQ, you play the role of a hero). But then both systems have battle magic, divine magic, sorcery. Both systems are skill-based. I mean -- whereas RQ and RQSlayers were clearly and utterly unrelated, HeroQuest has a vague RQ feeling to it. And HQ supplements can be converted to RQ. Ruleless HQ supplements (there are *a lot*) can even be used as they are. Gianni From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Apr 24 01:50:41 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Mythworld? In-Reply-To: <27959201.1082656288855.JavaMail.root@thecount.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20040423155041.46875.qmail@web12404.mail.yahoo.com> --- David Smart wrote: > Is there a website available? > > David Smart Not yet. However, there is discussion with a volunteer web designer which may result in such a site after all these years. If it goes through, I will be mentioning it on several of my favorite discussions in hopes that links may be formed. I am not particularly interested in a specific Mythword discussion list (although open to popular demand) because the current array seems adequate for everything beyond nit-picking rules interpretation (which I am willing to discuss offline). Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25? http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash From peter at maranci.net Sat Apr 24 02:12:51 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Differences between versions Message-ID: <40473.127.0.0.1.1082736771.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> * Gianni (gianni at basicrps.com) wrote: > I feel the main difference between the two systems is that the average > power-level of the games is different (in RQ you start with > an average adventurer, in HW/HQ, you play the role of a hero). But then > both systems have battle magic, divine magic, sorcery. Both systems are > skill-based. Since I've never played HQ, obviously I can't be authoritative. But lots of systems are skill-based. My understanding was that the skills in HQ, though, aren't expressed in numbers, but only in words. In any case, they're not percentile-based, right? And do the characteristic systems map at all to each other? Again, I may be wrong, but I thought that HQ was not at all related to the BRP family of games. D&D 3.5 skills actually seem closer to the RQ3 system than HQ does. > I mean -- whereas RQ and RQSlayers were clearly and utterly unrelated, > HeroQuest has a vague RQ feeling to it. Isn't that solely or mostly due to the Gloranthan link? The spell names and magic types that both systems share relate back to Glorantha, after all. But looked at purely as *systems*, without taking the history and Gloranthan elements into account, would anyone think that these two systems were at all related? I'd like to hear from people who know both systems. ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm From DevinC at aol.com Sat Apr 24 02:39:59 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:39:59 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Differences between versions Message-ID: <1eb.1e79b468.2dbaa0df@aol.com> "I mean -- whereas RQ and RQSlayers were clearly and utterly unrelated, HeroQuest has a vague RQ feeling to it. And HQ supplements can be converted to RQ. Ruleless HQ supplements (there are *a lot*) can even be used as they are. Gianni" Allow me to disagree completely with this statement. HW has as much in common with RQ as the Ralph Bakshi version of LOTR has with P. Jackson's version. Both cover the same topic, but in bewilderingly different manners. HW approaches RPing from a decidedly theatrical point of view. Details scmetails...what matters most is moving the plot line along. That's why you have such abstract rules for combat. You lose APs bid in a combat round and it is left for the Narrator to decide after the fact what the heck all that means. RQ is, OTOH, coming from a tactical approach. Like it or not, the system is meant to mirror the reality of the situation with each dice roll. Actions determine plot in RQ, while in HW plot determines actions. That's an immense distinction in my book. Devin From gianni at basicrps.com Sat Apr 24 18:50:54 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:50:54 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Differences between versions In-Reply-To: <40473.127.0.0.1.1082736771.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> References: <40473.127.0.0.1.1082736771.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> Message-ID: <1082796654.408a2a6ecc93a@imp.webhuset.no> Quoting Peter Maranci : > Since I've never played HQ, obviously I can't be authoritative. But lots > of systems are skill-based. My understanding was that the skills in HQ, > though, aren't expressed in numbers, but only in words. Character creation is based on words. But skills are expressed in numbers (? la Pendragon, 20 is equivalent to 100%). > In any case, > they're not percentile-based, right? See above. Conversion is pretty straightforward. > And do the characteristic systems map at all to each other? Again, I may > be wrong, but I thought that HQ was not at all related to the BRP family > of games. D&D 3.5 skills actually seem closer to the RQ3 system than HQ > does. Of course. D&D3.5 was meant to mirror RQ game mechanisms but using AD&D rules (verbatim; see Jonathan Tweets' interview http://www.casusbelli.com/mag/004/createurs/tweet.html) > > I mean -- whereas RQ and RQSlayers were clearly and utterly unrelated, > > HeroQuest has a vague RQ feeling to it. > > Isn't that solely or mostly due to the Gloranthan link? The spell names > and magic types that both systems share relate back to Glorantha, after > all. But looked at purely as *systems*, without taking the history and > Gloranthan elements into account, would anyone think that these two > systems were at all related? Probably not, as pointed out in another post. But is it _that_ easy to make abstraction of the setting and only concentrate on the game mechanics? I used to think that, but I'm not sure any longer. No matter what setting you play in, your game is bound to be a power-game if you use AD&D rules. No matter what setting you play in, your game is gonna have sort of a Gloranthan feel to it if you are using the BRPS with battle magic and divine magic. > I'd like to hear from people who know both > systems. Also, I've never played HQ (I only own some of the ruleless Gloranthan supplements), but my RQ2 gamemaster keeps saying 'when you reach rune lord status, we switch to HQ'. Bye for now, Gianni From stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk Sun Apr 25 05:09:27 2004 From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk (Stephen McGinness) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:09:27 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Differences between versions In-Reply-To: <1082796654.408a2a6ecc93a@imp.webhuset.no> Message-ID: > > Since I've never played HQ, obviously I can't be authoritative. But lots > > of systems are skill-based. My understanding was that the skills in HQ, > > though, aren't expressed in numbers, but only in words. > > Character creation is based on words. But skills are expressed in > numbers (? la Pendragon, 20 is equivalent to 100%). As I am currently running both an RQII game and a HeroQuest game I think I might be in a decent place to comment. Gianni is probably as close to right as makes any difference. HQ uses a concept called keywords to shorthand background knowledge - for example - a warrior would in a clan would have the warrior keyword and all of the skills that a warrior might have - such as Brave, Know enemy tactics and Spear and Shield Combat - will all be available at a level of 17 (in Gianni's recknoning 85%) Other skills start at a base of 13 (65%) and so average clansmen would be fairly experienced - default skills come in at 6 (30%). In a normal HQ game you can expect a starting character to have a skill around 25 (125%) and two or three at 21 (105%). As you can see a high starting level. > > In any case, they're not percentile-based, right? > > See above. Conversion is pretty straightforward. Conversion to percentiles might be straightforward for rough and ready it really isn't a percentile based system at all. > > And do the characteristic systems map at all to each other? Again, I may > > be wrong, but I thought that HQ was not at all related to the BRP family > > of games. D&D 3.5 skills actually seem closer to the RQ3 system than HQ > > does. > > Of course. D&D3.5 was meant to mirror RQ game mechanisms but > using AD&D rules (verbatim; see Jonathan Tweets' interview > http://www.casusbelli.com/mag/004/createurs/tweet.html) The big thing with HQ is that nothing is really standard. There are no characteristics and nothing is put on a character sheet unless it is something that defines the character. There is no strength characteristic but your character can have a Strong ability if you think that is important. Any ability can be used in a contest either to attack or to defend but I think conversions should be carried out in spirit rather than attempting any real point for point conversion. I'd be trying to find a way to ensure that the characters felt the same in play. > > > I mean -- whereas RQ and RQSlayers were clearly and utterly unrelated, > > > HeroQuest has a vague RQ feeling to it. > > > > Isn't that solely or mostly due to the Gloranthan link? The spell names > > and magic types that both systems share relate back to Glorantha, after > > all. But looked at purely as *systems*, without taking the history and > > Gloranthan elements into account, would anyone think that these two > > systems were at all related? > > Probably not, as pointed out in another post. But is it _that_ easy to make > abstraction of the setting and only concentrate on the game mechanics? I used > to think that, but I'm not sure any longer. No matter what setting you play in, > your game is bound to be a power-game if you use AD&D rules. No matter what > setting you play in, your game is gonna have sort of a Gloranthan feel to it if > you are using the BRPS with battle magic and divine magic. I'd disagree. I think that HQ has absolutely no relation to RQ as a game system. There is a very different feel to the game and different emphasis from each. RQ looks at the detail of how and HQ deals with why. Very different and satisfying in very different ways. I think that both evoke Glorantha as that is what they were designed for but beyond that I think its been demonstrated that the BRP quite easily translates to horror without evoking Glorantha and I've used the HQ system to play superheroes without it evoking Glornatha. > > I'd like to hear from people who know both systems. > > Also, I've never played HQ (I only own some of the ruleless Gloranthan > supplements), but my RQ2 gamemaster keeps saying 'when you reach > rune lord status, we switch to HQ'. It's a reasonable decision, HQ is designed to provide ways of interacting with the God and Spirit Plane in serious ways. I think it deals much better with the higher level of play than RQ can. Stephen From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Apr 26 18:09:40 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:09:40 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Differences between versions Message-ID: >>"I mean -- whereas RQ and RQSlayers were clearly and utterly unrelated, >>HeroQuest has a vague RQ feeling to it. And HQ supplements can be converted >>to >>RQ. Ruleless HQ supplements (there are *a lot*) can even be used as they are. >> >>Gianni" > >Allow me to disagree completely with this statement. HW has as much in >common with RQ as the Ralph Bakshi version of LOTR has with P. Jackson's version. >Both cover the same topic, but in bewilderingly different manners. > >...(SNIPAGE) > >Devin I'm with Devin on this one, RQ (in any BRP flavour) seems to me to be a radically different _system_ to HW/HQ. Conversion is a red herring IMO (it's actually quite easy to adapt RQ material to Everway or GURPS stuff for RQII, but that hardly means that the systems are related...). Whilst HW/HQ and RQ are both role playing games that use dice and quantify unique sets of factors to describe individuals (as opposed to using a limited set of generic types to fit individuals into i.e. Classes or templates), this describes pretty much every roleplaying# game since about 1982 and doesn't strike me as a good basis for saying they are similar systems. HQ/HW doesn't have a skills system: it has a systems that quantifies whatever player and ref decide is worth quantifying. It uses different dice, read differently to RQ; there are similarities I'll grant you, but they are no closer than the fact that, like say GURPS or D20, both RQ and HW/HQ have exceptional success rules, and given the way masteries work in the latter it actually has more in common with Rolemaster or Ars Magica than RQ... Pick any typical subsystem of an RPG (Character creation, wounds and dying, skills, combat, magic, economics) and HW/HQ is abstracted, unconcerned with mundane details and overwhelmingly committed to the onward flow of the narrative. RQ OTOH, focuses in on the detail (locational hit points, weapon skills, precise numeric tracking of magical power), if necessary at the expense of any larger narrative. Whilst one can, if one squints, trace the HW/HQ lineage back via Pendragon to RQII, it is a long and quite transformational journey and the bits of Pendragon that most influenced HW/HQ (Traits and Passions) are the least RQ elements. Frankly I can see as close links from HW/HQ to Ghostbusters (another Greg Stafford design of the same era as Pendragon and very much focused around narrative and fluid character design), as there are between HQ/HW and RQ. And whilst RQ struggles beyond a certain power level (and as a rule system was bounded), HW/HQ is designed from the ground up to scale to epic power levels, and if anything suffers at the low end... I can fully accept that both HW/HQ and RQ (in vert different ways) do a good job of representing versions of Glorantha, but I don't think that means they have very much in common as rule systems, which is what I though the Wiki was describing... cheers, Nick Middleton #other than D&D, Palladium and Rolemaster, and they all became more flexible as time passed. From lancelot at inetnebr.com Wed Apr 28 12:42:02 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 21:42:02 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DragonQuest... Striking similiarities Message-ID: <408F19FA.50400@inetnebr.com> Has anyone noticed the similarities between DragonQuest and RuneQuest? Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying -- Lance Dyas Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds From steve at perrinworlds.com Wed Apr 28 16:09:42 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:09:42 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DragonQuest... Striking similiarities References: <408F19FA.50400@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <003101c42ce7$75de58b0$68417442@wizard> The authors of DragonQuest were RQ fans. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "lance dyas" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 7:42 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] DragonQuest... Striking similiarities > Has anyone noticed the similarities between DragonQuest and RuneQuest? > > > Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying > > -- Lance Dyas > Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center > http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Apr 28 18:06:56 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:06:56 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] DragonQuest... Striking similiarities Message-ID: >The authors of DragonQuest were RQ fans. > >Steve > > >> Has anyone noticed the similarities between DragonQuest and RuneQuest? >> >> >> Google Me under : Lost Worlds Roleplaying >> >> -- Lance Dyas It is decades since I last had any serious contact with DQ, and even then it was my brother ransacking the white hardback (2nd edition IIRC) for magic systems for his multi-system monstrosity, Eb-Kluash... I think I have the pdf of the DQ 'Open Source' version somewhere, albeit I'm dubious as to it's legality... But what is most prominent in my memories of DQ is how similar combat felt to Melee and Wizard aka The Fantasy Trip (Steve Jackson's first RPG for micro-game specialists Metagaming). It wasn't just the hex grid either: both Steve Jackson and the team behind DQ came from a board war gaming background so I suppose they tended to approach combat and other rule system design in a meticulous, methodical fashion. Which is probably why we enjoyed Melee and Wizard as simple games but never took to TFT, and found DQ a good source (the schools of magic were great fun IIRC, very Le Guin in feel) but were never drawn to play it on it's own. As opposed to RQ/Stormbringer/Cthulhu/BRP which became almost the sole basis of my role playing for many years... I am also however really chuffed to have a copy of Paul Jaquays DQ scenario The Enchanted Wood; I keep meaning to pick up the other related bits (Shattered Statue etc...). Cheers, Nick Middleton From phil.hibbs at capgemini.com Wed Apr 28 23:20:02 2004 From: phil.hibbs at capgemini.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:20:02 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Differences between versions Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E97FBF@exast02.capgemini.co.u k> Devin: >Actions determine plot in RQ, while in HW plot determines actions. I could reply to this with a huge rant about how bigoted and offensive that that comment appears to be, but I won't, suffice it to say that I disagree in the strongest possible terms. I would say that in fact the opposite is true - in HQ, there is more likelihood that the characters can perform plot-changing actions, if the referee can cope with the outcome of course. Any game that allows characters to influence the plot will hit the problem the the ref may not be able to handle the consequences. In terms of the system differences - there are no characteristics, only abilities, but these do have a numerical rating that dice are rolled against. A very low-level beginning character might have the following: Heortling Warrior 17 Unruly 15 Find Hidden Places 15 Know Heortling Myths 12 Flirting 6 I just made up more than half of those, but that's the way the system is. It gets a little more complex when skills get over 20, but that's already too much detail for an RQ list. Phil Hibbs -- ======================================================= This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of Capgemini UK plc. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorised to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message. ======================================================= From DevinC at aol.com Thu Apr 29 03:50:45 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:50:45 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Differences between versions Message-ID: <36.56b4c4d9.2dc148f5@aol.com> In a message dated 4/28/2004 6:20:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time, phil.hibbs at capgemini.com writes: I could reply to this with a huge rant about how bigoted and offensive that that comment appears to be, but I won't, suffice it to say that I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Bigoted and offensive? Talk about hyperbole! Save those words for issues that really matter in the grand scheme of things. Sheesh! I would say that in fact the opposite is true - in HQ, there is more likelihood that the characters can perform plot-changing actions, if the referee can cope with the outcome of course. Any game that allows characters to influence the plot will hit the problem the the ref may not be able to handle the consequences. In terms of the system differences - there are no characteristics, only abilities, but these do have a numerical rating that dice are rolled against. A very low-level beginning character might have the following: Heortling Warrior 17 Unruly 15 Find Hidden Places 15 Know Heortling Myths 12 Flirting 6 I just made up more than half of those, but that's the way the system is. It gets a little more complex when skills get over 20, but that's already too much detail for an RQ list. Phil Hibbs -- The fact remains that in HQ the very fact that combat is so abstracted and that no definitions are given to specific skills and abilities by definition means they are intended to be devalued as compared to those aspects that are detailed, namely Gloranthan culture and the like. In HQ combat is so abstracted that the DM is pretty much relegated to making up the actual description of what is happening out of whole cloth. There is no set definition in HQ for what it means when you lose a bid for 5 AP. Cohorts and followers in combat are not their own individuals but are in essence mere vaporous modifiers to the hero's own abilities. Combat in HQ is meant simply to advance the story. It is not meant to be, in and of itself, an exercise in tactics and moving around figures on a battlemate....something you could very easily and very well do with RQ. I for one am not making any overall value judgement as to which approach is better (which is why your use of the term "bigoted" is rather silly). There are plenty of folks who feel that RQ emphasized combat and the details of combat way too much. That bothering with things like strike rank and AP for weapons and varying damage for different weapons was too much detail. Devin From peter at maranci.net Fri Apr 30 02:21:21 2004 From: peter at maranci.net (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:21:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ Wiki slight address change Message-ID: <46870.127.0.0.1.1083255681.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> Just a slight clarification on the address of the RQ wiki: http://www.maranci.net/index.php?RuneQuest I had to make a slight adjustment. The wiki is still open for additions, of course... ->Peter -- Peter Maranci peter at maranci.net Pete's RuneQuest! http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm