From mechashef at bigpond.com Wed Jun 2 08:53:08 2004 From: mechashef at bigpond.com (Mechashef) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 08:53:08 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hags and Shades In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040601225321.6C4F42226F2@boomstick.screwheads.net> How would you permanently kill a hag? I an writing a scenario where the main enemy is a Hag. The main city in my campaign is mostly underground. Decades ago, workers broke into a cave inhabited by a hag. A group of NPC adventurers killed her and save the day. Now, the hag (as the monster book states) has formed a new body and has returned for revenge. The PCs are called in to solve a horrific murder etc etc. If they kill the Hag, she will return again after a period of time (weeks, months years? - I chose decades). How could a group of sub-Rune levels permanently kill a Hag? Also, if a Shade (summoned by the Hag) envelops someone and kills then using its Fear Shock, would the elemental leave any tracks on the ground? Thanks From talmeta at talmeta.net Wed Jun 2 09:06:56 2004 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 19:06:56 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hags and Shades In-Reply-To: <20040601225321.6C4F42226F2@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20040601225321.6C4F42226F2@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <40BD0C10.3080006@talmeta.net> Mechashef wrote: > How could a group of sub-Rune levels permanently kill a Hag? Easiest way to solve the problem would be to create a hag binding enchantment, and make the user condition impossible (or maybe not quite so impossible) to fulfill; then drop the binding object into a dark hole somewhere... > Also, if a Shade (summoned by the Hag) envelops someone and kills then using > its Fear Shock, would the elemental leave any tracks on the ground? Not in one of my campaigns, but maybe in yours.... if it helps the story, then go for it. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - My wife made me join a bridge club. I jump off next Tuesday. From bick10 at comcast.net Wed Jun 2 12:09:52 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (Jim Bickmeyer) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 19:09:52 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Hags and Shades References: <20040601225321.6C4F42226F2@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <001c01c44846$b4720b60$6401a8c0@attbi.com> > How would you permanently kill a hag? > > If they kill the Hag, she will return again after a period of time (weeks, > months years? - I chose decades). Maybe you can not kill the Hag. That makes her a truly horrible. > How could a group of sub-Rune levels permanently kill a Hag? How about imprisoning or binding. A diviner might have the clue to provide them with this solution. > Also, if a Shade (summoned by the Hag) envelops someone and kills then using > its Fear Shock, would the elemental leave any tracks on the ground? I think of a Shade as a shadow that takes solid form. Any tracks would be at the attack sight and then rough impressions that to the inexperienced would appear as made by cloth or swirling air. > Thanks Your welcome. From mspambox at yahoo.com Tue Jun 8 10:12:20 2004 From: mspambox at yahoo.com (matt conrad) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 17:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? Message-ID: <20040608001220.56113.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com> I've not gotten anything since I subscribed about four days ago. I'm thinking about running a RQ based game, and I have some questions. Is anybody listening? Thanks, Matt __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From MurfNMurf at aol.com Tue Jun 8 10:17:58 2004 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 20:17:58 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? Message-ID: <12c.43ad3aae.2df65fb6@aol.com> In a message dated 6/7/2004 7:12:36 PM Central Standard Time, mspambox at yahoo.com writes: I've not gotten anything since I subscribed about four days ago. I'm thinking about running a RQ based game, and I have some questions. Is anybody listening? Thanks, Matt Sure Matt, Fire away. -Ken- From slposey at concentric.net Tue Jun 8 10:24:50 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 17:24:50 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? In-Reply-To: <20040608001220.56113.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040608001220.56113.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40C50752.8080505@concentric.net> matt conrad wrote: > I've not gotten anything since I subscribed about four > days ago. > > I'm thinking about running a RQ based game, and I have > some questions. Is anybody listening? Yep, we're here. The group's usually a bit more lively than this, we're just having a quiet period. Ask away... Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Tue Jun 8 11:31:08 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:31:08 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? Message-ID: <410-220046281318812@earthlink.net> Yessir, ask away, I'm running one based on Bronze-Age Europe mixed with a bit of fantasy at present. > [Original Message] > From: > To: > Date: 6/7/2004 5:17:58 PM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? > > In a message dated 6/7/2004 7:12:36 PM Central Standard Time, > mspambox at yahoo.com writes: > I've not gotten anything since I subscribed about four > days ago. > > I'm thinking about running a RQ based game, and I have > some questions. Is anybody listening? > > Thanks, > Matt > Sure Matt, > Fire away. > > -Ken- > _______________________________________________ > 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 rune_quester at comcast.net Tue Jun 8 11:59:14 2004 From: rune_quester at comcast.net (RQ) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 21:59:14 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? References: <410-220046281318812@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <000801c44cfc$33673d50$51f82144@yourmb2swywknr> Yep, I am new too. I am running one on Krynn, Dragonlance.. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Lugar" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? > Yessir, ask away, I'm running one based on Bronze-Age Europe mixed with a > bit of fantasy at present. > > > > [Original Message] > > From: > > To: > > Date: 6/7/2004 5:17:58 PM > > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? > > > > In a message dated 6/7/2004 7:12:36 PM Central Standard Time, > > mspambox at yahoo.com writes: > > I've not gotten anything since I subscribed about four > > days ago. > > > > I'm thinking about running a RQ based game, and I have > > some questions. Is anybody listening? > > > > Thanks, > > Matt > > Sure Matt, > > Fire away. > > > > -Ken- > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 8 12:54:27 2004 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 21:54:27 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? In-Reply-To: <410-220046281318812@earthlink.net> References: <410-220046281318812@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <40C52A63.1060904@sbcglobal.net> Sven Lugar wrote: >Yessir, ask away, I'm running one based on Bronze-Age Europe mixed with a >bit of fantasy at present. > > That sounds great! Anything online we can look at, or can you at least give us a description of the game? Guy From jgould at io.com Tue Jun 8 13:16:29 2004 From: jgould at io.com (Jim Gould) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:16:29 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? In-Reply-To: <20040608001220.56113.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040608001220.56113.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >I've not gotten anything since I subscribed about four >days ago. > >I'm thinking about running a RQ based game, and I have >some questions. Is anybody listening? Ask away. I'm running a Gloranthan RQ3 campaign currently. At the moment it's centered on Melib. "Dammit" Jim From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Tue Jun 8 14:12:05 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 21:12:05 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? Message-ID: <410-220046284125187@earthlink.net> Thank you for your interest. I don't have a lot up yet but will add more when I'm fully patched back up. Time on the computer is phuysically painful right now. Here's the url: http://home.earthlink.net/~freyrvanic/Gaming.html At the bottom there's an interesting (in my humble opinion) house-rule that I use. If you jump to my main page there's other fun stuff too. thanks again, Sven > [Original Message] > From: Guy Hoyle > To: ; RuneQuest rules discussion. > Date: 6/7/2004 7:42:53 PM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? > > Sven Lugar wrote: > > >Yessir, ask away, I'm running one based on Bronze-Age Europe mixed with a > >bit of fantasy at present. > > > > > That sounds great! Anything online we can look at, or can you at least > give us a description of the game? > > Guy From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Jun 8 21:43:33 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:43:33 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? Message-ID: > >matt conrad wrote: > >> I've not gotten anything since I subscribed about four >> days ago. >> >> I'm thinking about running a RQ based game, and I have >> some questions. Is anybody listening? > >Yep, we're here. > >The group's usually a bit more lively than this, we're just having a >quiet period plus the mail server ( or some other part of the net) is a bit gummed up: the thread that started with Matt's original message arrived in a very odd order... Still, ask away. I'm not running RQ at present, I'm playing in a game set in Pavis at present, but I have run RQ as well, and the list in general is well informed and helpful... Cheers, Nick Middleton From talmeta at talmeta.net Wed Jun 9 01:44:50 2004 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 11:44:50 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? In-Reply-To: <000801c44cfc$33673d50$51f82144@yourmb2swywknr> References: <410-220046281318812@earthlink.net> <000801c44cfc$33673d50$51f82144@yourmb2swywknr> Message-ID: <40C5DEF2.6060505@talmeta.net> RQ wrote: > Yep, I am new too. I am running one on Krynn, Dragonlance.. Hey, we should compare notes. I ran a game set on Oerth, Greyhawk, not too long ago... -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - I've been looking in the mirror for so long. That I've come to believe my souls on the other side... From slposey at concentric.net Wed Jun 9 02:22:05 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 09:22:05 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? In-Reply-To: <40C5DEF2.6060505@talmeta.net> References: <410-220046281318812@earthlink.net> <000801c44cfc$33673d50$51f82144@yourmb2swywknr> <40C5DEF2.6060505@talmeta.net> Message-ID: <40C5E7AD.50702@concentric.net> Tal Meta wrote: > RQ wrote: > >> Yep, I am new too. I am running one on Krynn, Dragonlance.. > > > Hey, we should compare notes. I ran a game set on Oerth, Greyhawk, not > too long ago... Isn't somebody on the list doing RQ Dark Sun too? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From gloomshark at hotmail.com Wed Jun 9 08:55:52 2004 From: gloomshark at hotmail.com (Dana Myers) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 22:55:52 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? Message-ID: oooo, Krynn... I've been thinking of trying some conversions (as opposed to running in the world) have anything up on the web to look at? >From: "RQ" >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: ,"RuneQuest rules discussion." > >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? >Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 21:59:14 -0400 > >Yep, I am new too. I am running one on Krynn, Dragonlance.. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sven Lugar" >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 9:31 PM >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? > > > > Yessir, ask away, I'm running one based on Bronze-Age Europe mixed with >a > > bit of fantasy at present. > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: > > > To: > > > Date: 6/7/2004 5:17:58 PM > > > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? > > > > > > In a message dated 6/7/2004 7:12:36 PM Central Standard Time, > > > mspambox at yahoo.com writes: > > > I've not gotten anything since I subscribed about four > > > days ago. > > > > > > I'm thinking about running a RQ based game, and I have > > > some questions. Is anybody listening? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Matt > > > Sure Matt, > > > Fire away. > > > > > > -Ken- > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ Getting married? Find great tips, tools and the latest trends at MSN Life Events. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married From rune_quester at comcast.net Wed Jun 9 09:07:24 2004 From: rune_quester at comcast.net (RQ) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:07:24 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Krynn References: Message-ID: <000701c44dad$5c9fbd30$51f82144@yourmb2swywknr> Give us some time and it will be up there on the web. We have a few more things to work on before posting it.. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Myers" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 6:55 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? > > oooo, Krynn... I've been thinking of trying some conversions (as opposed to > running in the world) have anything up on the web to look at? > > >From: "RQ" > >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > >To: ,"RuneQuest rules discussion." > > > >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? > >Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 21:59:14 -0400 > > > >Yep, I am new too. I am running one on Krynn, Dragonlance.. > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Sven Lugar" > >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > >Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 9:31 PM > >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? > > > > > > > Yessir, ask away, I'm running one based on Bronze-Age Europe mixed with > >a > > > bit of fantasy at present. > > > > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > > From: > > > > To: > > > > Date: 6/7/2004 5:17:58 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] is there anybody out there? > > > > > > > > In a message dated 6/7/2004 7:12:36 PM Central Standard Time, > > > > mspambox at yahoo.com writes: > > > > I've not gotten anything since I subscribed about four > > > > days ago. > > > > > > > > I'm thinking about running a RQ based game, and I have > > > > some questions. Is anybody listening? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Matt > > > > Sure Matt, > > > > Fire away. > > > > > > > > -Ken- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >RQ-Rules mailing list > >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > _________________________________________________________________ > Getting married? Find great tips, tools and the latest trends at MSN Life > Events. http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=married > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mspambox at yahoo.com Wed Jun 9 12:31:48 2004 From: mspambox at yahoo.com (matt conrad) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? Message-ID: <20040609023148.2399.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> Glad to see I'm not alone here. :) Believe it or not, I'm new to Runequest. I got introduced to it back in high school (late 80s) but that never went anywhere, but I liked what I saw, and my memory is telling me I'd like it even more today. Anyway, call me strange, but I'd like to try using it with the new gaming group I'm starting. The problem is getting a copy of the rules, of course. Looks like Ebay is the route there. I'm pretty sure what I'd like to get is the Deluxe Boxed 3rd Edition. However, I've also seen the RuneQuest 3rd Edition hardback book, the Standard Boxed 3rd Edition, and possibly other variations I don't remember. Since I can't look at these guys, I don't really know what the differences and similarities are. I'll be the GM, so I'd like to have a reasonably complete system to start with. Should I just hold out for the Deluxe Boxed and bide my time, or is there another way to get the same content in pieces, is it 90% present in the hardback book, etc? Any advice is appreciated. Matt __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From jgould at io.com Wed Jun 9 13:37:09 2004 From: jgould at io.com (Jim Gould) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:37:09 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? In-Reply-To: <20040609023148.2399.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040609023148.2399.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >Glad to see I'm not alone here. :) Welcome! >I'll be the GM, so I'd like to have a reasonably >complete system to start with. Should I just hold out >for the Deluxe Boxed and bide my time, or is there >another way to get the same content in pieces, is it >90% present in the hardback book, etc? Any advice is >appreciated. The cheapest way is probably a copy of the 3rd Edition Deluxe Edition softcover. It's got all the books in the boxed set bound together. The boxed set is a bit more convenient, though, with all the rules sections separated. I suspect the hardback is just the same material. Avoid the "Standard Edition". I've had luck looking for RQ stuff at http://www.nobleknight.com and http://www.titangames.com. It's getting a bit scarce these days. If you're contemplating a Gloranthan game, or even if you're not, you'll want to be on the lookout for Gods of Glorantha. It's got a lot of new spells and such. If you're not going Glorantha, that's about all you'll need. Other Gloranthan material exists in some quantity. I think that Genertela: Crucible of the Hero Wars is just about essential, and the Pavis & Big Rubble reprint is on my hot list as well. Other folks can surely come up with other suggestions, but that's my quick take. "Dammit" Jim P.S. I suggest someone throw out a link to Sandy's sorcery. It's one of the better ways to "fix" 3rd Edition sorcery. I just can't find the link ... From MurfNMurf at aol.com Wed Jun 9 13:39:46 2004 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 23:39:46 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? Message-ID: <131.2ee2b336.2df7e082@aol.com> In a message dated 6/8/2004 10:37:28 PM Central Standard Time, jgould at io.com writes: Other folks can surely come up with other suggestions, but that's my quick take. Well, I'd suggest the Elric?Stromnringer supplement "Sailing on the Sea of Fate" (or something similar). Has just about the same ship rules as included in RQ3, but greatly expanded upon :) -Ken Murphy- From katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com Wed Jun 9 14:06:33 2004 From: katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com (John Raner) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 21:06:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040609040633.36111.qmail@web50206.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jim Gould wrote: > P.S. I suggest someone throw out a link to Sandy's > sorcery. It's one > of the better ways to "fix" 3rd Edition sorcery. I > just can't find > the link ... I'm new to this list and this is my first post :). Sandy's Sorcery rules can be found here: http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha/sorcery.html Cheers, John ===== "Keep a government poor and weak and it's your servant; let it get rich and powerful and it's your master." ---- Colonel Andrew Jackson Hickok A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." ---- Friedrich Nietzsche "It is a shame that governments are chiefed by the devil tongues" ---- Chief Ten Bears "There is no such thing as an obsolete weapon or tool, merely obsolete thinking in its employ." ---- Mark D. (CapnCarp at yahoo.com) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From pmj at comhem.se Wed Jun 9 17:25:15 2004 From: pmj at comhem.se (Peter Johansson) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 09:25:15 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? In-Reply-To: References: <20040609023148.2399.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40C6BB5B.1010605@comhem.se> Hi! I just have a small comment on Jim's mail: Jim Gould wrote: > The cheapest way is probably a copy of the 3rd Edition Deluxe Edition > softcover. It's got all the books in the boxed set bound together. The > boxed set is a bit more convenient, though, with all the rules > sections separated. I suspect the hardback is just the same material. > Avoid the "Standard Edition". I think the hardback mentioned is the Games Workshop version of RQ3 and if I remember correctly it is a 3 part thing that have a pretty bad reputation. I recommend a look at Rick Meints excellent website for information and reviews of almost all Glorantha/Runequest stuff out there: http://www.glorantha.info/index.html Cheers, /Peter J From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Jun 9 18:45:51 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 09:45:51 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? Message-ID: >Glad to see I'm not alone here. :) Welcome! >The problem is getting a copy of the rules, of course. >Looks like Ebay is the route there. I'm pretty sure >what I'd like to get is the Deluxe Boxed 3rd Edition. >However, I've also seen the RuneQuest 3rd Edition >hardback book, the Standard Boxed 3rd Edition, and >possibly other variations I don't remember. Since I >can't look at these guys, I don't really know what the >differences and similarities are. OK, it goes like this. Avalon Hill originally published RQIII in three boxes: The Players Box (Players Book and Magic book plus ephemera), The Game Masters Box (The World, Creatures and Glorantha Books, plus ephemera) and the Deluxe Box (contents of both the other boxes. At the start of the RQIII renaissance in the early nineties, they republished the contents of the Deluxe set as a perfect bound soft-back title Deluxe RuneQuest. In the UK, GW licensed RQIII from AH/Chaosium in ~1987 and published it in five hardbacks: Runequest (limited bits of Players, Magic and World Books), Advanced Runequest (the rest of the Players, Magic and World books), Monsters (the Creatures Book plus stuff from the Monster Coliseum supplement), Land of Ninja (the contents of the AH boxed supplement) and Griffin Island (the AH boxed set contents plus some additional conversions of stuff from the original RQII Griffin Mountain). I assume you are in the US, so I don't know how easy to source the GW editions will be. It _may_ be possible to get a "new" copy of the perfect bound AH edition from a game shop: I bought my copy a few years ago (2000/2001 IIRC) in my FLGS here in York, England as a new item off the shelf... >I'll be the GM, so I'd like to have a reasonably >complete system to start with. Should I just hold out >for the Deluxe Boxed and bide my time, or is there >another way to get the same content in pieces, is it >90% present in the hardback book, etc? Any advice is >appreciated. > There is nothing _new_ in the first GW hardbacks (and you MUST have both RQ and ARQ to play any sort of extended game) over the AH perfect bound Deluxe RuneQuest or Deluxe Boxed set, so I'd get the latter: GW's two hardbacks are fiddly and not as robust as one might hope. Of the two AH editions, the Deluxe Box is far more convenient to use (separate books), but less robust. The GW Monsters book has lots of typical stats (lifted from Monster Coliseum IIRC) which makes it more useful (albeit the art work is quite variable...). That is everything you need to run. Myself, I have a not so much foxed as positively badgered (and possibly wolverined) copy of the Players and Magic books which I have copied so my players have two copies for their use during play, and I have my book copy of the Deluxe Edition; but back in the day I ran both RQII and III with only a single copy of the rules with no problems. As others have said, you may want to think about house ruling Sorcery as it is the least elegant bit of RQIII: Sandy Petersen's version is highly regarded, there are others and a few house rules can fix the major glitches (Drop Free INT, use skill/5, No of spells = INT works for me). As generic supplements go Griffin island may only be a pale shadow of Griffin Mountain, but it still stands head and shoulders over most others, especially the "bad" AH stuff (Daughters of Darkness, Lost City of Eldarad - *shudder*). Whether you are a Gloranthaphile or not, the AH Zola Fel materials (Shadow on the Borderlands, Sun County, River of Cradles and Strangers in Prax) are all very good, Shadows in particular being three _cracking_ scenarios that could, with a little ingenuity, be ported to your own setting. I'll also mention the yahoo group (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/rqaddicts) and, amongst the many fine RQ web sites out there, Pete Marancini's (http://www.maranci.net/rq.htm) and Leon Kirshtein's (http://www.godlearner.d2g.com/), the database at the latter in particular is a great resource, and this list is of course a good source for advice. Cheers Nick Middleton From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Jun 9 19:37:11 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 10:37:11 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? Message-ID: >Hi! >I just have a small comment on Jim's mail: > >Jim Gould wrote: > >> The cheapest way is probably a copy of the 3rd Edition Deluxe Edition >> softcover. It's got all the books in the boxed set bound together. The >> boxed set is a bit more convenient, though, with all the rules >> sections separated. I suspect the hardback is just the same material. >> Avoid the "Standard Edition". > >I think the hardback mentioned is the Games Workshop version of RQ3 and >if I remember correctly it is a 3 part thing that have a pretty bad >reputation. I recommend a look at Rick Meints excellent website for >information and reviews of almost all Glorantha/Runequest stuff out there: > >http://www.glorantha.info/index.html > >Cheers, > >/Peter J D'oh! How could I for get Rick's site!! (hangs head in shame) Cheers, Nick Middleton From rune_quester at comcast.net Wed Jun 9 20:15:56 2004 From: rune_quester at comcast.net (RQ) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 06:15:56 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? References: Message-ID: <002301c44e0a$c12c9360$51f82144@yourmb2swywknr> Welcome! I have two suggestions, no matter where you live,amazon.com is where I got my copy for $5.00. RQ3, Avalon Hill or Chaosium. Also a variation of all the rules (Compiled like Elric! and COC) can be found at http://www.talmeta.net then click RPG's, then Runequest, then house rules, then Talmeta's Talquest Rules. They are made for Greyhawk, but he has done a wonderful job and has all the gods done out. From gianni at basicrps.com Wed Jun 9 20:20:23 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 12:20:23 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? In-Reply-To: <20040609023148.2399.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040609023148.2399.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1086776423.40c6e467de138@imp.webhuset.no> Hey Matt > Believe it or not, I'm new to Runequest. Well, believe it or not, so am I! I've been a player in a Gloranthan RQII campaign for about two/three years now, but I'd already played/GM'd other BRPS- based games in the past. > The problem is getting a copy of the rules, of course. > Looks like Ebay is the route there. I'm pretty sure > what I'd like to get is the Deluxe Boxed 3rd Edition. > However, I've also seen the RuneQuest 3rd Edition > hardback book, the Standard Boxed 3rd Edition, and > possibly other variations I don't remember. Since I > can't look at these guys, I don't really know what the > differences and similarities are. If you want to use the 3rd edition rules, go for the perfectbound DeLuxe book and forget the rest. I still sometimes see the perfectbound manual in game shops over here in Europe; it also usually sells for a reasonable price on eBay. Personally, I prefer the 2nd edition rules. I've just bought a second set of the RQII rules on ebay.co.uk for a mere ?15. I think that if you want to play in central Glorantha, RQII is your best choice because the rules are so intertwined with the setting (rune level characters, bronze weapons, no sorcery, great cult descriptions in Cults of Prax -- better than the ones in Gods of Glorantha). If you want to play in the West or in your own setting, RQIII is probably best. The advantage of RQII is also that Pavis, Big Rubble and Griffin Mountain have been reprinted and are again available with full RQII stats. Gianni webmaster of basicrps.com PS Please no flames. All of the above IMHO. From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Jun 9 22:37:24 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:37:24 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Killing Hags, Bronze-Age Europe In-Reply-To: <20040608162247.BC4E622271D@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040609123724.6676.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Mechashef: > How would you permanently kill a hag? > > I an writing a scenario where the main enemy is a Hag. The main city in my > campaign is mostly underground. Decades ago, workers broke into a cave > inhabited by a hag. A group of NPC adventurers killed her and save the > day. > Now, the hag (as the monster book states) has formed a new body and has > returned for revenge. The PCs are called in to solve a horrific murder etc > etc. > > If they kill the Hag, she will return again after a period of time (weeks, > months years? - I chose decades). I would say weeks, or until the next Holy Day of whatever darkness deity she is associated with. > How could a group of sub-Rune levels permanently kill a Hag? Since Hags are the manifestation of the darkness within a certain place, for example a cave, what you might have to do is to make sure the cave is filled with light permanently. So, break the cave's roof and make it open to daylight or put some magical torches that can't go out or cast a permanent lighting spell to fill the cave with light. Then kill the hag physically, or kill it first then light the cave up. That way, the hag has no darkness and cannot reform. Of course, if the lights are dispelled or removed then the hag may reform, if the GM wants it to. In the same way, you can kill a dryad by chopping its tree down. > Also, if a Shade (summoned by the Hag) envelops someone and kills then > using > its Fear Shock, would the elemental leave any tracks on the ground? No tracks, but there may be clues such as the body being unusually cold or having its eyes frozen. Tal Meta: > Mechashef wrote: > > How could a group of sub-Rune levels permanently kill a Hag? > > Easiest way to solve the problem would be to create a hag binding > enchantment, and make the user condition impossible (or maybe not quite > so impossible) to fulfill; then drop the binding object into a dark hole > somewhere... The trouble with that is you have to bind the hag and they normally have high POW. (In the same way as the classic recipe for Hydra Venom Antidote that begins "First, catch a Hydra ...") Jim Bickmeyer: > > How would you permanently kill a hag? > > > > If they kill the Hag, she will return again after a period of time > (weeks, > > months years? - I chose decades). > > Maybe you can not kill the Hag. That makes her a truly horrible. Unfortunately, in my experience as a GM, ANYTHING can be killed by those dratted PCs, no matter how unkillable I make them. > > How could a group of sub-Rune levels permanently kill a Hag? > > How about imprisoning or binding. A diviner might have the clue to provide > them with this solution. It wouldn't be well-known, though. Sven Lugar: > Yessir, ask away, I'm running one based on Bronze-Age Europe mixed with a > bit of fantasy at present. Are you a member of the Alternate Earth Yahoo Group (alternateearthrq)? We would be fascinated to hear what you've got written up as we are looking at Bronze Age Europe as a setting (when we can be bothered to do anything about it). I've just seen your link and I'll have a look this week. If you aren't a member of the alternateearthrq group then I'll invite you. See Ya 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 Jun 9 22:49:53 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 13:49:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? In-Reply-To: <20040609101624.D4E31222747@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040609124953.17348.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Nick Middleton: > >The problem is getting a copy of the rules, of course. > OK, it goes like this. Avalon Hill originally published RQIII in three > boxes: The Players Box (Players Book and Magic book plus ephemera), The > Game Masters Box (The World, Creatures and Glorantha Books, plus ephemera) > and the Deluxe Box (contents of both the other boxes. At the start of the > RQIII renaissance in the early nineties, they republished the contents of > the Deluxe set as a perfect bound soft-back title Deluxe RuneQuest. In the > UK, GW licensed RQIII from AH/Chaosium in ~1987 and published it in five > hardbacks: Runequest (limited bits of Players, Magic and World Books), > Advanced Runequest (the rest of the Players, Magic and World books), > Monsters (the Creatures Book plus stuff from the Monster Coliseum > supplement), Land of Ninja (the contents of the AH boxed supplement) and > Griffin Island (the AH boxed set contents plus some additional conversions > of stuff from the original RQII Griffin Mountain). Also, rather than going for the individual books, try the Gloranthan Classics, if you have a bit of money to burn. They have an impressive amount of cults, backgrounds and scenarios and are so easy to run that the GM hardly needs to turn up. Even if you don't play in Glorantha then they have good spells, skills, cults and critters. > >I'll be the GM, so I'd like to have a reasonably > >complete system to start with. Should I just hold out > >for the Deluxe Boxed and bide my time, or is there > >another way to get the same content in pieces, is it > >90% present in the hardback book, etc? Any advice is > >appreciated. > > > > There is nothing _new_ in the first GW hardbacks (and you MUST have both RQ > and ARQ to play any sort of extended game) over the AH perfect bound Deluxe > RuneQuest or Deluxe Boxed set, so I'd get the latter: GW's two hardbacks > are fiddly and not as robust as one might hope. Of the two AH editions, the > Deluxe Box is far more convenient to use (separate books), but less robust. > The GW Monsters book has lots of typical stats (lifted from Monster > Coliseum IIRC) which makes it more useful (albeit the art work is quite > variable...). That is everything you need to run. Myself, I have a not so > much foxed as positively badgered (and possibly wolverined) copy of the > Players and Magic books which I have copied so my players have two copies > for their use during play, and I have my book copy of the Deluxe Edition; > but back in the day I ran both RQII and III with only a single copy of the > rules with no problems. The Deluxe Edition is good to start off with, but unless you want to write up all your scenarios and cults yourself, then go with the supplements. The Gloranthan Classics are good places to start, or have I said that already? See Ya Simon ____________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Thu Jun 10 01:40:24 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 08:40:24 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Killing Hags, Bronze-Age Europe Message-ID: <410-2200463915402446@earthlink.net> > [Original Message] > From: Simon Phipp > To: > Date: 6/9/2004 6:37:24 AM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Killing Hags, Bronze-Age Europe ...snip... btw: a Hag would have probably been associated with an artifact or object. While you could keep an eternal light to delay the Hag's return it is only by the destruction of the cursed artifact could you destroy the Hag's attachment to this world & thus prevent her from returning until a new summoning was to done to a new nexus. Alternately a journey to the Dark-Plane to kill her in her native element would also be in order to permanently destroy her. I've used this kind of scneario as a lower level HeroQuest. I usually run them by the PC only gets abilities at basic - 90 with less than 0 meaning no chance in the Hero or Dark planes. Simon thanks for the invite, I looked it up & joined this morning, so I'm still pending. tusen takk, Sven > > Sven Lugar: > > > Yessir, ask away, I'm running one based on Bronze-Age Europe mixed with a > > bit of fantasy at present. > > Are you a member of the Alternate Earth Yahoo Group (alternateearthrq)? We > would be fascinated to hear what you've got written up as we are looking at > Bronze Age Europe as a setting (when we can be bothered to do anything about > it). > > I've just seen your link and I'll have a look this week. If you aren't a > member of the alternateearthrq group then I'll invite you. > > See Ya > > Simon > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" > your friends today! Download Messenger Now > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.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 From mechashef at bigpond.com Thu Jun 10 09:02:36 2004 From: mechashef at bigpond.com (Mechashef) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:02:36 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Killing Hags In-Reply-To: <20040609123724.6676.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040609230856.033BE22274D@boomstick.screwheads.net> Thanks for the suggestions. They are quite similar to my plans, but it's good to see that I didn't overlook anything obvious. The scenario is set in an area of my own world (Jakalla - A bastardised mythological Australia), and the hag was originally defeated by a person who eventually became the City Goddess for the main city in my campaign (vanquishing the hag was one of the main tasks she did on her path to becoming a City Hero). Several decades later, the Hag reformed and started killing again. The Cult Hierarchy fought and defeated her again, and this time did use long term wizardry (my variation of Sorcery - uses staves instead of familiars and you need to know Runes in order to cast spells) to light her cave. A long time later, a priest of a Chaos Demon (The Chaos Gods of my campaign) managed to extinguish the light in the Hag's cave. He also manages to obtain (with the help of the unwitting PCs) an ancient item which enables him to control the Hag. The PCs are again involved - much later - when they are asked by the Authorities (one of the Characters worships my God of Death - who also deals with Ghosts, Demons etc) to investigate a horrific murder. I actually hope to put info about my World on the web, but am in the process of changing ISPs as I move from Dial Up to Broadband. Thanks for your help people! Mechashef From mspambox at yahoo.com Thu Jun 10 11:30:34 2004 From: mspambox at yahoo.com (matt conrad) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 18:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: was Re: Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? In-Reply-To: <20040609124953.17348.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040610013035.52790.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> Gentlemen and ladies, I am awed. Really, that was very helpful. Once I figure out what the hell I'm doing I'll come back and ask you guys about your preferred house rules, as there seems to be some common favorites there. Somebody brought up RQ II. I had kind of assumed that on net RQ III fixed more than it broke, and so I thought I'd use that, but I'd like to hear what you guys see as the big differences between the two, and why you prefer whichever one you like better. No, I have not checked the archives and if you all are quite tired of this topic feel free to send me there instead. Matt __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From lancelot at inetnebr.com Thu Jun 10 11:47:10 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 20:47:10 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: was Re: Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? In-Reply-To: <20040610013035.52790.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040610013035.52790.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40C7BD9E.8060007@inetnebr.com> matt conrad wrote: >Gentlemen and ladies, I am awed. > >Really, that was very helpful. Once I figure out what >the hell I'm doing I'll come back and ask you guys >about your preferred house rules, as there seems to be >some common favorites there. > >Somebody brought up RQ II. I had kind of assumed that >on net RQ III fixed more than it broke, and so I >thought I'd use that, but I'd like to hear what you >guys see as the big differences between the two, and >why you prefer whichever one you like better. No, I >have not checked the archives and if you all are quite >tired of this topic feel free to send me there >instead. > > RuneQuest II and the origninal Stormbring Rules and ElfQuest have a freshness that is well... refreshing It succeeds in being simple and getting the job done. There is somewhere out and about a RuneQuest IV which has some rule fixes that are worthwhile I felt a good final editing job would help this non version quite a bit. The complexity of III is well less satisfyig to some. -- Lance Dyas Lost Worlds Roleplaying - at the Decision Driven Gaming Center http://www.dyasdesigns.com/roleplay/LostWorlds From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Jun 10 17:29:22 2004 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?ASHLEY=20MUNDAY?=) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:29:22 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: was Re: Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? In-Reply-To: <20040610013035.52790.qmail@web14006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040610072922.14127.qmail@web86204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Matt asked about RQII: There was nothing particularly broken about RQII. On the whole there wasn't a lot to fix and all RQ III did was add a few more special case and detailed rules for some things. They're pretty much the same game and, as always with RPGs, there's more variation between GMs and game worlds than there is between the two systems. Don't bother to house rule anything 'til you've played it a bit and know what style of play you and your players are after. Other people's house rules probably won't fit in your campaign 'cause they arose from different problems they have with the system and their interaction with it. Cheers, Ash From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Jun 10 23:14:29 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 06:14:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: was Re: Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? In-Reply-To: <20040610072922.14127.qmail@web86204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040610131429.48294.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> ASH wrote: > Don't bother to house rule anything 'til you've > played it a bit and know what style of play you and > your players are after. Other people's house rules > probably won't fit in your campaign 'cause they > arose from different problems they have with the > system and their interaction with it. True enough. Most of my house-rules came up as a result of merging the RQ2 and RQ3. I started playing when RQ3 just came out, but the GM, I played with learned RQ2 and during the game tried to use both sets of rules. After many years, I finnaly put down my own set of rules which is a combination of RQ2, RQ3, RQ4 (not published), and Sandy's Sorcery, as well as some bits from Stormbringer and D&D3. It works for me and my campaigns. If you are interested you may take a look at them at: http://www.godlearner.d2g.com/main.asp Leon __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From grogthing at yahoo.com Thu Jun 10 23:41:45 2004 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 06:41:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: was Re: Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? In-Reply-To: <20040610131429.48294.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040610134145.78314.qmail@web41505.mail.yahoo.com> When I first got into RQ I was told that RQII was inseparable from the Glorantha setting while RQIII had Glorantha as an optional setting. As a GM I rarley enjoy playing in a world created by someone else, so I chose RQIII and have been happy with it. But I actually preferr using the BRP Elric!/Stormbringer system these days. I think the magic rules are much better than RQ's. Greg ===== "I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." - Thomas Jefferson "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious." - Aristotle __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From lancelot at inetnebr.com Thu Jun 10 23:53:07 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:53:07 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: was Re: Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? In-Reply-To: <20040610131429.48294.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040610131429.48294.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40C867C3.7030901@inetnebr.com> There are some rules regarding advancement in the original which over encouraged generalized characters and somewhat bizarre weapon caddy behavior. Fixes for which are in RQIV the unpublished but I will generally agree most of the system stood on its own without any newer version. Leon Kirshtein wrote: >ASH wrote: > > >>Don't bother to house rule anything 'til you've >>played it a bit and know what style of play you and >>your players are after. Other people's house rules >>probably won't fit in your campaign 'cause they >>arose from different problems they have with the >>system and their interaction with it. >> >> > >True enough. Most of my house-rules came up as a >result of merging the RQ2 and RQ3. I started playing >when RQ3 just came out, but the GM, I played with >learned RQ2 and during the game tried to use both sets >of rules. > >After many years, I finnaly put down my own set of >rules which is a combination of RQ2, RQ3, RQ4 (not >published), and Sandy's Sorcery, as well as some bits >from Stormbringer and D&D3. It works for me and my >campaigns. > >If you are interested you may take a look at them at: >http://www.godlearner.d2g.com/main.asp > > -- 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 gianni at basicrps.com Thu Jun 10 23:07:55 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:07:55 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: was Re: Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? In-Reply-To: <20040610134145.78314.qmail@web41505.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040610134145.78314.qmail@web41505.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1086872875.40c85d2b1ac37@imp.webhuset.no> Hi gang > When I first got into RQ I was told that RQII was > inseparable from the Glorantha setting while RQIII had > Glorantha as an optional setting. > > As a GM I rarley enjoy playing in a world created by > someone else, so I chose RQIII and have been happy > with it. > > But I actually preferr using the BRP > Elric!/Stormbringer system these days. I think the > magic rules are much better > than RQ's. Again, this is because you're not playing in Glorantha. If you were, you'd find the magic system fits so nicely with the campaign setting (I'm talking Dragon Pass/Prax here). I am tentatively using a mix of the French BRPS [BaSIC] and RuneQuest for a campaign set in Imperial China and I had to rework the magic system altogether. Magic is probably the one aspect of any frp game that most depends on the game world. Gianni From bick10 at comcast.net Fri Jun 11 01:14:46 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:14:46 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: Message-ID: <061020041514.403.40C87AE5000F2BDE000001932200745672CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> From: Matt > Somebody brought up RQ II. I had kind of assumed that > on net RQ III fixed more than it broke, and so I > thought I'd use that, but I'd like to hear what you > guys see as the big differences between the two, and > why you prefer whichever one you like better. No, I > have not checked the archives and if you all are quite > tired of this topic feel free to send me there > instead. Matt..Matt..Matt? Ya had to go and open that can of worms? Actually you probably already know that there are some strong feelings for RQ2 material. Some feel RQ was ruined by the RQ3 rules. Personally I like RQ3 just fine. I suggest looking at the Draft RQ4 for the Character creation. More a point system and much better than RQ2 or 3 for setting up previous experience(IMHO). More player customizable. I had reformatted it into Word with tables for easy reading. I had offered the word doc before. If anyone wants a copy of it, email me off list and I will send it too you. From carpgachair at yahoo.com Fri Jun 11 01:22:37 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: was Re: Ok, how to best get hooked up with game rules? In-Reply-To: <40C867C3.7030901@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <20040610152237.92055.qmail@web51305.mail.yahoo.com> And there is still Mythworld, a rejected ("too detailed", but easy to learn) candidate for RQ3 back while that one was being written. Paul Cardwell --- lance dyas wrote: > There are some rules regarding advancement in the > original which over > encouraged generalized characters and somewhat > bizarre weapon caddy > behavior. Fixes for which are in RQIV the > unpublished but I will > generally agree most of the system stood on its own > without any newer > version. > > > Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > >ASH wrote: > > > > > >>Don't bother to house rule anything 'til you've > >>played it a bit and know what style of play you > and > >>your players are after. Other people's house rules > >>probably won't fit in your campaign 'cause they > >>arose from different problems they have with the > >>system and their interaction with it. > >> > >> > > > >True enough. Most of my house-rules came up as a > >result of merging the RQ2 and RQ3. I started > playing > >when RQ3 just came out, but the GM, I played with > >learned RQ2 and during the game tried to use both > sets > >of rules. > > > >After many years, I finnaly put down my own set of > >rules which is a combination of RQ2, RQ3, RQ4 (not > >published), and Sandy's Sorcery, as well as some > bits > >from Stormbringer and D&D3. It works for me and my > >campaigns. > > > >If you are interested you may take a look at them > at: > >http://www.godlearner.d2g.com/main.asp > > > > > -- > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Fri Jun 11 01:34:09 2004 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (alan richards) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:34:09 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Death to Hags In-Reply-To: <20040609101624.D4E31222747@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <9DE38276-BAF3-11D8-8DA8-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> Evening all I know that events have overtaken me somewhat on the lit but here are two bolgs anyway: any attack directed at the Hag's Pow could kill it permanently. it is only the phyiscal body which re-manifests presumable binding it to a sky rune might do the trick........... (although as previously mentioned the high Pow makes that easier said than done) Alan From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Fri Jun 11 01:45:09 2004 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (alan richards) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:45:09 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: What RQ rules In-Reply-To: <20040609101624.D4E31222747@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <275A6F28-BAF5-11D8-8DA8-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> In my view the books to get are: Perfect bound AH RQ3 deluxe and then as cash / interest allows the following in order: For Glorantha: Glorantha Classics: Cult Compendium Glorantha Classics: Pavis and Big Rubble Glorantha Classics: Griffin Island//Mountain River of Cradles Shadows on the Borderland RQII rules Strangers in Prax Non-glorantha: Land of Ninja Vikings (regardless of setting these give loads of cracking ideas and examples for 'fantasy simulations' of real world history) I would not touch: Gods of Glorantha Genertela: Crucible of the anal retentives er, sorry I mean Hero Wars In terms of house rules you do need to do some weeding out of what suits you; and the advice to play for a while and then go cherry picking is definitely a good idea. Most house rules are written by (and to a lesser extent for) people who know the canon rules very well and so are very hard to index to the core books until you understand the core books. For myself I Like: Steve Perrin's rules (hosted on Tal Meta's site) Bits of Nikk 's Storms of Ralios rules JHKim's Viking and Skraeling rules I detest: Sandy's Sorcery rules Shattered Norns Alan From mspambox at yahoo.com Fri Jun 11 02:54:12 2004 From: mspambox at yahoo.com (matt conrad) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 09:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: In-Reply-To: <061020041514.403.40C87AE5000F2BDE000001932200745672CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20040610165412.89065.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com> I had detected some ambivalence between RQ II and RQ III. My motive was actually to try to divine whether or not I'd be happy with the RQ II set, if it was pretty solid, or had major areas that needed revision. I may try to get rolling with RQ II, depending on what hops up on ebay first. Would you send me the character generation document? I'd definitely like to take a look at it. Matt --- bick10 at comcast.net wrote: > From: Matt > > Somebody brought up RQ II. I had kind of assumed > that > > on net RQ III fixed more than it broke, and so I > > thought I'd use that, but I'd like to hear what > you > > guys see as the big differences between the two, > and > > why you prefer whichever one you like better. No, > I > > have not checked the archives and if you all are > quite > > tired of this topic feel free to send me there > > instead. > > Matt..Matt..Matt? Ya had to go and > open that can of worms? > > Actually you probably already know that there are > some strong feelings for RQ2 material. Some feel RQ > was ruined by the RQ3 rules. Personally I like RQ3 > just fine. > > I suggest looking at the Draft RQ4 for the Character > creation. More a point system and much better than > RQ2 or 3 for setting up previous experience(IMHO). > More player customizable. I had reformatted it into > Word with tables for easy reading. I had offered > the word doc before. If anyone wants a copy of it, > email me off list and I will send it too you. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Fri Jun 11 03:31:24 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:31:24 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: Message-ID: <410-22004641017312462@earthlink.net> I would love to see more your Word document on character creation. My personal email is freyrvanic at earthlink.net tusen takk, Sven (Les) Lugar > [Original Message] > From: > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Date: 6/10/2004 8:14:46 AM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: > Matt..Matt..Matt? Ya had to go and open that can of worms? > > Actually you probably already know that there are some strong feelings for RQ2 material. Some feel RQ was ruined by the RQ3 rules. Personally I like RQ3 just fine. > > I suggest looking at the Draft RQ4 for the Character creation. More a point system and much better than RQ2 or 3 for setting up previous experience(IMHO). More player customizable. I had reformatted it into Word with tables for easy reading. I had offered the word doc before. If anyone wants a copy of it, email me off list and I will send it too you. From kruch7 at cox.net Fri Jun 11 04:15:44 2004 From: kruch7 at cox.net (Joseph Elric Smith Mormon Minion of Arioch) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:15:44 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: References: <20040610165412.89065.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004d01c44f16$f252e450$1108a8c0@kenneith93j41k> Well I prefer RQII but then again it is because I am just old and that is what I first started playing. It is actually pretty easy to find the stuff on Ebay etc, and if you aren't a collector like me, who has to have the hard bound copy and all the various printings of it by chaosim, it isn't too expensive. Man I have tried to explain to my wife why I have all the different copies of the same game,RQ Stormbringer, etc but for some reason she doesn't understand. LOL Ken Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you Slice N Dice: Game and Pizza Parlour WWBYD What would Brigham Young do ? http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "matt conrad" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 12:54 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: > I had detected some ambivalence between RQ II and RQ > III. My motive was actually to try to divine whether > or not I'd be happy with the RQ II set, if it was > pretty solid, or had major areas that needed revision. > > I may try to get rolling with RQ II, depending on what > hops up on ebay first. > > Would you send me the character generation document? > I'd definitely like to take a look at it. > > Matt > > From slposey at concentric.net Fri Jun 11 04:55:28 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:55:28 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: In-Reply-To: <004d01c44f16$f252e450$1108a8c0@kenneith93j41k> References: <20040610165412.89065.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com> <004d01c44f16$f252e450$1108a8c0@kenneith93j41k> Message-ID: <40C8AEA0.8010207@concentric.net> Joseph Elric Smith Mormon Minion of Arioch wrote: > Man I have tried to explain to my wife why I have all the different copies > of the same game,RQ Stormbringer, etc but for some reason she doesn't > understand. LOL Though turnabout is generally supposed to be fair play, it probably wouldn't be prudent to ask her the similar question of why she needs more than one pair of black shoes. ;-) I find the "collector's item" explanation usually works okay with my honey. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jun 11 18:32:32 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:32:32 +0100 Subject: RQIII Glorantha supplelemnts and house/variant rules , was Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: What RQ rules Message-ID: >In my view the books to get are: > >Perfect bound AH RQ3 deluxe > >(SNIP a perfectly sensible list I agree with) > > Alan Richards wrote: > >I would not touch: > >Gods of Glorantha >Genertela: Crucible of the anal retentives er, sorry I mean Hero Wars > I'm curious: whilst I can see that, especially to a Gloranthaphile, Gods of Glorantha's thumbnail description of loads of cults is a poor substitute for the relatively few detailed RQII write ups from Cults of Prax and Cults of Terror (or now the Cults Compendium), what is your objection to Genertela that makes it untouchable? I'm not disputing that both are flawed (Gods more than Genertela IMO) but I'm puzzled by the (inferred) suggestion that they are of no use at all. I'm actually agnostic about Glorantha: it's one of those worlds I enjoy reading about, and I ran some very early RQI & II in a version of Dragon Pass (as derived from the description in those rule books), but the vast majority of my RQ playing has been done in other settings. But with Genertela, I do feel I can run pretty much anywhere in northern Glorantha, whereas with the RQ material I felt you could run in Dragon Pass and Prax (and if you worked quite hard at Dorastor). And even then you didn't have the same overall impression of how the continent was structured which is often important for me: it may never be relevant directly to players, but as a GM I need some idea of the wider context (and daydreams about a game set in Loskalm). > >(SNIP a perfectly reasonable comment about house rules) > > >For myself > >I Like: >Steve Perrin's rules (hosted on Tal Meta's site) >Bits of Nikk 's Storms of >Ralios rules Effingham? >JHKim's Viking and Skraeling rules > David Cakes Sorcery variant (Yet Another Sorcery Variant IIRC) I always liked because it remained very close to the numbers of RQII and was thus very easy to substitute in to an RQIII game. My own house Sorcery rules are very similar - they are in fact simply a different mechanism for calculating the limits of manipulation and explaining the effects of abolishing of Free INT. A good starting point for Matt and others looking at variant rules would be http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/rules.htm . And as regards RQ "variants" or "related" games, my apologies to Paul Cardwell for forgetting to mention Mythworld! In the same vein, Steve Perrins Quest Rules are worth a look as well (Character gen is freely available from Steve's website IIRC and will give you a good idea of how it differs from RQ). Cheers, Nick Middleton From gianni at basicrps.com Fri Jun 11 18:10:00 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:10:00 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: What RQ rules In-Reply-To: <275A6F28-BAF5-11D8-8DA8-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> References: <275A6F28-BAF5-11D8-8DA8-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <1086941400.40c968d8d1de4@imp.webhuset.no> Quoting alan richards : > In my view the books to get are: > > Perfect bound AH RQ3 deluxe > > and then as cash / interest allows the following in order: > > For Glorantha: > > Glorantha Classics: Cult Compendium > Glorantha Classics: Pavis and Big Rubble > Glorantha Classics: Griffin Island//Mountain > River of Cradles > Shadows on the Borderland > RQII rules > Strangers in Prax There is one piece of contradiction in your list: you seem to favour the RQIII rules over the RQII rules but then you list the RQII supplements before the RQIII supplements! Now for an experienced GM it's not a problem (my GM uses RQII and after Pavis & Big Rubble [RQII] we are now suffering through Shadows on the Borderland [RQIII]) but for a beginner GM I think not having to convert stats is better. And since the RQII game supplements are superior, starting with RQII makes more sense -- all IMHO and if you do want to play in Dragon Pass/Prax. Gianni > > > Non-glorantha: > > Land of Ninja > Vikings > > (regardless of setting these give loads of cracking ideas and examples > for 'fantasy simulations' of real world history) > > > > > I would not touch: > > Gods of Glorantha > Genertela: Crucible of the anal retentives er, sorry I mean Hero Wars > > > > In terms of house rules you do need to do some weeding out of what > suits you; and the advice to play for a while and then go cherry > picking is definitely a good idea. Most house rules are written by (and > to a lesser extent for) people who know the canon rules very well and > so are very hard to index to the core books until you understand the > core books. > > For myself > > I Like: > Steve Perrin's rules (hosted on Tal Meta's site) > Bits of Nikk 's Storms of > Ralios rules > JHKim's Viking and Skraeling rules > > I detest: > Sandy's Sorcery rules > Shattered Norns > > > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > 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 gianni at basicrps.com Fri Jun 11 18:22:04 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:22:04 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] David Cakes Sorcey System In-Reply-To: <003801c4280b$04c70680$68417442@wizard> References: <56021.127.0.0.1.1082555077.squirrel@cpanel3.fuitadnet.com> <003801c4280b$04c70680$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: <1086942124.40c96bac26f6c@imp.webhuset.no> Hi gang I downloaded the file from http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/rules.htm. How can I view the PS file? Cheers Gianni From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jun 11 19:18:05 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:18:05 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] David Cakes Sorcery System Message-ID: Hi Gianni it's a post script file Hold on... Just mailed you copies in Acrobat (5.x +) and RTF format. Anyone else want the file in those formats, or able to host them in that form? Cheers, Nick Middleton Gianni om> cc: Sent by: Subject: [RQ-Rules] David Cakes Sorcey System rq-rules-bounces at c rashbox.com 11/06/2004 09:22 Please respond to "RuneQuest rules discussion." Hi gang I downloaded the file from http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/rules.htm. How can I view the PS file? 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 phil.hibbs at capgemini.com Fri Jun 11 20:01:26 2004 From: phil.hibbs at capgemini.com (Hibbs, Phil) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:01:26 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: RQ3 vs RQ2 Message-ID: <993BE7B40B41D31193C50008C75F68F207E980AB@exast02.capgemini.co.u k> I prefer RQ3, but I RQ2 holds a special place in my memory, and I can understand why some prefer it. Pro RQ3: More flexible character creation Finer granularity on skill percentages Better skill category organisation (Agility was introduced in the RQ2 Companion) More flexible magic system Not tied to Glorantha, except for the ubiquity of magic Pro RQ2: Less abstract character generation Simpler skill system (5% changes in skill levels & categories) Simpler melee round structure No fatigue system (or if there was one, it was simple enough that was not traumatised by it) Simpler magic system More powerful high-level characters (faster skill advance, Stored POW, free POW for fetch) RQ4 was overly complex IMO, the character creation was almost impossible to finish, you keep ending up with one-and-three-eights points left to spend. Skill difficulty added a bit of extra realism, but complication also; Sorcery was completely broken. Phil Hibbs Capgemini Aston, UK Our name has changed. Please update your address book to the following format: "recipient at capgemini.com". This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized 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 gianni at basicrps.com Fri Jun 11 21:09:59 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:09:59 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: David cakes Sorcery Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1086952199.40c9930710ff9@imp.webhuset.no> Hi gang The layout of David Cake's Sorcery Rules looks like they were laid out for being included in a gaming magazine. Is it so? Or have they only been available on the internet? Cheers Gianni From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jun 11 22:06:06 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:06:06 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: David cakes Sorcery Rules Message-ID: >Hi gang > >The layout of David Cake's Sorcery Rules looks like they were laid out for >being included in a gaming magazine. Is it so? Or have they only been available >on the internet? > >Cheers > >Gianni I originally came across them whilst Googling for RQ stuff on the net several years back, so know nothing of their provenance. I will say however that, given its modified date in the Berkeley ftp archive is 22/11/1993, it is quite possible that David simply cared enough to bother laying it out well (hence magazine style and using Post Script). Anyone who was active in the online RQ community of the time know anything about it? Oh, and I have posted the PDF and RTF versions to the files section of the RQ Addicts Yahoo Group, if anyone else wants them. Cheers, Nick Middleton From talmeta at talmeta.net Sat Jun 12 01:40:50 2004 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:40:50 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] David Cakes Sorcery System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40C9D282.6030607@talmeta.net> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > Hi Gianni > > it's a post script file Hold on... > > Just mailed you copies in Acrobat (5.x +) and RTF format. > > Anyone else want the file in those formats, or able to host them in that > form? Yes, and yes. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - Women...can't live with 'em...can't shoot 'em. -- Steven Wright From rune_quester at comcast.net Sat Jun 12 02:15:27 2004 From: rune_quester at comcast.net (RQ) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:15:27 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] David Cakes Sorcery System References: <40C9D282.6030607@talmeta.net> Message-ID: <000801c44fcf$4f266f40$51f82144@yourmb2swywknr> I would like to see them... Please send them..... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tal Meta" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 11:40 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] David Cakes Sorcery System > Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > Hi Gianni > > > > it's a post script file Hold on... > > > > Just mailed you copies in Acrobat (5.x +) and RTF format. > > > > Anyone else want the file in those formats, or able to host them in that > > form? > > Yes, and yes. > > -- > talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine > AIM - talmeta > ICQ - 12594453 > Homepage - > > Women...can't live with 'em...can't shoot 'em. -- Steven Wright > > _______________________________________________ > 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 DevinC at aol.com Sat Jun 12 03:48:06 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:48:06 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: RQ3 vs RQ2 Message-ID: <1d4.230cb9cc.2dfb4a56@aol.com> One of things I didn't like about RQ2 was Defense. Here wasa skill that kinda slipped outside the rest of the skill system. What's worse, unlike most other skills it advanced faster the more you had of it...creating a steam roller effect. And it was not affected by armour or encumbrance. A character with a high defense score was nigh impossible to hit. In RQ3 Defense rightly became Dodge, a normal skill that was simply an alternative to parry and which was constrained by encumbrance. Devin From alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 12 04:15:53 2004 From: alan.richards75 at ntlworld.com (alan richards) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:15:53 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQII and II supplements In-Reply-To: <20040611083600.AA6A72226F4@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <60419C77-BBD3-11D8-B95B-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> I wrote >> I would not touch: >> >> Gods of Glorantha >> Genertela: Crucible of the anal retentives er, sorry I mean Hero Wars >> > Nick wrote: > I'm curious: whilst I can see that, especially to a Gloranthaphile, > Gods of > Glorantha's thumbnail description of loads of cults is a poor > substitute > for the relatively few detailed RQII write ups from Cults of Prax and > Cults > of Terror (or now the Cults Compendium), what is your objection to > Genertela that makes it untouchable? I'm not disputing that both are > flawed > (Gods more than Genertela IMO) but I'm puzzled by the (inferred) > suggestion > that they are of no use at all. 1. Award yourself a brownie point for the correct use of infer rather than imply (these things become important when you marry a speech therapist). > > I'm actually agnostic about Glorantha: it's one of those worlds I enjoy > reading about, and I ran some very early RQI & II in a version of > Dragon > Pass (as derived from the description in those rule books), but the > vast > majority of my RQ playing has been done in other settings. But with > Genertela, I do feel I can run pretty much anywhere in northern > Glorantha, > whereas with the RQ material I felt you could run in Dragon Pass and > Prax > (and if you worked quite hard at Dorastor). And even then you didn't > have > the same overall impression of how the continent was structured which > is > often important for me: it may never be relevant directly to players, > but > as a GM I need some idea of the wider context (and daydreams about a > game > set in Loskalm). >> I'm replying with a degree of reservation. The books are long out of print so I'm not taking bread out of the author's mouths but I am aware that one or more author might be on the list, and no one particularly enjoys having their nose rubbed in the dirt. So let me say this isn't meant as a hatchet job, if it comes across that way then its because I've phrased this badly. I suppose its a matter of style. The illustrations are poor. In my opinion if the artists can't do a decent job on one book, then pay em a retainer, leave the book without piccies and ask them to submit for the next one. The ones in GoG in particular are a waste of space. As an aside this was a complaint that I had about 'Unknown East' for Elric! It pissed me off so much that I wrote to Chaosium to have a whine about that and the Dog's breakfast that is the Bronze Grimoire. To my amazement I got back a very polite letter, which also offered a free copy of the next Elric! supplement to reaffirm my faith in the company! Of course I moved house (and indeed continent) not long after and so never got the book. But as an exercise in customer loyalty it knocks the shit out of swipe cards and loyalty points. Secondly I want a supplement to either leap out of its binding at me and scream 'PLAY ME' or 'WRITE A SCENARIO bSED ON ME', or give me ideas for how to write up my own background. Neither of these books do either. They are not well-written and interesting enough to be anything more than shopping lists, and there is so much wasted space that they aren't complete enough to be good shopping lists. Genertela contains pages and pages of charts for randomly determining which specific area of the continent your character comes from! No, no, no, no, no, no The 'what my Father Told' me bits are good (ish) though I wrote: >> I Like: >> Steve Perrin's rules (hosted on Tal Meta's site) >> Bits of Nikk 's Storms of >> Ralios rules Nick wrote: > > Effingham? Yep, that's the bunny > A good starting point for Matt and others looking at variant rules > would be > http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/rules.htm . Yes. But, about half of the links are dead. Some of the others ARE good though. Alan From bick10 at comcast.net Sat Jun 12 05:33:33 2004 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:33:33 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ4 Previous Exp requests Message-ID: <061120041933.24860.40CA090D00059D7A0000611C2200735834CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> AAAAHHHHH!!!! Add my name to those that lost gaming material from their HD. Did an archive of the gaming material of the HD to CD's and can not find one of the archives. Don't fear though. While the version of the Previous Experience that I was certain I had is MIA, I have another that was not quite as clean and neat and tested. I am trying to clean it up and realign tables. I hope to get it out this weekend, so patents please. Some questions on it I had answered for myself, I am now stumped over. Specifically the Sorcerery. I don't think I will be able to figure it out again. Just slipping through my mind. So once you get it, and if you can figure it out, please share you opinion. Jim - who is screaming at his PC to no affect. > I wrote > > >> I would not touch: > >> > >> Gods of Glorantha > >> Genertela: Crucible of the anal retentives er, sorry I mean Hero Wars > >> > > > > Nick wrote: > > > > I'm curious: whilst I can see that, especially to a Gloranthaphile, > > Gods of > > Glorantha's thumbnail description of loads of cults is a poor > > substitute > > for the relatively few detailed RQII write ups from Cults of Prax and > > Cults > > of Terror (or now the Cults Compendium), what is your objection to > > Genertela that makes it untouchable? I'm not disputing that both are > > flawed > > (Gods more than Genertela IMO) but I'm puzzled by the (inferred) > > suggestion > > that they are of no use at all. > > 1. Award yourself a brownie point for the correct use of infer rather > than imply (these things become important when you marry a speech > therapist). > > > > > I'm actually agnostic about Glorantha: it's one of those worlds I enjoy > > reading about, and I ran some very early RQI & II in a version of > > Dragon > > Pass (as derived from the description in those rule books), but the > > vast > > majority of my RQ playing has been done in other settings. But with > > Genertela, I do feel I can run pretty much anywhere in northern > > Glorantha, > > whereas with the RQ material I felt you could run in Dragon Pass and > > Prax > > (and if you worked quite hard at Dorastor). And even then you didn't > > have > > the same overall impression of how the continent was structured which > > is > > often important for me: it may never be relevant directly to players, > > but > > as a GM I need some idea of the wider context (and daydreams about a > > game > > set in Loskalm). > >> > > I'm replying with a degree of reservation. The books are long out of > print so I'm not taking bread out of the author's mouths but I am aware > that one or more author might be on the list, and no one particularly > enjoys having their nose rubbed in the dirt. So let me say this isn't > meant as a hatchet job, if it comes across that way then its because > I've phrased this badly. > > I suppose its a matter of style. > > The illustrations are poor. In my opinion if the artists can't do a > decent job on one book, then pay em a retainer, leave the book without > piccies and ask them to submit for the next one. The ones in GoG in > particular are a waste of space. > > As an aside this was a complaint that I had about 'Unknown East' for > Elric! It pissed me off so much that I wrote to Chaosium to have a > whine about that and the Dog's breakfast that is the Bronze Grimoire. > To my amazement I got back a very polite letter, which also offered a > free copy of the next Elric! supplement to reaffirm my faith in the > company! > > Of course I moved house (and indeed continent) not long after and so > never got the book. But as an exercise in customer loyalty it knocks > the shit out of swipe cards and loyalty points. > > > Secondly I want a supplement to either leap out of its binding at me > and scream 'PLAY ME' or 'WRITE A SCENARIO bSED ON ME', or give me ideas > for how to write up my own background. Neither of these books do > either. They are not well-written and interesting enough to be anything > more than shopping lists, and there is so much wasted space that they > aren't complete enough to be good shopping lists. > > Genertela contains pages and pages of charts for randomly determining > which specific area of the continent your character comes from! No, > no, no, no, no, no > > The 'what my Father Told' me bits are good (ish) though > > > > I wrote: > > >> I Like: > >> Steve Perrin's rules (hosted on Tal Meta's site) > >> Bits of Nikk 's Storms of > >> Ralios rules > > Nick wrote: > > > > > Effingham? > > Yep, that's the bunny > > > > A good starting point for Matt and others looking at variant rules > > would be > > http://www.crashbox.com/nikk/rules.htm . > > Yes. But, about half of the links are dead. Some of the others ARE good > though. > > > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Jun 12 06:03:25 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:03:25 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RE: RQ3 vs RQ2 In-Reply-To: <1d4.230cb9cc.2dfb4a56@aol.com> References: <1d4.230cb9cc.2dfb4a56@aol.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040611130228.0217dec0@incoming.verizon.net> At 10:48 AM 6/11/2004, you wrote: >In RQ3 Defense rightly became Dodge, a normal skill that was simply an >alternative to parry and which was constrained by encumbrance. That was one of the "fixes" I put into practice in 1978. It didn't seem to work at all in the rest of the BRP system. Bo From steve at perrinworlds.com Sat Jun 12 14:36:53 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:36:53 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: What RQ rules References: <275A6F28-BAF5-11D8-8DA8-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> Message-ID: <00a301c45036$f3385d70$68417442@wizard> As long as folks have been promoting my SPQR rules, allow me to mention the actual web address. www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html Enjoy Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "alan richards" To: Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 8:45 AM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: What RQ rules > In my view the books to get are: > > Perfect bound AH RQ3 deluxe > > and then as cash / interest allows the following in order: > > For Glorantha: > > Glorantha Classics: Cult Compendium > Glorantha Classics: Pavis and Big Rubble > Glorantha Classics: Griffin Island//Mountain > River of Cradles > Shadows on the Borderland > RQII rules > Strangers in Prax > > > Non-glorantha: > > Land of Ninja > Vikings > > (regardless of setting these give loads of cracking ideas and examples > for 'fantasy simulations' of real world history) > > > > > I would not touch: > > Gods of Glorantha > Genertela: Crucible of the anal retentives er, sorry I mean Hero Wars > > > > In terms of house rules you do need to do some weeding out of what > suits you; and the advice to play for a while and then go cherry > picking is definitely a good idea. Most house rules are written by (and > to a lesser extent for) people who know the canon rules very well and > so are very hard to index to the core books until you understand the > core books. > > For myself > > I Like: > Steve Perrin's rules (hosted on Tal Meta's site) > Bits of Nikk 's Storms of > Ralios rules > JHKim's Viking and Skraeling rules > > I detest: > Sandy's Sorcery rules > Shattered Norns > > > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > 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 wbcreighton at yahoo.ca Sat Jun 12 17:08:52 2004 From: wbcreighton at yahoo.ca (Warren Creighton) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 03:08:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Gloranthan settings for RQ2 Message-ID: <20040612070852.53472.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> I have read some suggestions on the list that people had info to play games set in Prax, Dragon pass and Balazar (Griffin Mountain). I am trying to rememeber what published material described, or set a campaign in Dragon Pass. I know Apple Lane and Snakepipe Hollow were set in DP, but I can't think of any thing else until after the introduction of RQ3. With Pavis, The Big Rubble, Borderlands, and Cults of Prax - Prax was the place to be in Glorantha if you played RQ2. Warren ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Sat Jun 12 23:05:03 2004 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 08:05:03 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Gloranthan settings for RQ2 In-Reply-To: <20040612070852.53472.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040612070852.53472.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40CAFF7F.6000302@sbcglobal.net> Warren Creighton wrote: >I am trying to rememeber what published material >described, or set a campaign in Dragon Pass. I know >Apple Lane and Snakepipe Hollow were set in DP, but I >can't think of any thing else until after the >introduction of RQ3. > > Even after that, very little was actually set in Dragon Pass. Some of the fanzines like "Tales of the Reaching Moon" contained enough background material to run a campaign, but Dragon Pass itself didn't get any kind of real coverage until "King of Sartar" came out. HeroQuest has a great deal of information as well as a rules-free guide to Dragon Pass. Guy (Hoyle) From gianni at basicrps.com Sat Jun 12 23:03:50 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:03:50 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: What RQ rules In-Reply-To: <00a301c45036$f3385d70$68417442@wizard> References: <275A6F28-BAF5-11D8-8DA8-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com> <00a301c45036$f3385d70$68417442@wizard> Message-ID: <1087045430.40caff36e7d7c@imp.webhuset.no> Hi Steve > As long as folks have been promoting my SPQR rules, allow me to mention the > actual web address. > > www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html Is there a big difference between SPQR and the 'Steve Perrin RQ rules' available on the crashbox web-site? Cheers Gianni webmaster of basicrps.com From gianni at basicrps.com Sat Jun 12 23:09:04 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:09:04 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Gloranthan settings for RQ2 In-Reply-To: <20040612070852.53472.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040612070852.53472.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1087045744.40cb0070b21f0@imp.webhuset.no> Quoting Warren Creighton : > I have read some suggestions on the list that people > had info to play games set in Prax, Dragon pass and > Balazar (Griffin Mountain). > > I am trying to rememeber what published material > described, or set a campaign in Dragon Pass. Well... the 'default' setting for RQ2 was Dragon Pass: the creatures, the prices, the maps, the time-line at the beginning of the RQII booklet, the anti-Lunar bias, everything was DP-oriented. Also, most Invader deities from Cults of Prax were actually deities from the Dragon Pass area: the Lightbringers (Sartar), Yelmalio (Sun Dome), the Seven Mothers (Tarsh)... I agree no 'big' supplement described Dragon Pass, but there was enough gaming material for DM's to start and play in DP. Gianni webmaster of basicrps.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Sun Jun 13 03:12:16 2004 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:12:16 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ II vs RQ III: References: <20040610165412.89065.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003601c450a0$699ad240$03372bd9@fluffybunny> Matt said: > I may try to get rolling with RQ II, depending on what > hops up on ebay first. At least in the UK, dunno so much about the rest of the planet, RQII rulebooks cost a lot more than the GW prints of the RQIII ones. You can pick up the basic rules, advanced rules and monsters for less than a tenner. It'll cost you at least ?12 to get hold of a (halfway decent) RQII book. Cheers, Ash From aescleal at btinternet.com Sun Jun 13 03:21:36 2004 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:21:36 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Gloranthan settings for RQ2 References: <20040612070852.53472.qmail@web12403.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005e01c450a1$b781cb70$03372bd9@fluffybunny> Warren he asks: > I am trying to rememeber what published material > described, or set a campaign in Dragon Pass. I know > Apple Lane and Snakepipe Hollow were set in DP, but I > can't think of any thing else until after the > introduction of RQ3. A chunk of Trollpak was sort of in Dragon Pass - Battle Valley and Sazdorf are on the border with Prax. Cheers, Ash From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Sun Jun 13 03:45:14 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:45:14 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQII and II supplements Message-ID: Well, I like both those books; just so it is on the record that it's not an "unonimous fact" that theese books suck. -Nobody disputes anybody claiming that the drawings sucks though. -Then again, that seems to be the trademark for RQ; lousy drawings..... >From: alan richards >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQII and II supplements >Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:15:53 +0100 > >I wrote > >>>I would not touch: >>> >>>Gods of Glorantha >>>Genertela: Crucible of the anal retentives er, sorry I mean Hero Wars _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Sun Jun 13 05:57:42 2004 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 14:57:42 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQII and II supplements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40CB6036.5010404@sbcglobal.net> >>>> I would not touch: >>>> >>>> Gods of Glorantha >>>> Genertela: Crucible of the anal retentives er, sorry I mean Hero Wars >>> Hmm, I always considered both of those extremely valuable. Of course the short-form cults of GoG weren't as valuable as the long form ones in Cults of Prax, but I'd rather have a taste of all Genertela than just a few well-developed cults. Guy (Hoyle) From aelarsen at mac.com Sun Jun 13 08:45:34 2004 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:45:34 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Sartarite campaign In-Reply-To: <20040612195614.543FA222725@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: > From: Guy Hoyle > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Gloranthan settings for RQ2 > To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > Message-ID: <40CAFF7F.6000302 at sbcglobal.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > > Warren Creighton wrote: > >> I am trying to rememeber what published material >> described, or set a campaign in Dragon Pass. I know >> Apple Lane and Snakepipe Hollow were set in DP, but I >> can't think of any thing else until after the >> introduction of RQ3. >> >> > Even after that, very little was actually set in Dragon Pass. Some of > the fanzines like "Tales of the Reaching Moon" contained enough > background material to run a campaign, but Dragon Pass itself didn't get > any kind of real coverage until "King of Sartar" came out. HeroQuest has > a great deal of information as well as a rules-free guide to Dragon Pass. The last three issues of TotRM, #18-20, had a great deal of information on a campaign set in the Greydog clan of the Lismelder Tribe, as well as on the Upland Marsh. It's excellent material and well worth trying to get your hands on if you want to do a Sartarite campaign. Andrew E. Larsen From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sun Jun 13 12:21:18 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 21:21:18 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] David Cakes Sorcery System References: <40C9D282.6030607@talmeta.net> <000801c44fcf$4f266f40$51f82144@yourmb2swywknr> Message-ID: <40CBBA1E.20005@earthlink.net> And I'll add a "me too", please. Either format will do. David Smart RQ wrote: >I would like to see them... > >Please send them..... > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tal Meta" >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 11:40 AM >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] David Cakes Sorcery System > > > > >>Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >> >> >>>Hi Gianni >>> >>>it's a post script file Hold on... >>> >>>Just mailed you copies in Acrobat (5.x +) and RTF format. >>> >>>Anyone else want the file in those formats, or able to host them in that >>>form? >>> >>> >>Yes, and yes. >> >>-- >>talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine >>AIM - talmeta >>ICQ - 12594453 >>Homepage - >> >>Women...can't live with 'em...can't shoot 'em. -- Steven Wright >> >>_______________________________________________ >>RQ-Rules mailing list >>RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >>http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >>http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules >> >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Sun Jun 13 16:14:43 2004 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank L. Filz) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:14:43 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] More on point buy for attributes Message-ID: <000201c4510d$b8b65bc0$0100a8c0@ffilz> Hi, I've been a longtime RQ fan and am getting back into it, planning a new campaign for the fall. I've been pretty much sold on points buy for attributes, but I am concerned about the fact that RQs two non-improvable stats are also almost the most important (Int helps in just about every skill, plus it limits how many spells you can know, Siz limits how much Str and Con can be trained up). One thought is to use a system where Int costs double (I'm less worried about Siz, and some folks are going to want to be small). I've also thought about rolling Siz, and then dealing with the couple people for whom the roll trashes their concept (want to be small, no problem, how small do you want to be, have a concept based on being large? Well, if you've already taken a high Str and Con, then the bonus of a large Siz is diminished, so sure). I'm thinking of using the point buy system from D&D where there is a curve to it. That worked pretty well for the D20 campaign I just finished (except that I did break down and allow one set of rolls or a point buy - and wound up seeing just what I didn't like about rolls - accelerating attributes - newer PCs had much better stats than the old ones). If anyone is still interested in the differences between RQ I & RQ II, I can try and ferret them out. -- Frank Filz From steve at perrinworlds.com Sun Jun 13 16:58:25 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:58:25 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: What RQ rules References: <275A6F28-BAF5-11D8-8DA8-000A277B64F4@ntlworld.com><00a301c45036$f3385d70$68417442@wizard> <1087045430.40caff36e7d7c@imp.webhuset.no> Message-ID: <00a901c45113$e46a80b0$68417442@wizard> SPQR developed out of the Steve Perrin RQ Rules. There have been several improvements (IMNSHO) and streamlinings. But most of the basic ideas are in those crashbox rules, yes. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gianni" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 6:03 AM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Re: What RQ rules > Hi Steve > > > As long as folks have been promoting my SPQR rules, allow me to mention the > > actual web address. > > > > www.perrinworlds.com/SPQR.html > > Is there a big difference between SPQR and the 'Steve Perrin RQ rules' available > on the crashbox web-site? > > Cheers > > Gianni > webmaster of basicrps.com > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jun 14 07:35:06 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 22:35:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Gloranthan settings for RQ2,RQII and II supplements In-Reply-To: <20040612195614.543FA222725@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040613213506.44948.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Warren Creighton: > I have read some suggestions on the list that people > had info to play games set in Prax, Dragon pass and > Balazar (Griffin Mountain). > > I am trying to rememeber what published material > described, or set a campaign in Dragon Pass. I know > Apple Lane and Snakepipe Hollow were set in DP, but I > can't think of any thing else until after the > introduction of RQ3. Well, Duck Pond and Duck Tower were probably set in the Upland Marsh, even though this wasn't stated in the books, and Broken Tree Inn was also set in Dragon Pass somewhere. > With Pavis, The Big Rubble, Borderlands, and Cults of > Prax - Prax was the place to be in Glorantha if you > played RQ2. Normally, you started off in Apple Lane, then went to Prax. Or you started off in Pavis and stayed there. Gianni: > Well... the 'default' setting for RQ2 was Dragon Pass: the creatures, the > prices, the maps, the time-line at the beginning of the RQII booklet, the > anti-Lunar bias, everything was DP-oriented. Except that all the examples of play and the cults are from Pavis, Guy Hoyle: > >>>> I would not touch: > >>>> > >>>> Gods of Glorantha > >>>> Genertela: Crucible of the anal retentives er, sorry I mean Hero Wars > >>> > Hmm, I always considered both of those extremely valuable. Of course the > short-form cults of GoG weren't as valuable as the long form ones in > Cults of Prax, but I'd rather have a taste of all Genertela than just a > few well-developed cults. The Cults Compendium has a lot in it, but Gods of Glorantha has a wide range of cults that are not described elsewhere. I would get Gods of Glorantha, if only for the spell and skill lists. Simon ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Jun 14 18:16:09 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:16:09 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQII and II supplements Message-ID: >Alan wrote > >>> I would not touch: >>> >>> Gods of Glorantha >>> Genertela: Crucible of the anal retentives er, sorry I mean Hero Wars >>> >> >Nick wrote: > >> >> I'm curious: whilst I can see that, especially to a Gloranthaphile, >> Gods of >> Glorantha's thumbnail description of loads of cults is a poor >> substitute >> for the relatively few detailed RQII write ups from Cults of Prax and >> Cults >> of Terror (or now the Cults Compendium), what is your objection to >> Genertela that makes it untouchable? I'm not disputing that both are >> flawed >> (Gods more than Genertela IMO) but I'm puzzled by the (inferred) >> suggestion >> that they are of no use at all. > >1. Award yourself a brownie point for the correct use of infer rather >than imply (these things become important when you marry a speech >therapist). Philosophy and Literature Degree, fifteen years ago so all I can remember is bits like the difference between imply and infer... >> >> I'm actually agnostic about Glorantha: it's one of those worlds I enjoy >> reading about, and I ran some very early RQI & II in a version of >> Dragon >> Pass (as derived from the description in those rule books), but the >> vast >> majority of my RQ playing has been done in other settings. But with >> Genertela, I do feel I can run pretty much anywhere in northern >> Glorantha, >> whereas with the RQ material I felt you could run in Dragon Pass and >> Prax >> (and if you worked quite hard at Dorastor). And even then you didn't >> have >> the same overall impression of how the continent was structured which >> is >> often important for me: it may never be relevant directly to players, >> but >> as a GM I need some idea of the wider context (and daydreams about a >> game >> set in Loskalm). > > >I'm replying with a degree of reservation. The books are long out of >print so I'm not taking bread out of the author's mouths but I am aware >that one or more author might be on the list, and no one particularly >enjoys having their nose rubbed in the dirt. So let me say this isn't >meant as a hatchet job, if it comes across that way then its because >I've phrased this badly. > >I suppose its a matter of style. > >The illustrations are poor. In my opinion if the artists can't do a >decent job on one book, then pay em a retainer, leave the book without >piccies and ask them to submit for the next one. The ones in GoG in >particular are a waste of space. > >Secondly I want a supplement to either leap out of its binding at me >and scream 'PLAY ME' or 'WRITE A SCENARIO bSED ON ME', or give me ideas >for how to write up my own background. Neither of these books do >either. They are not well-written and interesting enough to be anything >more than shopping lists, and there is so much wasted space that they >aren't complete enough to be good shopping lists. > >Genertela contains pages and pages of charts for randomly determining >which specific area of the continent your character comes from! No, >no, no, no, no, no > >The 'what my Father Told' me bits are good (ish) though Ah I see! It must be said that Gods of Glorantha is remarkably sterile, whereas CoP in particular just brought Prax to life (I still enjoy reading Biturian Varosh). Glorantha/Genetela _can_ work if one wants a broad sweep overview - and personally I find I am more comfortable with that than the super detailed (I think the best "new" fantasy setting in years is Monte Cooks Lands of the Diamond Throne, but that's a digression). Might I suggest the following for Matt, the original poster whose question started this conversation? If one wants (and gets on with) broad brush overviews that skim over a wide area in a little detail, leaving the individual GM to improvise the mass of detail but supplying a large chunk of geography and an impression of how the various political and cultural groups work, then Gods of Glorantha and Genertela (bar some naff tables and really rather awful art) might be the right choice. If one wants a narrower focus on a more specific setting, the people, personality and places of which leap off the page at one as compelling (either in the stories included or in ones of his the GM is inspired to), then Sun County, River of Cradles and Shadows on the Borderlands (all RQII) or Pavis and the Big Rubble, Griffin Mountain and the Cult Compendium (RQII) would be the right choice. Of course you could be a sufficiently sad RQ/Chaosium fan like me that you just end up buying it all eventually (well I haven't got the Cult Compendium and Griffin Mountain yet, but it's just a matter of time before I have another accident on eBay...). Cheers, Nick Middleton From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Jun 14 18:20:09 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 09:20:09 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Gloranthan settings for RQ2 Message-ID: >Warren Creighton wrote: > >>I am trying to rememeber what published material >>described, or set a campaign in Dragon Pass. I know >>Apple Lane and Snakepipe Hollow were set in DP, but I >>can't think of any thing else until after the >>introduction of RQ3. >> >> >Even after that, very little was actually set in Dragon Pass. Some of >the fanzines like "Tales of the Reaching Moon" contained enough >background material to run a campaign, but Dragon Pass itself didn't get >any kind of real coverage until "King of Sartar" came out. HeroQuest has >a great deal of information as well as a rules-free guide to Dragon Pass. > Judging by the stuff in Wyrm's Footprints (the collected reprint of material from Wyrms Notes, the RQ/Glorantha/Chaosium mag from the late seventies early eighties) a fair amount about Sartar in particular saw print in Wyrms Notes simultaneous wit the publication of the Prax focused supplements. Cheers, nick Middleton From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Tue Jun 15 00:13:39 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:13:39 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] More on point buy for attributes Message-ID: I solve your issues by not beeing too rigid. I dispute the impossebility to increase INT in RL (real-life), but don't want to get bogged down in a dispute with the frequent brain-experts on this mail-ring. If I think my players have been doing a lot of brainstorming, I allow them for an INT-roll. When it comes to SIZ, I've adopted a some sort of twin-attribute; one for reach and one for mass. This way, a dwarf has perhaps 7 in reach-SIZ and 15 in mass-SIZ. the reach-one affects the SIZ-SRM, while the mass-SIZ affects the dam.mod. The reach-SIZ cannot change other than through magic/divine intervention, while the Mass-stat can vary greatly. This way you allso get to differentiate between "the fat nobleman" (mass-SIZ:18, reach-SIZ13) and "the lean Zulu" (mass-SIZ:13, reach-SIZ18). >From: "Frank L. Filz" >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RQ Rules List" >Subject: [RQ-Rules] More on point buy for attributes >Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:14:43 -0700 > >Hi, I've been a longtime RQ fan and am getting back into it, planning a >new campaign for the fall. I've been pretty much sold on points buy for >attributes, but I am concerned about the fact that RQs two >non-improvable stats are also almost the most important (Int helps in >just about every skill, plus it limits how many spells you can know, Siz >limits how much Str and Con can be trained up). One thought is to use a >system where Int costs double (I'm less worried about Siz, and some >folks are going to want to be small). I've also thought about rolling >Siz, and then dealing with the couple people for whom the roll trashes >their concept (want to be small, no problem, how small do you want to >be, have a concept based on being large? Well, if you've already taken a >high Str and Con, then the bonus of a large Siz is diminished, so sure). > >I'm thinking of using the point buy system from D&D where there is a >curve to it. That worked pretty well for the D20 campaign I just >finished (except that I did break down and allow one set of rolls or a >point buy - and wound up seeing just what I didn't like about rolls - >accelerating attributes - newer PCs had much better stats than the old >ones). > >If anyone is still interested in the differences between RQ I & RQ II, I >can try and ferret them out. > >-- > >Frank Filz > > >_______________________________________________ >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 gianni at basicrps.com Tue Jun 15 07:02:41 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:02:41 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQII and II supplements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1087246961.40ce127183be4@imp.webhuset.no> Hey Nick > Of course you could be a sufficiently sad RQ/Chaosium fan like me that you > just end up buying it all eventually (well I haven't got the Cult > Compendium and Griffin Mountain yet, but it's just a matter of time before > I have another accident on eBay...). Bought my copy of Griffin Mountain in London about two weeks ago. No need for ebay in this case. AFAIK the Cult Compendium is still available too. Gianni From mspambox at yahoo.com Tue Jun 15 13:16:07 2004 From: mspambox at yahoo.com (matt conrad) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:16:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQII and II supplements In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040615031607.68110.qmail@web14003.mail.yahoo.com> --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: Thanks for the analysis. I'd like both, too. But I don't think that's gonna happen given the difficulty of getting materials. At this point I think general background rather than specific adventures will be more useful. I don't mind winging it, but I'd like to keep connected enough to Glorantha that we're still playing the same game as everyone else and I can still take advantage of good ideas. I'm digging through the old RQ digests; those look helpful. Matt __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Jun 15 15:14:51 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:14:51 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQII and II supplements References: <20040615031607.68110.qmail@web14003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007301c45297$bfedab60$68417442@wizard> One of the first RQ GMs from out of the Bay Area was Mark Chilenskas (sp?), who was one of the founders of the Wild Hunt APA. He found the Apple Lane scenario very disturbing because he had based his Sartar campaign on the map from White Bear, Red Moon, the game that started it all. That map was rather barren and had things like The Stream, The River, the Creek as the only obvious water sources. Combining that with the descriptions of neighboring Prax and he came to the conclusion that the countryside was sort of like a scrubland with little vegetation. Being in a forest meant that you could see three trees between you and the horizon. When he found out that Greg's conception of the area included places where apples could grow, it just destroyed his world view... It was one of the most successful early RQ campaigns, though. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "matt conrad" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 8:16 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] RQII and II supplements > > --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > detail> > > Thanks for the analysis. > > I'd like both, too. But I don't think that's gonna > happen given the difficulty of getting materials. At > this point I think general background rather than > specific adventures will be more useful. I don't mind > winging it, but I'd like to keep connected enough to > Glorantha that we're still playing the same game as > everyone else and I can still take advantage of good > ideas. > > I'm digging through the old RQ digests; those look > helpful. > > Matt > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. > http://messenger.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jun 15 17:31:25 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:31:25 +0100 Subject: Buying books and London, was Re: [RQ-Rules] RQII and II supplements Message-ID: >Hey Nick > >> Of course you could be a sufficiently sad RQ/Chaosium fan like me that you >> just end up buying it all eventually (well I haven't got the Cult >> Compendium and Griffin Mountain yet, but it's just a matter of time before >> I have another accident on eBay...). > >Bought my copy of Griffin Mountain in London about two weeks ago. No need for >ebay in this case. AFAIK the Cult Compendium is still available too. > >Gianni True, but that might involve actually GOING to London *shudder* it's bad enough rushing through to meetings in East Croydon (the Armpit of the Known Universe as far as I can tell), but actually stopping in London? Yuk! ;) (Spot the country bumpkin at heart, born and raised in rural North Somerset and still not convinced that cities are a good idea...) :D Being serious, I rarely have the time when in London to browse and thus I tend to rely on my FLGS (Travelling Man York, or their Leeds branch) and eBay as the former are great and the latter often cheap - if I get money for my Birthday I may get Travelling man to phone their branches and see if they have GM or tCC, but the RQII books I _REALLY_ want are Borderlands (should be in reprint IV) and the Gateway Bestiary. the latter is pure nostalgia, as it was one of my most treasured game books for years and probably the one I most regret selling in the mid nineties; not least because of the silly prices it commands on eBay these days! And I still live in hope that I'll stumble on a bargain in a charity shop as two years a go I picked up a copy of Green and Pleasant Land (1920's Britain for Call of Cthulhu) for the princely sum of 65p... Cheers, Nick Middleton From mechashef at bigpond.com Tue Jun 15 13:35:34 2004 From: mechashef at bigpond.com (Mechashef) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:35:34 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] More on point buy for attributes In-Reply-To: <000201c4510d$b8b65bc0$0100a8c0@ffilz> Message-ID: <20040615105641.6428722275E@boomstick.screwheads.net> I have used a system for changing size in a past campaign. A character could increase or decrease their Siz by up to 3 points, by either becoming fatter or skinnier. However the character's initial values were considered to be their normal optimal height and weight. For every point that size changed (up or down), the character also lost 1 point of Con and 1 point of App (for being over weight or too skinny). Con could possibly be trained up again, but at the GM's discretion, such training may result in the Siz moving back towards its original value. I did not allow Siz to reach a value beyond normal racial limitations (8 to 18). The training for this activity involved extended periods of dieting (smaller), or eating special foods (larger). As with any rule, the GM had the final say about the result. From trevor.ellis at pobox.com Thu Jun 17 01:58:52 2004 From: trevor.ellis at pobox.com (Trevor Ellis) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:58:52 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] "realistic" characters - Re-Buff Message-ID: <000501c453ba$d40ef8f0$0500000a@trevorellis> I'm keen a supported of Role playing vs Rule playing and will often allow my players to schieve something without a roll if actions and motivations are described with enough passion. But I think that you two guys have, on this occasion, gone totally over the top by suggesting that my comments describe a Roll Player. My point was not about looking for or grabbing a slight advantage by twisting Rules but rather about such a massive distortion that no sane person would, in a situation where they had a choice, select 8pt Resist Damage over 4pt Protection. In some simple simulations I have run (ignoring specials, fumbles etc) I compared two identical people fighting with sword and shield for a total of 1000 fights. Fighting to first blood the Protection 4 guy won 60:40 but fighting until a location was on zero the result was 80:20. Drop that down to an Protection 4 vs Resist Damage 4 and we're talking complete wipe out. So unless you're role playing complete fanatics, or people who have no choice but to throw stones at tanks then I suggest you try and consider that, for this vital aspect only, Sorcery magic is a complete fraud! Trevor Ellis David Smart jurrubin at earthlink.net Tue Mar 30 08:16:00 PST 2004 They're called "munchkins" around where I play. I admit running one can be fun at times but it does get boring unless the player can add a personal twist. Like a paladin-type who honestly believes in the fundamental goodness of all things, even orcs. Or an incredibly powerful sorcerer with an abundance of angst over past wrongs he/she committed. Or a ninja grandmaster who desires that all government leaders understand the personal benefits of benevolence in government..and takes steps personally to provide that understanding. If a player is interested ONLY in achieving personal power..well..nothing says it's an easy road. David Smart -----Original Message----- From: Bjorn Stolen hotmail.com> Sent: Mar 30, 2004 4:15 AM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] "realistic" characters >Sorry Bjorn, you must not know many dedicated swordspeople. You're right, I dont. I see your point, but I'd still like to disput a bit: I personally don't like to play against players whos characters only desire is to be the best at somthing. That tends to change the focus of the game away from the little things. (While the rest of us was busy solving the plot/hanging out in the inn, etc; "Warmax, the dragon slayer" was busy working out in the backyard and "Sleezy -the wize" was working on his magic formulars. Worse yet is the players that sais that they made up a primitive shaman's apprentice -not because they like to play a spiritually focused character, but because they think that's the quickest way to power (AAAAAAARGH!!!) I once actually played with a guy that had his plans clear for his character: He wanted him to first become a shaman, then become iluminated, so that he could get chaos gifts further advancing his stats.... From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Jun 17 02:29:53 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] "realistic" characters - Re-Buff In-Reply-To: <000501c453ba$d40ef8f0$0500000a@trevorellis> Message-ID: <20040616162953.89535.qmail@web41106.mail.yahoo.com> --- Trevor Ellis wrote: > Fighting to first blood the Protection 4 guy won > 60:40 but fighting > until a location was on zero the result was 80:20. > > Drop that down to an Protection 4 vs Resist Damage 4 > and we're talking complete wipe out. > > So unless you're role playing complete fanatics, or > people who have no > choice but to throw stones at tanks then > I suggest you try and consider that, for this vital > aspect only, Sorcery magic is a complete fraud! Unless you happen to be fighting a Great Troll. in which case the Protection 4 will do absolutely shit for you, while a Damage Resistence may save your life. But to the main point of your argument, there are certain choices a GM must make to ease his life in running a campaign. In order to do so each GM must make a decission as to the power level of the world and his comfort level of game play. Therefore it is up to the GM to determine how much he is willing to let his players "get away" with. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Jun 17 03:06:15 2004 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] More on point buy for attributes In-Reply-To: <20040615105641.6428722275E@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040616170615.27307.qmail@web51304.mail.yahoo.com> --- Mechashef wrote: > I have used a system for changing size in a past > campaign. > > A character could increase or decrease their Siz by > up to 3 points, by > either becoming fatter or skinnier. However the > character's initial values > were considered to be their normal optimal height > and weight. > > For every point that size changed (up or down), the > character also lost 1 > point of Con and 1 point of App (for being over > weight or too skinny). > > Con could possibly be trained up again, but at the > GM's discretion, such > training may result in the Siz moving back towards > its original value. > > I did not allow Siz to reach a value beyond normal > racial limitations (8 to > 18). > > The training for this activity involved extended > periods of dieting > (smaller), or eating special foods (larger). > > As with any rule, the GM had the final say about the > result. Mythworld avoids that problem. SIZ is what you rolled. It has an actual metric (for ease of math) height and weight. However, some species have an automatic weight adjustment: dwarf is +2 in weight - the weight is two SIZ higher than the height SIZ; halflings are +1, elves -1, etc. STR over 17 adds +1 to WT because of added muscle proportionately. Encumbrance is based on WT rather than the HT SIZ. And yes, fasting or gorging can change WT too, but SIZ remains the same. Paul Cardwell __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From mspambox at yahoo.com Thu Jun 17 09:24:30 2004 From: mspambox at yahoo.com (matt conrad) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:24:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] how useful is the Gamemaster's book? Message-ID: <20040616232430.25773.qmail@web14005.mail.yahoo.com> I'm trying to stalk a copy of RQ III on ebay, and getting impatient. There's a Deluxe boxed set up that's missing the Gamemaster's book. I'm contemplating bidding on it. Glorantha.info describes the GM Book as "Gamemastering overview, scenario aids, civilization, ships and sailing, and The Money Tree scenario set in Greenbrass village." Does not sound like basic rules material, or anything I'd really need to have for routine play. But I'd like to poll the group and see what you-all think. How important is the GM's book in RQ III? Matt __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Thu Jun 17 10:27:08 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 17:27:08 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] how useful is the Gamemaster's book? Message-ID: <410-2200464170278671@earthlink.net> It's very useful if you will be doing any GM'ing in that it provides background & associated rules. Topics: Gamemastering (an overview for how to Narrate a scenario as opposed to just roll the die) Scenario Aids: Languages, Encounter Tables, Treasure & Rewards, Danger classes of encounters Civilization: Community (sizes & resources), Economics, Prices of stuff & services, Ships & Sailing rules (basic rule set for maritime travel & encounters) Money Tree ( a basic intro scenario) I hope that helps you make your deciscion Sven > [Original Message] > From: matt conrad > To: > Date: 6/16/2004 4:24:36 PM > Subject: [RQ-Rules] how useful is the Gamemaster's book? > > I'm trying to stalk a copy of RQ III on ebay, and > getting impatient. There's a Deluxe boxed set up > that's missing the Gamemaster's book. I'm > contemplating bidding on it. > > Glorantha.info describes the GM Book as "Gamemastering > overview, scenario aids, civilization, ships and > sailing, and The Money Tree scenario set in Greenbrass > village." > > Does not sound like basic rules material, or anything > I'd really need to have for routine play. But I'd > like to poll the group and see what you-all think. > > How important is the GM's book in RQ III? > > Matt > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > _______________________________________________ > 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 leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Jun 17 11:32:49 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] how useful is the Gamemaster's book? In-Reply-To: <20040616232430.25773.qmail@web14005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040617013249.13806.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> --- matt conrad wrote: > Does not sound like basic rules material, or > anything > I'd really need to have for routine play. But I'd > like to poll the group and see what you-all think. > > How important is the GM's book in RQ III? Its not a requirement. It depends on your gaming style. If you are used to winging it then you do not need it, but if you play by the letter of the rules and need those tables, then it will be a must. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Jun 17 17:40:15 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 08:40:15 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] how useful is the Gamemaster's book? Message-ID: >I'm trying to stalk a copy of RQ III on ebay, and >getting impatient. There's a Deluxe boxed set up >that's missing the Gamemaster's book. I'm >contemplating bidding on it. > >Glorantha.info describes the GM Book as "Gamemastering >overview, scenario aids, civilization, ships and >sailing, and The Money Tree scenario set in Greenbrass >village." > >Does not sound like basic rules material, or anything >I'd really need to have for routine play. But I'd >like to poll the group and see what you-all think. > >How important is the GM's book in RQ III? Erm, IIRC all the stuff about the economy (how much cash is available in a big city etc) is in there which plus the ship rules are quite useful, but of the five books it is, assuming you want to run in Glorantha and are perpared to wing it regarding cities and such, the least vital. Cheers, Nick Middleton From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Jun 17 18:02:26 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:02:26 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] "realistic" characters - Re-Buff Message-ID: Trevor, I wasn't involved in the earlier exchange, but to offer my 2 groats: >I'm keen a supported of Role playing vs Rule playing and will often >allow my players to schieve something without a roll if actions and >motivations are described with enough passion. > >But I think that you two guys have, on this occasion, gone totally over >the top by suggesting that my comments describe a Roll Player. > >My point was not about looking for or grabbing a slight advantage by >twisting Rules but rather about >such a massive distortion that no sane person would, in a situation >where they had a choice, select 8pt Resist Damage over 4pt Protection. > >In some simple simulations I have run (ignoring specials, fumbles etc) Which occur at 1/5th and 1/20th the rate of normal hits and so are surely statistically significant and thus their exclusion seriously distorts these results. > I compared two identical people fighting with sword and shield for a total > of 1000 fights. > >Fighting to first blood the Protection 4 guy won 60:40 but fighting >until a location was on zero the result was 80:20. > >Drop that down to an Protection 4 vs Resist Damage 4 and we're talking >complete wipe out. > >So unless you're role playing complete fanatics, or people who have no >choice but to throw stones at tanks then >I suggest you try and consider that, for this vital aspect only, Sorcery >magic is a complete fraud! Err, how so when the Spell description for Damage Resistance explicitly explains how to stack DR with Shield or Protection (and the latters effectiveness against crits is open to debate)? The intent in the rules seems clearly that DR was never intended (especially at low intensities) to be as effective as Protection - that's part of the appeal of both Spirit Magic and Sorcery (Spirit magic is effective for low MP cost, Sorcery rewards investing time and effort). As your original figures indicated, a Sorcerer relying solely on Damage Resistance would need to have it at high intensity for it to be as effective as Protection 4. But that is intentional I believe. Have a look at the stats for published RQIII sorcerers (say Griffin Island or Strangers In Prax) who swan around with DR20 (! and enchantments on their locations hits! Gahd, those stats scared me when I first saw them...) up most of the year... Sorcery is NOT a quick fix, midst of combat magic system: try and use it as a posh form of Spirit Magic and the character will be in trouble very quickly. Spend time preparing spells in ceremonies, doing the whole wizard in his tower bit, and Sorcerers in straight RQIII are hugely powerful. Whether that is the optimum balance for an enjoyable game is another matter of course but it seems clear that it was the design intent and that it works that way in play, so I see no flaw or problem per se (albeit I tweak RQIII sorcery to get more in game use from Sorcery, otherwise it can easily become the exclusive preserve of NPC's). Cheers, Nick Middleton From gianni at basicrps.com Thu Jun 17 17:28:47 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:28:47 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] how useful is the Gamemaster's book? In-Reply-To: <20040616232430.25773.qmail@web14005.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040616232430.25773.qmail@web14005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1087457327.40d1482f79fa3@imp.webhuset.no> Hey > How important is the GM's book in RQ III? Irrespectively of how important it is, I'd say -- be patient and wait for a perfectbound version of the RQIII rulebook. Sometimes they appear as "buy now", which takes the hassle out of bidding. Gianni From mspambox at yahoo.com Fri Jun 18 14:16:23 2004 From: mspambox at yahoo.com (matt conrad) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 21:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] how useful is the Gamemaster's book? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040618041623.25599.qmail@web14008.mail.yahoo.com> Thanks for the advice. I'll have to see, but if nothing else turns up in the next few days, I'll probably take a shot at it. I hate to buy something half-assed, but I also hate to keep waiting. I did find a perfect bound copy on half.com. $35. No, can't quite swing that one I don't think. Matt __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From Mechashef at bigpond.com Thu Jun 24 09:31:48 2004 From: Mechashef at bigpond.com (Mechashef) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:31:48 +1000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Poison, HP and Healing Message-ID: <20040623233157.D487C2226F4@boomstick.screwheads.net> What can heal poison (or any other attack which directly targets general hit points) damage? Treat Wounds is the only spell I can see which explicitly states it cannot heal such damage, but I have a memory (probably wrong) that most spells wouldn't. I'm pretty sure Heal Body would (is that correct), but what about: Heal Heal Wound Regenerate And what about Neutralize Damage (which I seem to recall having read somewhere)? Also According to the standard rules, a character dies when they reach 0 hit points. I know that some people play that a character dies when the reach negative number of hit points equal to their normal positive hit points. In that case, how is poison handled. Normally, for a character with 15 hit points, a poison of Potency 15 or more is a serious threat to their life, even if they are uninjured. But if that character can go to -15 before dying, then a poison of Potency 20 will merely make them unconscious (unless of course they had already been reduced to 5 or less hit points due to other damage). How do people put the sting back into poison? Thanks Mechashef From DevinC at aol.com Thu Jun 24 11:01:00 2004 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:01:00 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Poison, HP and Healing Message-ID: <191.2aada890.2e0b81cc@aol.com> In a message dated 6/23/2004 4:32:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Mechashef at bigpond.com writes: <> Easy. Have it do temporary Con damage ala D&D. At Con zero you die. From rune_quester at comcast.net Thu Jun 24 14:45:16 2004 From: rune_quester at comcast.net (Rich) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:45:16 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat References: <20040623233157.D487C2226F4@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <000801c459a6$0c167ca0$51f82144@yourmb2swywknr> Hi, I was wondering if anyone else felt the RQ3 book was lacking in archery and other various rules for missile combat. Has anyone made an attempt to improve or do writeups on this. I would be interested in seeingit. Thanks Rich ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mechashef" To: Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 7:31 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Poison, HP and Healing > What can heal poison (or any other attack which directly targets general hit > points) damage? > > Treat Wounds is the only spell I can see which explicitly states it cannot > heal such damage, but I have a memory (probably wrong) that most spells > wouldn't. > > > > I'm pretty sure Heal Body would (is that correct), but what about: > > Heal > > Heal Wound > > Regenerate > > > > And what about Neutralize Damage (which I seem to recall having read > somewhere)? > > > > > > Also > > > > According to the standard rules, a character dies when they reach 0 hit > points. I know that some people play that a character dies when the reach > negative number of hit points equal to their normal positive hit points. In > that case, how is poison handled. Normally, for a character with 15 hit > points, a poison of Potency 15 or more is a serious threat to their life, > even if they are uninjured. But if that character can go to -15 before > dying, then a poison of Potency 20 will merely make them unconscious (unless > of course they had already been reduced to 5 or less hit points due to other > damage). How do people put the sting back into poison? > > > > Thanks > > > > Mechashef > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Jun 24 17:39:55 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:39:55 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Poison, HP and Healing Message-ID: >What can heal poison (or any other attack which directly targets general hit >points) damage? Players Book, Page43: "Unless specifically described as doing so, Healing magic will not work against damage to total hit points that is unrelated to hit point location damage." Thus ONLY the Divine Heal Body in the standard Spell Lists works on Poison damage etc. >Treat Wounds is the only spell I can see which explicitly states it cannot >heal such damage, but I have a memory (probably wrong) that most spells >wouldn't. The implication of the passage I quote above would seem to be that the Spirit Magic Heal also does not work, nor the simpler Divine Heal. >I'm pretty sure Heal Body would (is that correct), but what about: >Heal >Heal Wound >Regenerate Regenerates wording seems pretty clear that the intent is that it be used to replace severed limbs: harsh GM's will not allow it to work on THP affects like poison, generous ones will. >And what about Neutralize Damage (which I seem to recall having read >somewhere)? That's not in the Magic Book, so I can't comment at present I'm at work, but happen to have copies of the Players and Magic Books with; sad, I know!) - can you remember the source? On the whole, I'm a harsh GM and I rather like the fact that the only sure fire magical way of dealing with Poisons is Heal Body (which seems in line with the statement from the Players Book) but I think it really is a question of the flavour a GM wants for their campaign. >Also > >According to the standard rules, a character dies when they reach 0 hit >points. I know that some people play that a character dies when the reach >negative number of hit points equal to their normal positive hit points. In >that case, how is poison handled. Normally, for a character with 15 hit >points, a poison of Potency 15 or more is a serious threat to their life, >even if they are uninjured. But if that character can go to -15 before >dying, then a poison of Potency 20 will merely make them unconscious (unless >of course they had already been reduced to 5 or less hit points due to other >damage). How do people put the sting back into poison? > Like Devin, I'd suggest taking a leaf from D&D's book, but one more consonant with the RQ Rules: A character at negative THP loses 1 per round until treated or dead (i.e. negative THP in excess of whatever threshold you use as per the bleeding rules). For Poisons, barring specific Treat Poison type skills, I'd suggest a _special_ First Aid and/or Plant Lore roll would be required to identify the presence of poison and improvise a suitable counter-measure (if any is possible)... But as I said, I'm a harsh GM. Cheers, Nick Middleton From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Jun 24 18:11:30 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:11:30 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat Message-ID: >Hi, > >I was wondering if anyone else felt the RQ3 book was lacking in archery and >other various rules for missile combat. > >Has anyone made an attempt to improve or do writeups on this. > >I would be interested in seeingit. > >Thanks > >Rich Hmm, I think it largely works to be honest. A solo archer is only really highly effective when sniping at range or against charging targets. Against single, aware targets, especially with cover available, they are not very effective: it is too easy to dodge or block/deflect single shots and at close quarters a bow is a liability (many of the same comments apply to single shot fire-arms actually, but that's a separate issue). The bow's most effective uses lie in massed ranks of archers shooting large formations (especially charging ones...) Having used archery as a PC on several occasions to decimate cavalry and the like, I think the rules work well at making it effective in its historical roll (albeit Elric!/SB5's Volley Fire rule is a useful idea for massed Archery barrages a la Agincourt) whilst clearly showing it's limitations in single combat... The key thing is to remember ALL the details about Archery (Dodging missiles precludes any other attack or parry, slung shields provide armour for several locations etc), as the standard rules do contain a number of wrinkles related to missile weapons. The one flaw in RQ's missile weapon rules in my opinion is that a Bows damage does not reflect the wielders strength as directly as experience suggest they should. Every Longbow I have ever handled that has been used by one person for any significant period is unique, adapted by use to that shooters strength, posture and style of shooting. I'm not sure how one would do it neatly (perhaps reduce the damage die a step if skill<25, and increase it if skill>75? Allow custom built bows at x? cost to factor in half? the characters damage bonus?), but that's something that always bothered me. Cheers, Nick Middleton From leonbk at yahoo.com Thu Jun 24 22:52:33 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:52:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > Hmm, I think it largely works to be honest. Agree. > albeit Elric!/SB5's Volley Fire > rule is a useful idea for > massed Archery barrages a la Agincourt) Not according to several recent shows, which I have seen. These have shown convincing proof that the English longbow could not penetate the French armor and that the one major factor to the French defeat was terrain. According to the specials, the ground was muddy causing the French to bog down and some cases literally drown then they fell. The terrain also served as a funnel causing the French attack to bunch up and trample their own. In addition the English bowmen were too poor to have proper equipment, which was actually to their benefit since they were able to move around in the mud, without it sticking to their armor. The high causualty rate among the French was explaind by the fact that the English longbowmen(peasants) did not know/care about the niceties of war at the time and mostly did not take prisoners for ransom, as well as the fact that Edward was mistakenly afraid of another French attack and ordered all prisoners executed. > The one flaw in RQ's missile weapon rules in my > opinion is that a Bows > damage does not reflect the wielders strength as > directly as experience suggest they should. > Every Longbow I have ever handled that has been used > by one person for any significant period is unique, > adapted by use to that > shooters strength, posture and style of shooting. > I'm not sure how one would do it neatly I allow longbows (and only longbows) to be set to a particular strength bonus. Therefore a person with that strength bonus, or higher, may use the bow and add his damage bonus (to the maximum of what the bow can handle) to the shot at point blank range. So someone with a 2d6 damage modifier, who picks up a longbow which is set to a 1d4 damage bonus, will do 1d8+1+1d4 with an arrow. While someone who does not have a damage bonus will not be able to use that bow at all. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From slposey at concentric.net Fri Jun 25 02:37:36 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:37:36 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat In-Reply-To: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40DB0350.6080705@concentric.net> Leon Kirshtein wrote: > --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > >>Hmm, I think it largely works to be honest. > > > Agree. > > >>albeit Elric!/SB5's Volley Fire >>rule is a useful idea for >>massed Archery barrages a la Agincourt) > > > Not according to several recent shows, which I have > seen. These have shown convincing proof that the > English longbow could not penetate the French armor > and that the one major factor to the French defeat was > terrain. > > According to the specials, the ground was muddy > causing the French to bog down and some cases > literally drown then they fell. The terrain also > served as a funnel causing the French attack to bunch > up and trample their own. In addition the English > bowmen were too poor to have proper equipment, which > was actually to their benefit since they were able to > move around in the mud, without it sticking to their > armor. > > The high causualty rate among the French was explaind > by the fact that the English longbowmen(peasants) did > not know/care about the niceties of war at the time > and mostly did not take prisoners for ransom, as well > as the fact that Edward was mistakenly afraid of > another French attack and ordered all prisoners > executed. Hmmm, the implication being that the later assertions about the superiority of the English Yeomanry with their longbows was "winner propaganda"? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From slposey at concentric.net Fri Jun 25 02:40:18 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:40:18 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40DB03F2.5000304@concentric.net> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > The one flaw in RQ's missile weapon rules in my opinion is that a Bows > damage does not reflect the wielders strength as directly as experience > suggest they should. Every Longbow I have ever handled that has been used > by one person for any significant period is unique, adapted by use to that > shooters strength, posture and style of shooting. I'm not sure how one > would do it neatly (perhaps reduce the damage die a step if skill<25, and > increase it if skill>75? Allow custom built bows at x? cost to factor in > half? the characters damage bonus?), but that's something that always > bothered me. I've been working on adapting the Archery rules from the Aftermath! game by FGU for BRP. These take into account such factors as range to the target, the "Pull" of the bow, the user's strength, and the type of arrow used to determine the damage done. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri Jun 25 03:11:14 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Agincourt (was Archery - Missile Combat) In-Reply-To: <40DB0350.6080705@concentric.net> Message-ID: <20040624171114.15478.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> --- Stephen Posey wrote: > Hmmm, the implication being that the later > assertions about the > superiority of the English Yeomanry with their > longbows was "winner propaganda"? I would have to say "Yes", to a large degree. Here is a more accurate description of what happened: http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgBattle.html ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Jun 25 08:15:07 2004 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?ASHLEY=20MUNDAY?=) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:15:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat In-Reply-To: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040624221507.3418.qmail@web86204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Leon K. said: "Not according to several recent shows, which I have seen. These have shown convincing proof that the English longbow could not penetate the French armor and that the one major factor to the French defeat was terrain." And the sheer lack of any tactical nouse on the French's part. Their reasoning seemed to have been: "It didn't work on horseback, so lets all get off and walk, that'll be far more effective." I'd be?a bit sceptical about the claim that crops up every so often that longbows couldn't penetrate plate armour - they're more than capable of making a sizable dent on a direct hit and go straight through chainmail as if it isn't there. He goes on: "...as well as the fact that Edward was mistakenly afraid of another French attack and ordered all prisoners executed." Which Edward are we talking about here? I thought the King gave the order to not spare the prisoners, but my history could be?a bit rusty! Cheers, Ash From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri Jun 25 12:21:08 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat In-Reply-To: <20040624221507.3418.qmail@web86204.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040625022108.81821.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> ASHLEY MUNDAY wrote: > I'd be a bit > sceptical about the claim that crops up every so > often > that longbows couldn't penetrate plate armour - > they're more than capable of making a sizable dent > on > a direct hit and go straight through chainmail as if > it isn't there. According to the test they showed, it did not penetrate. > He goes on: > > "...as well as the fact that Edward was mistakenly > afraid of another French attack and ordered all > prisoners executed." > > Which Edward are we talking about here? I thought > the > King gave the order to not spare the prisoners, but > my history could be a bit rusty! Sorry, it was Henry V not Edward. Got my kings mixed up. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From freyrvanic at earthlink.net Fri Jun 25 12:47:27 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:47:27 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat Message-ID: <410-22004652524727859@earthlink.net> There are tests that show that it does penetrate & the physics supports that it would. I've also fired a bodkin point from an 85 pound longbow right thru a sheet of 12 guage hardened steel. Also armour wasn't evenly thick on even the same piece, plus there are always the nooks & crevices that you get nailed in by murpy's law. What it really boils down to is that there are so many factors going on that all we can say is that the impression was that the longbow made an impact on the battle field but to how much & what depth we can't know. > [Original Message] > From: Leon Kirshtein > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Date: 6/24/2004 7:21:11 PM > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat > > ASHLEY MUNDAY wrote: > > I'd be a bit > > sceptical about the claim that crops up every so > > often > > that longbows couldn't penetrate plate armour - > > they're more than capable of making a sizable dent > > on > > a direct hit and go straight through chainmail as if > > it isn't there. > > According to the test they showed, it did not > penetrate. > > > He goes on: > > > > "...as well as the fact that Edward was mistakenly > > afraid of another French attack and ordered all > > prisoners executed." > > > > Which Edward are we talking about here? I thought > > the > > King gave the order to not spare the prisoners, but > > my history could be a bit rusty! > > Sorry, it was Henry V not Edward. Got my kings mixed > up. > > > ===== > Leon Kirshtein > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > _______________________________________________ > 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 leonbk at yahoo.com Fri Jun 25 13:30:08 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 20:30:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat In-Reply-To: <410-22004652524727859@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20040625033008.91036.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> --- Sven Lugar wrote: > There are tests that show that it does penetrate & > the physics supports > that it would. I've also fired a bodkin point from > an 85 pound longbow > right thru a sheet of 12 guage hardened steel. Not according to this: "Contrary to popular ideas, English arrows were not very effective against plate armor at the time of Agincourt. Arrows would penetrate the arm and leg armor with a reasonably direct hit from close range, but would be ineffective against the head or body." Reference: Peter N. Jones, "The Metallography and Relative Effectiveness of Arrowheads and Armor During the Middle Ages." Materials Characterization, vol. 29, pp.111-117 (1992). [A periodical published by Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010. Be prepared for some serious metallurgy.] > Also armour wasn't evenly > thick on even the same piece, Yes, but it was also sloped, which tended to deflect the arrow. > plus there are always the nooks & crevices > that you get nailed in by murpy's law. I am not saying it was totally ineffective, just that it was nowhere near as effective as a lot of people believed them to be. Anyway the show I was talking about was this one: Battle Field Detectives (on Discovery Channel) This is part of the matterial they presented: http://www.crowddynamics.com/Agincourt/BattleField.htm ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From steve at perrinworlds.com Fri Jun 25 16:33:26 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 23:33:26 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat References: <20040625033008.91036.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007301c45a7e$625df380$68417442@wizard> Thing to keep in mind is that the longbow got its reputation on the fields of Crecy and Poitiers, when an Edward (III, as a matter of fact) was in charge and French knights were still wearing chainmail and chain and plate combinations. Agincourt happened about 40 years later and some things had changed. One thing hadn't, of course--the general idiocy of the French nobility. I haven't looked at the links provided, but I know that the French nobility was further funneled because they wanted to fight the English nobility, not the peasant archers. So they marched right past the archers to attack the English nobles who were at the bases of the wedges of archers. As the knights packed themselves in, the archers took out their mauls and billhooks and went to town. It was almost like what happened to the Byzantines at Adrianople, 1000 years or so before. Except no one was on horseback. An interesting battle, particularly when you look at it in the same context as Crecy and Poitiers. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Leon Kirshtein" To: ; "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat > --- Sven Lugar wrote: > > There are tests that show that it does penetrate & > > the physics supports > > that it would. I've also fired a bodkin point from > > an 85 pound longbow > > right thru a sheet of 12 guage hardened steel. > > Not according to this: > "Contrary to popular ideas, English arrows were not > very effective against plate armor at the time of > Agincourt. Arrows would penetrate the arm and leg > armor with a reasonably direct hit from close range, > but would be ineffective against the head or body." > Reference: Peter N. Jones, "The Metallography and > Relative Effectiveness of Arrowheads and Armor During > the Middle Ages." Materials Characterization, vol. 29, > pp.111-117 (1992). [A periodical published by > Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 655 Avenue of > the Americas, New York, NY 10010. Be prepared for > some serious metallurgy.] > > > > Also armour wasn't evenly > > thick on even the same piece, > > Yes, but it was also sloped, which tended to deflect > the arrow. > > > plus there are always the nooks & crevices > > that you get nailed in by murpy's law. > > I am not saying it was totally ineffective, just that > it was nowhere near as effective as a lot of people > believed them to be. > > Anyway the show I was talking about was this one: > Battle Field Detectives (on Discovery Channel) > > This is part of the matterial they presented: > http://www.crowddynamics.com/Agincourt/BattleField.htm > > > ===== > Leon Kirshtein > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > _______________________________________________ > 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 Alain.RAMEAU at total.com Fri Jun 25 17:27:29 2004 From: Alain.RAMEAU at total.com (RAMEAU Alain) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:27:29 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Bow making Message-ID: My armoring / weaponsmith house rules ( http://karamo.nexenservices.com/glowar/armoring.htm ) allows for crafting specific weapons. Regarding bows, specific bows can be created to fit a particular STR minimum. Therefore, the damage of such a bow is greater and the range higher. If the user do not have such minimum STR, he can still use it but with a malus (genrally -5% par STR point below). Alain From katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com Sat Jun 26 03:17:08 2004 From: katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com (John Raner) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat In-Reply-To: <20040625033008.91036.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20040625171708.57671.qmail@web53701.mail.yahoo.com> --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > I am not saying it was totally ineffective, just > that > it was nowhere near as effective as a lot of people > believed them to be. According to this: "At the order, the archers let loose the first arrow strike. The "air was darkened by an intolerable number of piercing arrows flying across the sky to pour upon the enemy like a cloud laden with rain." While this may not have caused too much damage, having been fired from extreme range, it must have produced a deafening thunderclap of noise as it hit the French lines. As an English archer could loose up to ten flights a minute, by the time the first landed another would have been in the air. In the confusion of what had just happened, amidst the noise of outraged Frenchmen, injured animals and soldiers, the French cavalry on the flanks charged forth, followed by the first line of dismounted men-at-arms." http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgBattle.html It would seem to me that the noise of the arrows in flight would be quite unnerving, causing even the most hardened French warrior to look up and possibly catch an arrow in his (unprotected or barely protected) eye or face. This might explain how how Harald took that arrow in the eye at Hastings :). At the end of the day, while the longbow may have been an important factor in the English victory at Agincourt, there were several other factors involved that were equally important. No one thing can truly be said to cause a victory in any battle. Cheers, John ===== "Keep a government poor and weak and it's your servant; let it get rich and powerful and it's your master." ---- Colonel Andrew Jackson Hickok A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." ---- Friedrich Nietzsche "It is a shame that governments are chiefed by the devil tongues" ---- Chief Ten Bears "There is no such thing as an obsolete weapon or tool, merely obsolete thinking in its employ." ---- Mark D. (CapnCarp at yahoo.com) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From slposey at concentric.net Sat Jun 26 09:21:55 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 16:21:55 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Curious eBay posting In-Reply-To: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40DCB393.5020701@concentric.net> Anyone else seen this?: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5906167975 any ideas what they're on about? My cynical side thinks it's probably someone trying to make a fast buck off of some stuff copied from magazines or gleaned off the Net. But who knows? I'd like to have seen a sample or two. Anyone know the seller? Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From jurrubin at earthlink.net Sat Jun 26 09:39:57 2004 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (D. Smart) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:39:57 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Curious eBay posting References: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> <40DCB393.5020701@concentric.net> Message-ID: <40DCB7CD.6060309@earthlink.net> Stephen, I'm of the same opinion. I figure between what's been posted to the Web over the years and what this list generates, selling "new spells" just gets laughter and a disgusted headshake from me. David Smart Stephen Posey wrote: > Anyone else seen this?: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5906167975 > > any ideas what they're on about? > > My cynical side thinks it's probably someone trying to make a fast > buck off of some stuff copied from magazines or gleaned off the Net. > But who knows? I'd like to have seen a sample or two. > > Anyone know the seller? > > 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 rune_quester at comcast.net Sat Jun 26 11:18:13 2004 From: rune_quester at comcast.net (Rich) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:18:13 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Curious eBay posting References: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> <40DCB393.5020701@concentric.net> Message-ID: <000f01c45b1b$7429fd50$51f82144@yourmb2swywknr> Would have to be a sucker to get that one.. Rich ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Posey" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 7:21 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] Curious eBay posting > Anyone else seen this?: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5906167975 > > any ideas what they're on about? > > My cynical side thinks it's probably someone trying to make a fast buck > off of some stuff copied from magazines or gleaned off the Net. But who > knows? I'd like to have seen a sample or two. > > Anyone know the seller? > > 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 talmeta at talmeta.net Sat Jun 26 11:50:07 2004 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:50:07 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Curious eBay posting In-Reply-To: <40DCB393.5020701@concentric.net> References: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> <40DCB393.5020701@concentric.net> Message-ID: <40DCD64F.60508@talmeta.net> Stephen Posey wrote: > Anyone else seen this?: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5906167975 > > any ideas what they're on about? > > My cynical side thinks it's probably someone trying to make a fast buck > off of some stuff copied from magazines or gleaned off the Net. But who > knows? I'd like to have seen a sample or two. I'm tempted to bid on it, just to see if anything I wrote is in it. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right. -- Ashleigh Brilliant From slposey at concentric.net Sat Jun 26 15:26:44 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 22:26:44 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Curious eBay posting In-Reply-To: <40DCD64F.60508@talmeta.net> References: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> <40DCB393.5020701@concentric.net> <40DCD64F.60508@talmeta.net> Message-ID: <40DD0914.8040003@concentric.net> Tal Meta wrote: > Stephen Posey wrote: > >> Anyone else seen this?: >> >> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5906167975 >> >> any ideas what they're on about? >> >> My cynical side thinks it's probably someone trying to make a fast >> buck off of some stuff copied from magazines or gleaned off the Net. >> But who knows? I'd like to have seen a sample or two. > > > I'm tempted to bid on it, just to see if anything I wrote is in it. Ditto. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Sun Jun 27 03:26:31 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:26:31 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Curious eBay posting In-Reply-To: <40DCD64F.60508@talmeta.net> References: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> <40DCB393.5020701@concentric.net> <40DCD64F.60508@talmeta.net> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040626102608.02170ec0@incoming.verizon.net> At 06:50 PM 6/25/2004, you wrote: >I'm tempted to bid on it, just to see if anything I wrote is in it. I see you gave in to temptation... :) Bo From slposey at concentric.net Sun Jun 27 03:55:51 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:55:51 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Curious eBay posting In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040626102608.02170ec0@incoming.verizon.net> References: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> <40DCB393.5020701@concentric.net> <40DCD64F.60508@talmeta.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040626102608.02170ec0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <40DDB8A7.3040000@concentric.net> Bo Whitten wrote: > At 06:50 PM 6/25/2004, you wrote: > > >>I'm tempted to bid on it, just to see if anything I wrote is in it. > > > I see you gave in to temptation... :) Indeed, you're a brave (or foolish?) man. I hope you won't be too embarassed by whatever sort of scam it turns out to be to give us a report. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From talmeta at talmeta.net Sun Jun 27 03:59:09 2004 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:59:09 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Curious eBay posting In-Reply-To: <6.1.1.1.0.20040626102608.02170ec0@incoming.verizon.net> References: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> <40DCB393.5020701@concentric.net> <40DCD64F.60508@talmeta.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040626102608.02170ec0@incoming.verizon.net> Message-ID: <40DDB96D.7010501@talmeta.net> Bo Whitten wrote: > At 06:50 PM 6/25/2004, you wrote: > > >>I'm tempted to bid on it, just to see if anything I wrote is in it. Yeah, but i'm not very dedicated. Imagine what my high bid is? -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - My wife made me join a bridge club. I jump off next Tuesday. From talmeta at talmeta.net Sun Jun 27 04:01:25 2004 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 14:01:25 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Curious eBay posting In-Reply-To: <40DDB8A7.3040000@concentric.net> References: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> <40DCB393.5020701@concentric.net> <40DCD64F.60508@talmeta.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040626102608.02170ec0@incoming.verizon.net> <40DDB8A7.3040000@concentric.net> Message-ID: <40DDB9F5.50600@talmeta.net> Stephen Posey wrote: > Indeed, you're a brave (or foolish?) man. > > I hope you won't be too embarassed by whatever sort of scam it turns out > to be to give us a report. I've already stopped two other auctions where people had printed out my stuff and tried to package it.... -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - My wife made me join a bridge club. I jump off next Tuesday. From kruch7 at cox.net Sun Jun 27 04:06:11 2004 From: kruch7 at cox.net (Joseph Elric Smith Mormon Minion of Arioch) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 14:06:11 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Curious eBay posting References: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> <40DCB393.5020701@concentric.net> <40DCD64F.60508@talmeta.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040626102608.02170ec0@incoming.verizon.net><40DDB8A7.3040000@concentric.net> <40DDB9F5.50600@talmeta.net> Message-ID: <000f01c45ba8$43bd4f90$1108a8c0@kenneith93j41k> What if we offer to give you a cut? :) ken Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you Slice N Dice: Game and Pizza Parlour WWBYD What would Brigham Young do ? http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tal Meta" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Curious eBay posting > Stephen Posey wrote: > > > Indeed, you're a brave (or foolish?) man. > > > > I hope you won't be too embarassed by whatever sort of scam it turns out > > to be to give us a report. > > I've already stopped two other auctions where people had printed out my > stuff and tried to package it.... > > -- > talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine > AIM - talmeta > ICQ - 12594453 > Homepage - > > My wife made me join a bridge club. I jump off next Tuesday. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Jun 27 05:09:37 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 12:09:37 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Curious eBay posting In-Reply-To: <40DDB9F5.50600@talmeta.net> References: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> <40DCB393.5020701@concentric.net> <40DCD64F.60508@talmeta.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040626102608.02170ec0@incoming.verizon.net> <40DDB8A7.3040000@concentric.net> <40DDB9F5.50600@talmeta.net> Message-ID: <40DDC9F1.4060202@concentric.net> Tal Meta wrote: > Stephen Posey wrote: > >> Indeed, you're a brave (or foolish?) man. >> >> I hope you won't be too embarassed by whatever sort of scam it turns >> out to be to give us a report. > > > I've already stopped two other auctions where people had printed out my > stuff and tried to package it.... Is that right? The nerve of some people. I poll eBay looking for BRP related stuff all the time, if I come across anything else looking like this I'll be sure to give you the head's up. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From talmeta at talmeta.net Sun Jun 27 06:04:27 2004 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 16:04:27 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Curious eBay posting In-Reply-To: <000f01c45ba8$43bd4f90$1108a8c0@kenneith93j41k> References: <20040624125233.21684.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> <40DCB393.5020701@concentric.net> <40DCD64F.60508@talmeta.net> <6.1.1.1.0.20040626102608.02170ec0@incoming.verizon.net><40DDB8A7.3040000@concentric.net> <40DDB9F5.50600@talmeta.net> <000f01c45ba8$43bd4f90$1108a8c0@kenneith93j41k> Message-ID: <40DDD6CB.5010304@talmeta.net> Joseph Elric Smith Mormon Minion of Arioch wrote: > What if we offer to give you a cut? :) Heh. I haven't quite worked my way around to putting my stuff up myself; bog knows when I ran my first RQ campaign, I printed & bound enough books for my group... -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - Is there another word for synonym? From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jun 28 01:01:39 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 16:01:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Poison, HP and Healing In-Reply-To: <20040624163809.A5BF722273E@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040627150139.14339.qmail@web51003.mail.yahoo.com> Mechashef: > What can heal poison (or any other attack which directly targets general > hit > points) damage? > > Treat Wounds is the only spell I can see which explicitly states it cannot > heal such damage, but I have a memory (probably wrong) that most spells > wouldn't. Yep, most spells do not heal poison damage. > I'm pretty sure Heal Body would (is that correct), but what about: > Heal > Heal Wound > Regenerate Heal and Heal Wound do not cure poison damage. Regenerate only restores a severed limb or extremity, so would not restore poison damage. Heal Body does cure all damage, including poison damage. Healing Trance might be useful as it speeds up natural healing. So, the poison damage could be naturally healed faster. Heal Constitution explicitly healed poison damage in RQ2 and, I believe, healed general hit point damage in RQ3. Treat Poison is effective as are Healing Spirits, possibly. Antidotes are good, if you use them in your campaign and if the party has bought some. There is nothing to stop you making up new spells that curepoison and putting them in some healing subcult I used Poison Purge for this very purpose. > According to the standard rules, a character dies when they reach 0 hit > points. I know that some people play that a character dies when the reach > negative number of hit points equal to their normal positive hit points. > In > that case, how is poison handled. Normally, for a character with 15 hit > points, a poison of Potency 15 or more is a serious threat to their life, > even if they are uninjured. But if that character can go to -15 before > dying, then a poison of Potency 20 will merely make them unconscious > (unless > of course they had already been reduced to 5 or less hit points due to > other > damage). How do people put the sting back into poison? Normally, if someone takes a wound that takes them below zero, they would be bleeding. Without healing they will soon die. The same should probably apply to poison damage - someone with 15HPs who takes 15HP poison would go into a coma and then would deteriorate until death. Devin: > < points. I know that some people play that a character dies when the reach > negative number of hit points equal to their normal positive hit points. > In > that case, how is poison handled. Normally, for a character with 15 hit > points, a poison of Potency 15 or more is a serious threat to their life, > even if they are uninjured. But if that character can go to -15 before > dying, then a poison of Potency 20 will merely make them unconscious > (unless > of course they had already been reduced to 5 or less hit points due to > other > damage). How do people put the sting back into poison?>> > > Easy. Have it do temporary Con damage ala D&D. At Con zero you die. Or, indeed, as it worked in RQ2. Nick Middleton: > Like Devin, I'd suggest taking a leaf from D&D's book, but one more > consonant with the RQ Rules: A character at negative THP loses 1 per round > until treated or dead (i.e. negative THP in excess of whatever threshold > you use as per the bleeding rules). For Poisons, barring specific Treat > Poison type skills, I'd suggest a _special_ First Aid and/or Plant Lore > roll would be required to identify the presence of poison and improvise a > suitable counter-measure (if any is possible)... But as I said, I'm a harsh > GM. Harsh would be "you haven't got Treat Poison or Heal Body? Then he's going to die." Anyway, any decent party would have gone to the alchemist and stocked up on antidotes before going into the scenario. See Ya Simon ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Jun 28 17:45:12 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:45:12 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Poison, HP and Healing Message-ID: >Nick Middleton: >> Like Devin, I'd suggest taking a leaf from D&D's book, but one more >> consonant with the RQ Rules: A character at negative THP loses 1 per round >> until treated or dead (i.e. negative THP in excess of whatever threshold >> you use as per the bleeding rules). For Poisons, barring specific Treat >> Poison type skills, I'd suggest a _special_ First Aid and/or Plant Lore >> roll would be required to identify the presence of poison and improvise a >> suitable counter-measure (if any is possible)... But as I said, I'm a harsh >> GM. > >Harsh would be "you haven't got Treat Poison or Heal Body? Then he's going to >die." > The key phrase was "if any is possible" - in my games, many poisons commonly encountered are complex brews and, where they have counter-agents, so are the counter agents. And short of Bezoar(Sp?) and other magical counters, there is NO universal anti-toxin. The most common results in my games is: "Hmm, you seem to have taken a dose of Blue Serendial Venom. But wait, what's this? How fortunate, the rare Frefouil plant. Now let me think... Oh dear. Well, I can start trying to brew the counter agent from these Frefouil leaves, but it'll take three hours... and you probably have twenty minutes. Sorry about that." Mostly Poison / Plant lore will just let them know HOW the poisoned character is going to die, and how complicated making the antidote would be if they had the resources... >Anyway, any decent party would have gone to the alchemist and stocked up on >antidotes before going into the scenario. Without magic or modern pharmacology, antidotes are poison specific and expensive in my typical games; you might be able to get antidotes for typical poisonous vermin before heading in to an infested region, but that's about it. Cheers, Nick Middleton From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Jun 28 20:54:52 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:54:52 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat Message-ID: Well, the effectiveness of the longbow vs. different types of armor have been thouougly debated on this forum: www.swordforum.com I feel pretty convinced that the conditions demanded for an arrowhead to penentrate occur so seldom (direct90*hit on a non-moving piece of plate) -that I let my houserules in RQ3 work in the favour of the plate armor, not the longbow. (but I'm usin 28 hit-locations, and if the arrow hits home in an unprotected area.....) I otherways agree with Sven in that the longbow would have had an impact/effect on a medieval battlefield. -but not as "anti armoured knight-weapons" >From: "Sven Lugar" >Reply-To: freyrvanic at earthlink.net,"RuneQuest rules discussion." > >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat >Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:47:27 -0700 > >There are tests that show that it does penetrate & the physics supports >that it would. I've also fired a bodkin point from an 85 pound longbow >right thru a sheet of 12 guage hardened steel. Also armour wasn't evenly >thick on even the same piece, plus there are always the nooks & crevices >that you get nailed in by murpy's law. What it really boils down to is that >there are so many factors going on that all we can say is that the >impression was that the longbow made an impact on the battle field but to >how much & what depth we can't know. > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Leon Kirshtein > > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > > Date: 6/24/2004 7:21:11 PM > > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat > > > > ASHLEY MUNDAY wrote: > > > I'd be a bit > > > sceptical about the claim that crops up every so > > > often > > > that longbows couldn't penetrate plate armour - > > > they're more than capable of making a sizable dent > > > on > > > a direct hit and go straight through chainmail as if > > > it isn't there. > > > > According to the test they showed, it did not > > penetrate. > > > > > He goes on: > > > > > > "...as well as the fact that Edward was mistakenly > > > afraid of another French attack and ordered all > > > prisoners executed." > > > > > > Which Edward are we talking about here? I thought > > > the > > > King gave the order to not spare the prisoners, but > > > my history could be a bit rusty! > > > > Sorry, it was Henry V not Edward. Got my kings mixed > > up. > > > > > > ===== > > Leon Kirshtein > > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Jun 28 20:45:09 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:45:09 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat Message-ID: >From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat >Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 09:11:30 +0100 > > > >Hi, > > > >I was wondering if anyone else felt the RQ3 book was lacking in archery >and > >other various rules for missile combat. > > > >Has anyone made an attempt to improve or do writeups on this. > > > >I would be interested in seeingit. > > > >Thanks > > > >Rich Well, I've altered the damage-rules a bit, but left the to hit-rules, as I think they're OK What I've done is to introduce the wide array of arrowheads into RQ-play. I have Armor-piercing arrowheads, doing less damage, but having a better chanse of piercing SOME TYPES OF armor, I allso have the arrowheads that cannot be pulled out of a wound; theese have the rule that if they inflict 4pts of damage or more on the target, they get stuck and will do half their base damage (made into a diceroll) if attempting to pull it out again. It will keep doing damage while stuck, if the target moves around. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Jun 28 20:46:44 2004 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:46:44 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat Message-ID: -Another point was that the archers precence was a key factor to the french deciding to fight dismounted. >From: Leon Kirshtein >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat >Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:52:33 -0700 (PDT) > >--- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > Hmm, I think it largely works to be honest. > >Agree. > > > albeit Elric!/SB5's Volley Fire > > rule is a useful idea for > > massed Archery barrages a la Agincourt) > >Not according to several recent shows, which I have >seen. These have shown convincing proof that the >English longbow could not penetate the French armor >and that the one major factor to the French defeat was >terrain. > >According to the specials, the ground was muddy >causing the French to bog down and some cases >literally drown then they fell. The terrain also >served as a funnel causing the French attack to bunch >up and trample their own. In addition the English >bowmen were too poor to have proper equipment, which >was actually to their benefit since they were able to >move around in the mud, without it sticking to their >armor. > >The high causualty rate among the French was explaind >by the fact that the English longbowmen(peasants) did >not know/care about the niceties of war at the time >and mostly did not take prisoners for ransom, as well >as the fact that Edward was mistakenly afraid of >another French attack and ordered all prisoners >executed. > > > The one flaw in RQ's missile weapon rules in my > > opinion is that a Bows > > damage does not reflect the wielders strength as > > directly as experience suggest they should. > > Every Longbow I have ever handled that has been >used > > by one person for any significant period is unique, > > adapted by use to that > > shooters strength, posture and style of shooting. > > I'm not sure how one would do it neatly > > >I allow longbows (and only longbows) to be set to a >particular strength bonus. Therefore a person with >that strength bonus, or higher, may use the bow and >add his damage bonus (to the maximum of what the bow >can handle) to the shot at point blank range. > >So someone with a 2d6 damage modifier, who picks up a >longbow which is set to a 1d4 damage bonus, will do >1d8+1+1d4 with an arrow. While someone who does not >have a damage bonus will not be able to use that bow >at all. > > > >===== >Leon Kirshtein >www.godlearner.d2g.com > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. >http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail >_______________________________________________ >RQ-Rules mailing list >RQ-Rules at crashbox.com >http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules >http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From leonbk at yahoo.com Mon Jun 28 23:20:21 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 06:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040628132021.43581.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com> As a side note. Has anyone used armor penetration rules (from CoC) for crossbows? Leon --- Bjorn Stolen wrote: > > > Well, the effectiveness of the longbow vs. different > types of armor have > been thouougly debated on this forum: > www.swordforum.com > > I feel pretty convinced that the conditions demanded > for an arrowhead to > penentrate occur so seldom (direct90*hit on a > non-moving piece of plate) > -that I let my houserules in RQ3 work in the favour > of the plate armor, not > the longbow. (but I'm usin 28 hit-locations, and if > the arrow hits home in > an unprotected area.....) > > I otherways agree with Sven in that the longbow > would have had an > impact/effect on a medieval battlefield. -but not as > "anti armoured > knight-weapons" > > >From: "Sven Lugar" > >Reply-To: freyrvanic at earthlink.net,"RuneQuest rules > discussion." > > > >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." > > >Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat > >Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 19:47:27 -0700 > > > >There are tests that show that it does penetrate & > the physics supports > >that it would. I've also fired a bodkin point from > an 85 pound longbow > >right thru a sheet of 12 guage hardened steel. Also > armour wasn't evenly > >thick on even the same piece, plus there are always > the nooks & crevices > >that you get nailed in by murpy's law. What it > really boils down to is that > >there are so many factors going on that all we can > say is that the > >impression was that the longbow made an impact on > the battle field but to > >how much & what depth we can't know. > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Leon Kirshtein > > > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > > > > Date: 6/24/2004 7:21:11 PM > > > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat > > > > > > ASHLEY MUNDAY wrote: > > > > I'd be a bit > > > > sceptical about the claim that crops up every > so > > > > often > > > > that longbows couldn't penetrate plate armour > - > > > > they're more than capable of making a sizable > dent > > > > on > > > > a direct hit and go straight through chainmail > as if > > > > it isn't there. > > > > > > According to the test they showed, it did not > > > penetrate. > > > > > > > He goes on: > > > > > > > > "...as well as the fact that Edward was > mistakenly > > > > afraid of another French attack and ordered > all > > > > prisoners executed." > > > > > > > > Which Edward are we talking about here? I > thought > > > > the > > > > King gave the order to not spare the > prisoners, but > > > > my history could be a bit rusty! > > > > > > Sorry, it was Henry V not Edward. Got my kings > mixed > > > up. > > > > > > > > > ===== > > > Leon Kirshtein > > > www.godlearner.d2g.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free > storage! > > > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Jun 28 23:49:25 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:49:25 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat Message-ID: >As a side note. Has anyone used armor penetration >rules (from CoC) for crossbows? > >Leon Not in straight RuneQuest but I adapted a similar idea from the Stormbringer campaign Rogue Mistress for my "Fantasy Mars" game (both Crossbows and black-powder weapons got an armour piercing rating) which was based on the Stormbringer/Elric rules (so no hit locations). With locational hit ponits I'd be _very_ careful about AP ratings personally... Cheers, Nick Middleton From mattley at gmail.com Tue Jun 29 00:07:04 2004 From: mattley at gmail.com (Matt Conrad) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:07:04 -0500 Subject: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does it bug anybody but me that RQ even *has* crossbows? Can you make a crossbow with bronze? I've thought about leaving crossbows out of my game, or maybe just letting the dwarves have them. On a more general note, are there any other loudly anachronistic things that people have noticed creeping into Runequest by default? I just happened to think about the crossbows, I bet there's a lot of other stuff I missed. I like the idea of having little bits and pieces of the standard D&D kit be conspicuously absent, to give my players a little bit of culture shock. Matt On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:49:25 +0100, nick.middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > > >As a side note. Has anyone used armor penetration > >rules (from CoC) for crossbows? > > > >Leon From gianni at basicrps.com Mon Jun 28 23:23:19 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:23:19 +0200 Subject: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1088428999.40e01bc799b79@imp.webhuset.no> Hey Matt > Does it bug anybody but me that RQ even *has* crossbows? Can you make > a crossbow with bronze? AFAIK there _were_ crossbows in bronze age China. Cheers Gianni From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Jun 29 00:12:47 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:12:47 +0100 Subject: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat Message-ID: >Does it bug anybody but me that RQ even *has* crossbows? Can you make >a crossbow with bronze? And where does it say in RQII or III that the rules portray realworld bronze age technology only? ;-) It is what the rules do well I grant you, but as any Gloranthan scholar can tell you, Glorantha's Bronze ("Ga-metal"?) isn't the same as Earth Bronze, and in RQIII it explicitly covers up to renaissance style technologies... I think you can make crossbows without steel, but how effective they would be is another matter... >I've thought about leaving crossbows out of my game, or maybe just >letting the dwarves have them. Both valid options, especially for Glorantha... >On a more general note, are there any other loudly anachronistic >things that people have noticed creeping into Runequest by default? I >just happened to think about the crossbows, I bet there's a lot of >other stuff I missed. Rapiers. The metallurgy involved is quite sophisticated (especially given what most of us assume they mean by rapier). And, if one does assume the purely bronze age tech, plate armour looks suspicious (it's either very light, or too effective). >I like the idea of having little bits and pieces of the standard D&D >kit be conspicuously absent, to give my players a little bit of >culture shock. One of the things I loved about original Stormbringer is the fact there are no crossbows in the Young Kingdoms and the Moon is never mentioned... It's often the diffrences as miuch as the similarities in a setting that work. Albeit the radically different nature of religion in typical RQ should be a big clue to switched on D&D players... Cheers, Nick Middleton From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Jun 29 00:36:37 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 07:36:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ religion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20040628143637.52541.qmail@web41114.mail.yahoo.com> --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > Albeit the radically different nature of religion in > typical RQ should be a > big clue to switched on D&D players... Yes, that was always a big shock to most people comming from D&D to RQ. In D&D religion was there, but people played clerics to have someone to heal the party and to turn undead. Then I was playing D&D, the last person to join the group was usually the one stuck with playing the cleric. The players, almost never knew anything, beyond the basics, about their religion, or cared to find out. In RQ the story is vastly different. Even in the non-Gloranthan campaigns, with little divine magic, it was of great importance. It forced the player to try to find more information about the world in general and made a better game because of it. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From gianni at basicrps.com Tue Jun 29 00:45:55 2004 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:45:55 +0200 Subject: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1088433955.40e02f231d34a@imp.webhuset.no> Quoting Nick.Middleton at invensys.com: > And, if one does assume the > purely bronze age tech, plate armour looks suspicious (it's either very > light, or too effective). Bronze age China also had plate armours. The pieces of metal were held by a complex system of ropes. These suits of armour were very expensive, and only army officers could afford them. They were also very bulky, and were abandoned later on. G. From mattley at gmail.com Tue Jun 29 01:41:35 2004 From: mattley at gmail.com (Matt Conrad) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:41:35 -0500 Subject: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat In-Reply-To: <1088428999.40e01bc799b79@imp.webhuset.no> References: <1088428999.40e01bc799b79@imp.webhuset.no> Message-ID: I really like Gmail, but it does encourage you to top-post. On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:23:19 +0200, Gianni wrote: > > Hey Matt > > > Does it bug anybody but me that RQ even *has* crossbows? Can you make > > a crossbow with bronze? > > AFAIK there _were_ crossbows in bronze age China. You're right! http://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/miltech/crossbow.htm I thought crossbows were strictly medieval. How about that. Thanks for the correction. Matt From jellen at ameritech.net Tue Jun 29 01:53:12 2004 From: jellen at ameritech.net (J and/or Ellen) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 10:53:12 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Blue Moon References: Message-ID: <01e301c45d28$0551abd0$d5104d44@DCNL6S01> Hmm...I could've sworn that Elric had looked up at one point while sailing and noticed that the moon had turned blue. --J ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 9:12 AM Subject: Re: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat ...One of the things I loved about original Stormbringer is the fact there are no crossbows in the Young Kingdoms and the Moon is never mentioned... It's often the diffrences as miuch as the similarities in a setting that work. Albeit the radically different nature of religion in typical RQ should be a big clue to switched on D&D players... Cheers, Nick Middleton From mattley at gmail.com Tue Jun 29 02:00:06 2004 From: mattley at gmail.com (Matt Conrad) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:00:06 -0500 Subject: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:12:47 +0100, nick.middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > > >Does it bug anybody but me that RQ even *has* crossbows? Can you make > >a crossbow with bronze? > > And where does it say in RQII or III that the rules portray realworld > bronze age technology only? ;-) Hey, it's fantasy, you can do what you want. But I think it adds flavor to emphasize "this is not medieval fantasy". Unfortunately I'm not much of a historian, so I'm likely to get that wrong quite a bit, but it's a goal worth shooting at. > It is what the rules do well I grant you, but as any Gloranthan scholar can > tell you, Glorantha's Bronze ("Ga-metal"?) isn't the same as Earth Bronze, > and in RQIII it explicitly covers up to renaissance style technologies... Yes, I read that somewhere. But it doesn't make sense to me. I'm not obsessive about historical accuracy, at least I don't think I am, but why have a Bronze Age setting if your bronze isn't really bronze and your tech is really anything before the industrial revolution? > I think you can make crossbows without steel, but how effective they would > be is another matter... I was just wrong about the crossbows. The page I found said you needed bronze for the trigger mechanism, which seems to suggest that the bow itself was not metal. > >I've thought about leaving crossbows out of my game, or maybe just > >letting the dwarves have them. > > Both valid options, especially for Glorantha... Yeah, I may set things up that way anyhow. > >On a more general note, are there any other loudly anachronistic > >things that people have noticed creeping into Runequest by default? I > >just happened to think about the crossbows, I bet there's a lot of > >other stuff I missed. > > Rapiers. The metallurgy involved is quite sophisticated (especially given > what most of us assume they mean by rapier). And, if one does assume the > purely bronze age tech, plate armour looks suspicious (it's either very > light, or too effective). Ah, very good. I'd wondered about the plate armour too. I've got some historical reading planned, but I keep finding myself reading some piece of fluff instead. Ah, well. Fun is more important that accuracy, right? > >I like the idea of having little bits and pieces of the standard D&D > >kit be conspicuously absent, to give my players a little bit of > >culture shock. > > One of the things I loved about original Stormbringer is the fact there are > no crossbows in the Young Kingdoms and the Moon is never mentioned... It's > often the diffrences as miuch as the similarities in a setting that work. > Albeit the radically different nature of religion in typical RQ should be a > big clue to switched on D&D players... I'm going to have to get clued in on that myself before we start playing. :) Matt From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Jun 29 02:00:45 2004 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?Simon=20Phipp?=) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:00:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rapiers/Crossbows In-Reply-To: <20040628153640.29136222771@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040628160045.32808.qmail@web51002.mail.yahoo.com> Matt Conrad: > Does it bug anybody but me that RQ even *has* crossbows? Can you make > a crossbow with bronze? Yep, the Chinese had them, after a fashion. Any game that has shuriken alongside klanths is a bit anachronistic anyway. The more weapons the better, I say. > I've thought about leaving crossbows out of my game, or maybe just > letting the dwarves have them. Westerners would have them in Glorantha - medieval society. And if you look at the film Gladiator, Imperial Rome had them as well .... > On a more general note, are there any other loudly anachronistic > things that people have noticed creeping into Runequest by default? I > just happened to think about the crossbows, I bet there's a lot of > other stuff I missed. How about pretty much all of the culture, all of the magic, most of the politics and half the weapons. Although, to be fair, a lot of the medieval weapons were adaptations of earlier types. > I like the idea of having little bits and pieces of the standard D&D > kit be conspicuously absent, to give my players a little bit of > culture shock. What, like Longswords? Nick Middleton: > >Does it bug anybody but me that RQ even *has* crossbows? Can you make > >a crossbow with bronze? > > And where does it say in RQII or III that the rules portray realworld > bronze age technology only? ;-) Bronze Age where it wants to be, 20th/21st Century when it needs to be. > >On a more general note, are there any other loudly anachronistic > >things that people have noticed creeping into Runequest by default? I > >just happened to think about the crossbows, I bet there's a lot of > >other stuff I missed. > > Rapiers. The metallurgy involved is quite sophisticated (especially given > what most of us assume they mean by rapier). And, if one does assume the > purely bronze age tech, plate armour looks suspicious (it's either very > light, or too effective). Weren't there stone rapiers in the Stone Age? Very long, slender flint blades for stabbing people. I seem to remember being impressed with a picture in a book once upon a time. See Ya Simon ___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - sooooo many all-new ways to express yourself http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From mattley at gmail.com Tue Jun 29 02:26:34 2004 From: mattley at gmail.com (Matt Conrad) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:26:34 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rapiers/Crossbows In-Reply-To: <20040628160045.32808.qmail@web51002.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20040628160045.32808.qmail@web51002.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:00:45 +0100 (BST), Simon Phipp wrote: > > Matt Conrad: > > > On a more general note, are there any other loudly anachronistic > > things that people have noticed creeping into Runequest by default? I > > just happened to think about the crossbows, I bet there's a lot of > > other stuff I missed. > > How about pretty much all of the culture, all of the magic, most of the > politics and half the weapons. Although, to be fair, a lot of the medieval > weapons were adaptations of earlier types. Having a big empire doesn't sound very Bronze age, but having the Lunar Empire as an aberration doesn't bother me. I imagine you're talking about a lot more than that. It does seem to me like the material I've read about Glorantha is in general more civilized than I think it ought to be, and I thought about trying to scale that down. Perhaps I'm being silly given that I only have a vague sense of what Bronze Age societies were really like, but I'd like to chase that path for at least a while before I give up. > > I like the idea of having little bits and pieces of the standard D&D > > kit be conspicuously absent, to give my players a little bit of > > culture shock. > > What, like Longswords? Oh. Well, we'll keep longswords. From slposey at concentric.net Tue Jun 29 02:34:11 2004 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:34:11 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40E04883.30608@concentric.net> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >>As a side note. Has anyone used armor penetration >>rules (from CoC) for crossbows? >> >>Leon > > > Not in straight RuneQuest but I adapted a similar idea from the > Stormbringer campaign Rogue Mistress for my "Fantasy Mars" game (both > Crossbows and black-powder weapons got an armour piercing rating) which was > based on the Stormbringer/Elric rules (so no hit locations). With > locational hit ponits I'd be _very_ careful about AP ratings personally... "Fantasy Mars" a la Burroughs' John Carter? That sounds very intriguing. Do you have any write ups of that? I'd be particularly interested in seeing what you have on black-powder guns. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From MurfNMurf at aol.com Tue Jun 29 02:39:01 2004 From: MurfNMurf at aol.com (MurfNMurf at aol.com) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:39:01 EDT Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat Message-ID: <84.2cf007ac.2e11a3a5@aol.com> In a message dated 6/28/2004 11:34:54 AM Central Standard Time, slposey at concentric.net writes: Do you have any write ups of that? I'd be particularly interested in seeing what you have on black-powder guns. Speaking of black podwer guns, does anyone have any sort of information on the Jingal/Wall gun? I've been trying to figure eff/max ranges for the thing, but have no ideas :( -Ken- From katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com Tue Jun 29 02:59:45 2004 From: katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com (John Raner) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:59:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat In-Reply-To: <1088428999.40e01bc799b79@imp.webhuset.no> Message-ID: <20040628165945.41299.qmail@web53703.mail.yahoo.com> --- Gianni wrote: > Hey Matt > > > Does it bug anybody but me that RQ even *has* > crossbows? Can you make > > a crossbow with bronze? > > AFAIK there _were_ crossbows in bronze age China. Not only did they have crossbows, but they had repeating crosbows :): http://www.atarn.org/chinese/rept_xbow.htm So did the Koreans: http://www.koreanarchery.org/rcb/ Cheers, John ===== "Keep a government poor and weak and it's your servant; let it get rich and powerful and it's your master." ---- Colonel Andrew Jackson Hickok A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." ---- Friedrich Nietzsche "It is a shame that governments are chiefed by the devil tongues" ---- Chief Ten Bears "There is no such thing as an obsolete weapon or tool, merely obsolete thinking in its employ." ---- Mark D. (CapnCarp at yahoo.com) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lancelot at inetnebr.com Tue Jun 29 05:10:50 2004 From: lancelot at inetnebr.com (lance dyas) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:10:50 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] What RQ fatigue rules if any do you use? Message-ID: <40E06D3A.6020805@inetnebr.com> Does anybody use the fatigue rules in RQIII or have any home grown RQian rules.. D&D integrates hitpoints and fatigue ( as well as defensive skill and heroic luck... sigh.) in HP Of course I dont like it exactly but it does have the advantage of keeping book-keeping ones state simple and all in one place -- 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 freyrvanic at earthlink.net Tue Jun 29 05:49:29 2004 From: freyrvanic at earthlink.net (Sven Lugar) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:49:29 -0700 Subject: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat Message-ID: <410-220046128194929218@earthlink.net> Actually, many early crossbows were made from wood for the frame & limbs (the bow part) & the trigger assembly was made from moose antler or the like. They were still being used by the Sami even until the Great Northern War in the 18th century. > [Original Message] > From: Matt Conrad > To: RuneQuest rules discussion. > Date: 6/28/2004 9:00:09 AM > Subject: Re: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:12:47 +0100, nick.middleton at invensys.com > wrote: > > > > > > >Does it bug anybody but me that RQ even *has* crossbows? Can you make > > >a crossbow with bronze? > > > > And where does it say in RQII or III that the rules portray realworld > > bronze age technology only? ;-) > > Hey, it's fantasy, you can do what you want. But I think it adds > flavor to emphasize "this is not medieval fantasy". Unfortunately I'm > not much of a historian, so I'm likely to get that wrong quite a bit, > but it's a goal worth shooting at. > > > It is what the rules do well I grant you, but as any Gloranthan scholar can > > tell you, Glorantha's Bronze ("Ga-metal"?) isn't the same as Earth Bronze, > > and in RQIII it explicitly covers up to renaissance style technologies... > > Yes, I read that somewhere. But it doesn't make sense to me. I'm not > obsessive about historical accuracy, at least I don't think I am, but > why have a Bronze Age setting if your bronze isn't really bronze and > your tech is really anything before the industrial revolution? > > > I think you can make crossbows without steel, but how effective they would > > be is another matter... > > I was just wrong about the crossbows. The page I found said you > needed bronze for the trigger mechanism, which seems to suggest that > the bow itself was not metal. > > > >I've thought about leaving crossbows out of my game, or maybe just > > >letting the dwarves have them. > > > > Both valid options, especially for Glorantha... > > Yeah, I may set things up that way anyhow. > > > >On a more general note, are there any other loudly anachronistic > > >things that people have noticed creeping into Runequest by default? I > > >just happened to think about the crossbows, I bet there's a lot of > > >other stuff I missed. > > > > Rapiers. The metallurgy involved is quite sophisticated (especially given > > what most of us assume they mean by rapier). And, if one does assume the > > purely bronze age tech, plate armour looks suspicious (it's either very > > light, or too effective). > > Ah, very good. > > I'd wondered about the plate armour too. > > I've got some historical reading planned, but I keep finding myself > reading some piece of fluff instead. Ah, well. Fun is more important > that accuracy, right? > > > >I like the idea of having little bits and pieces of the standard D&D > > >kit be conspicuously absent, to give my players a little bit of > > >culture shock. > > > > One of the things I loved about original Stormbringer is the fact there are > > no crossbows in the Young Kingdoms and the Moon is never mentioned... It's > > often the diffrences as miuch as the similarities in a setting that work. > > Albeit the radically different nature of religion in typical RQ should be a > > big clue to switched on D&D players... > > I'm going to have to get clued in on that myself before we start playing. :) > > Matt > _______________________________________________ > 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 leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Jun 29 05:58:06 2004 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] What RQ fatigue rules if any do you use? In-Reply-To: <40E06D3A.6020805@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <20040628195806.61469.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com> --- lance dyas wrote: > Does anybody use the fatigue rules in RQIII or have > any home grown RQian > rules.. > D&D integrates hitpoints and fatigue ( as well as > defensive skill and > heroic luck... sigh.) > in HP Of course I dont like it exactly but it does > have the advantage > of keeping > book-keeping ones state simple and all in one place Nope, chucked the whole thing as useless, time consuming, kill-joy proccess. Never looked back. ===== Leon Kirshtein www.godlearner.d2g.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk Tue Jun 29 06:32:01 2004 From: stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk (stephenmcg at blueyonder.co.uk) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:32:01 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] What RQ fatigue rules if any do you use? Message-ID: I used the fatigue only to warn the PCs that they were pushing the bounds of reasonableness. When they decided that they were going to fight then run and then ignore resting and push on to the next fight then I decided to start knocking off fatigue points. If they decided they were going to sleep in their armour - I knocked off fatigue points. It was a nice thing to have in the background to inject some reality whenever I felt it necessary. I didn't use it as a matter of routine. -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com on behalf of lance dyas Sent: Mon 28/06/2004 20:10 To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Cc: Subject: [RQ-Rules] What RQ fatigue rules if any do you use? Does anybody use the fatigue rules in RQIII or have any home grown RQian rules.. D&D integrates hitpoints and fatigue ( as well as defensive skill and heroic luck... sigh.) in HP Of course I dont like it exactly but it does have the advantage of keeping book-keeping ones state simple and all in one place -- 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Jun 29 09:25:06 2004 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 18:25:06 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Blue Moon In-Reply-To: <01e301c45d28$0551abd0$d5104d44@DCNL6S01> References: <01e301c45d28$0551abd0$d5104d44@DCNL6S01> Message-ID: <40E0A8D2.40906@sbcglobal.net> Though the "sailing" and "blue" part don't ring a bell, and I don't have the Elric books around, I know that there is at least one "moon" reference in the Elric novels (maybe "The Vanishing Tower"). I remember because the original Stormbringer rules mentioned it, and I had just been rereading the stories, and remember thinking "They're wrong about that". Guy (Hoyle) J and/or Ellen wrote: >Hmm...I could've sworn that Elric had looked up at one point while sailing >and noticed that the moon had turned blue. > >--J > >----- Original Message ----- >From: >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 9:12 AM >Subject: Re: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat > > > >...One of the things I loved about original Stormbringer is the fact there >are >no crossbows in the Young Kingdoms and the Moon is never mentioned... It's >often the diffrences as miuch as the similarities in a setting that work. >Albeit the radically different nature of religion in typical RQ should be a >big clue to switched on D&D players... > > > From steve at perrinworlds.com Tue Jun 29 12:13:12 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:13:12 -0700 Subject: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat References: Message-ID: <008301c45d7e$b172cdd0$68417442@wizard> Crossbows can be made without metal. And Gloranthan bronze is not exactly like real world bronze. And a lot of people play RuneQuest without Glorantha. And Bronze Age real world folk didn't have to contend with Great Trolls. That's the same rationale for there to be halberds and two-handed swords, by the way. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Conrad" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 7:07 AM Subject: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat > Does it bug anybody but me that RQ even *has* crossbows? Can you make > a crossbow with bronze? > > I've thought about leaving crossbows out of my game, or maybe just > letting the dwarves have them. > > On a more general note, are there any other loudly anachronistic > things that people have noticed creeping into Runequest by default? I > just happened to think about the crossbows, I bet there's a lot of > other stuff I missed. > > I like the idea of having little bits and pieces of the standard D&D > kit be conspicuously absent, to give my players a little bit of > culture shock. > > Matt > > > On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:49:25 +0100, nick.middleton at invensys.com > wrote: > > > > > > >As a side note. Has anyone used armor penetration > > >rules (from CoC) for crossbows? > > > > > >Leon > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jun 29 12:24:14 2004 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 19:24:14 -0700 Subject: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat References: Message-ID: <00e001c45d80$3d59f840$68417442@wizard> Sources from when we were writing RuneQuest specifically mentioned Bronze Age Rapiers used by various Celtic tribes. They were almost entirely thrusting weapons and I'm sure a Renaissance era bravo would have problems using one, but the arms and armor collectors didn't have any problem calling them rapiers. I suppose they were more like epees, all point and no edge, but with a larger cross-section. With bronze weapons in the real world, you could pretty much make edge weapons or point weapons, but a sword that could be both wasn't seen until the late Bronze Age, when the bronze smiths were getting really really good. But I doubt they made them as what we would recognize as rapiers. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 7:12 AM Subject: Re: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat > > >Does it bug anybody but me that RQ even *has* crossbows? Can you make > >a crossbow with bronze? > > And where does it say in RQII or III that the rules portray realworld > bronze age technology only? ;-) > > It is what the rules do well I grant you, but as any Gloranthan scholar can > tell you, Glorantha's Bronze ("Ga-metal"?) isn't the same as Earth Bronze, > and in RQIII it explicitly covers up to renaissance style technologies... > > I think you can make crossbows without steel, but how effective they would > be is another matter... > > >I've thought about leaving crossbows out of my game, or maybe just > >letting the dwarves have them. > > Both valid options, especially for Glorantha... > > >On a more general note, are there any other loudly anachronistic > >things that people have noticed creeping into Runequest by default? I > >just happened to think about the crossbows, I bet there's a lot of > >other stuff I missed. > > Rapiers. The metallurgy involved is quite sophisticated (especially given > what most of us assume they mean by rapier). And, if one does assume the > purely bronze age tech, plate armour looks suspicious (it's either very > light, or too effective). > > >I like the idea of having little bits and pieces of the standard D&D > >kit be conspicuously absent, to give my players a little bit of > >culture shock. > > One of the things I loved about original Stormbringer is the fact there are > no crossbows in the Young Kingdoms and the Moon is never mentioned... It's > often the diffrences as miuch as the similarities in a setting that work. > Albeit the radically different nature of religion in typical RQ should be a > big clue to switched on D&D players... > > 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 sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 29 14:51:41 2004 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 21:51:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Homegrown Fatigue In-Reply-To: <20040628195231.6C75B222798@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20040629045141.73441.qmail@web21107.mail.yahoo.com> We've taken the following approach, mainly to reduce PC fatalities & severed limbs (although the dwarf whose leg is being grown back & so uses a crossbow while strapped to the back of a werebear is pretty amusing, especially when the were changes and loses control...) 1. Fatigue calculated as rules 2. Players don't mark off fatigue every round, instead after 10 rounds of combat, I tell everyone and we all mark off 10 points -- this was simpler & the players really want to get combat done quickly. 3. Fatigue can be used to absorb damage, 2:1. So 2 points of Fatigue can absorb one point damage, with a limit that you can't expend more than your DEX of fatigue in a round. The idea being the character is using all his energy to avoid the blow. That system is working well -- everyone is still deathly afraid of Special Successes and Criticals, but can stand up in a battle for a little time. Steve __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Jun 29 17:40:17 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:40:17 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat Message-ID: >Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > >>>As a side note. Has anyone used armor penetration >>>rules (from CoC) for crossbows? >>> >>>Leon >> >> >> Not in straight RuneQuest but I adapted a similar idea from the >> Stormbringer campaign Rogue Mistress for my "Fantasy Mars" game (both >> Crossbows and black-powder weapons got an armour piercing rating) which was >> based on the Stormbringer/Elric rules (so no hit locations). With >> locational hit ponits I'd be _very_ careful about AP ratings personally... > >"Fantasy Mars" a la Burroughs' John Carter? That sounds very intriguing. > Indirectly, yes. The two direct inspirations are Space:1889 (and particularly Sky Galleons of Mars) and Michael Moorcocks Burrough's pastiche, the Warlord of Mars trilogy. The third, bizarrely enough, is the War Hound and the World's pain.... Yrth was originally 'written' up (half a page of scribbled notes actually) as an Eternal Champion plane for the bizarre "save the multiverse four campaigns at once" game I ran with three mates in the early nineties. I tried writing some fiction in the setting (as we barely scratched the surface in the game) and then decided to turn it back in to a game setting: not least because what I'd enjoyed in the original game was taking fantasy 1600 era characters to mars: I love the moment in War Hound were von Bek flees the castle with his rapier in his teeth, a pistol in each hand and another pair primed in his belt, controlling his horse with his knees - that was the feel I wanted for Yrth... . >Do you have any write ups of that? I'd be particularly interested in >seeing what you have on black-powder guns. Drafted a background, have a revised skill list, character sheet and weapons table, working on technology rules (aerial combat - not just aerial vessels, two of the PC races can fly). At present the fire-arms are a straight port from Rogue Mistress (smooth-bore early flintlocks - matchlocks are a pain and rifling gives fire-arms too clear an edge over projectiles) although I want to settle the background and magic system down a touch and look at them again. Cheers, Nick Middleton From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Jun 29 17:53:41 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:53:41 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Blue Moon Message-ID: >Though the "sailing" and "blue" part don't ring a bell, and I don't have >the Elric books around, I know that there is at least one "moon" >reference in the Elric novels (maybe "The Vanishing Tower"). I >remember because the original Stormbringer rules mentioned it, and I >had just been rereading the stories, and remember thinking "They're >wrong about that". > >Guy (Hoyle) > >J and/or Ellen wrote: > >>Hmm...I could've sworn that Elric had looked up at one point while sailing >>and noticed that the moon had turned blue. >> >>--J Yes, but that involves relying on Moorcock keeping his own universes straight which as author he quite rightly doesn't give a fig about. :-D Stormbringer 1st edition was published in 1981, at which time the Elric saga was still mostly the original short story collection Stealer of Souls and the novel Stormbringer - neither of which (I'm _fairly_ certain) mention crossbows or moon(s)... The Vanishing Tower (a short story added in the seventies, post Corum certainly) takes place largely off the Young Kingdoms plane of course, plus many of those seventies short stories re-invent the original setting willy-nilly as new ideas occurred to Moorcock (the revision of his originally brief confrontation with Theleb Kaarna into an epic engine that drove several books always amused me...) Since the later stories I found ever less interesting (The Dream Thief's Daughter bordered on self-parody), I was quite happy to stick with the Stormbringer 1st edition concept and I still use the original William Church map of the Young Kingdoms and treat large portions of the Chaosium Elric! material with suspicion, simply because it's based on the later, weaker (IMO) Elric stories. Cheers, Nick Middleton From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Jun 29 17:57:42 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:57:42 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Homegrown Fatigue Message-ID: >We've taken the following approach, mainly to reduce >PC fatalities & severed limbs (although the dwarf >whose leg is being grown back & so uses a crossbow >while strapped to the back of a werebear is pretty >amusing, especially when the were changes and loses >control...) > >1. Fatigue calculated as rules >2. Players don't mark off fatigue every round, >instead after 10 rounds of combat, I tell everyone and >we all mark off 10 points -- this was simpler & the >players really want to get combat done quickly. >3. Fatigue can be used to absorb damage, 2:1. So 2 >points of Fatigue can absorb one point damage, with a >limit that you can't expend more than your DEX of >fatigue in a round. The idea being the character is >using all his energy to avoid the blow. > >That system is working well -- everyone is still >deathly afraid of Special Successes and Criticals, but >can stand up in a battle for a little time. > >Steve Ooh, I like that! Thanks for sharing that idea Steve. Cheers, Nick Middleton From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 29 22:04:29 2004 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:04:29 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Blue Moon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40E15ACD.3050405@sbcglobal.net> >> >> >> >Stormbringer 1st edition was published in 1981, at which time the Elric >saga was still mostly the original short story collection Stealer of Souls >and the novel Stormbringer - neither of which (I'm _fairly_ certain) >mention crossbows or moon(s)... The Vanishing Tower (a short story added in >the seventies, post Corum certainly) takes place largely off the Young >Kingdoms plane of course, > Sorry, I was referring to the American edition of "The Vanishing Tower", not specifically to the short story of the same name. IIRC, the story which contains a brief reference to the nmoon is "The Sleeping Sorceress". I can't be more specific at the moment as I don't have the book any longer, but I believe that's the story. Can anybody here back me up? Guy (Hoyle) From Rebarbative1 at aol.com Tue Jun 29 22:29:58 2004 From: Rebarbative1 at aol.com (Rebarbative1 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:29:58 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Fatigue Message-ID: <1995BD95.5639005B.37C0F9AC@aol.com> The fatigue rules I used was to allow characters to have their CON number of attacks, then have them make a Con x 5 roll if they are not wearing any armour, Con x 4 if they're wearing leather armour and Con x 3 if they're wearing metal armour. If they fail the roll, all skills drop by 10%. They then get their CON number of attacks again.... Seems to work so far. From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 29 22:32:32 2004 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:32:32 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Blue Moon In-Reply-To: <40E15ACD.3050405@sbcglobal.net> References: <40E15ACD.3050405@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <40E16160.3070402@sbcglobal.net> OK, I got interested enough to look through my old paperbacks again, and found that I do still have my old Elric books. _The Vanishing Tower_ (DAW, 1977) is the edition that I have. Inside, there's a note: "A version of this novel, re-edited without reference to the author, was published under the title _The Sleeping Sorceress_ by Lancer Books in 1972. The text of this edition follows that of the English edition, published by New English Library in 1970." On Page 11, the very first paragraph of Chapter One ("Pale Prince on a Moonlit Shore"), the very first sentence reads: "In the sky, a cold moon, cloaked in clouds, sent down faint light that fell upon a sullen sea where a ship lay at anchor off an uninhabited coast." On the same page are mentioned Trepesaz and Lormyr, which are definitely in the Young Kingdoms. I regard this as a strong hint that this world does indeed possess a moon. Guy (Hoyle) From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Jun 29 22:25:09 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:25:09 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Blue Moon Message-ID: >> >Stormbringer 1st edition was published in 1981, at which time the Elric >saga was still mostly the original short story collection Stealer of Souls >and the novel Stormbringer - neither of which (I'm _fairly_ certain) >mention crossbows or moon(s)... The Vanishing Tower (a short story added in >the seventies, post Corum certainly) takes place largely off the Young >Kingdoms plane of course, > >Sorry, I was referring to the American edition of "The Vanishing Tower", >not specifically to the short story of the same name. IIRC, the story >which contains a brief reference to the nmoon is "The Sleeping >Sorceress". I can't be more specific at the moment as I don't have the >book any longer, but I believe that's the story. Can anybody here back >me up? > Not disputing your memory Guy, my point was that MM shifted the goal posts by adding details and paying scant attention to continuity as he wrote: which I think is laudable in fiction (if the tale is strong enough, who cares?) but is a pain from a game setting POV... Taken in it's current (up to the Skraeling Tree) entirety, the Elric Saga is sprawling mass of (internally contradictiory) work that really is not easily reducible to a game setting: but then I never try to follow much of the later material when I run Elric! anyway... Cheers, Nick Middleton From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Tue Jun 29 22:45:01 2004 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:45:01 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Blue Moon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40E1644D.5050303@sbcglobal.net> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >Not disputing your memory Guy, my point was that MM shifted the goal posts >by adding details and paying scant attention to continuity as he wrote: >which I think is laudable in fiction (if the tale is strong enough, who >cares?) but is a pain from a game setting POV > Since the original reference to a moon was published in 1970 (1977 in the US), it predates the 1st edition of the Stormbringer RPG by at least 4 and as much as 11 years. The assertion that the world of the Young Kingdoms had no moon was just incorrect, that's all. It doesn't really have anything to do with Moorcock changing the details in this case. Guy (Hoyle) From patrice.bousquet at gso.fr Wed Jun 30 01:17:52 2004 From: patrice.bousquet at gso.fr (BOUSQUET Patrice) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:17:52 +0200 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_[RQ-Rules]_Fatigue?= Message-ID: I'm actually testing this system: On a same track we record long and short term fatigue: ( I prefer to call them VIGOR and BREATH.) The long term fatigue is recorded with a pencil, a coin showing the short term fatigue. The VIGOR (or long term fatigue) starts with the same value as CON (minus eventual SIZE pts carried)(In fact I substract (ENC exceeding FOR)/6). The BREATH (or short term fatigue) starts at 0 and increase by 1 pts for each intensive action round where a roll is failed. Why?: I think the less skilled someone is, the more exhausted he becomes. (remenber when you do a new job;-) When the BREATH is equal to the VIGOR, it's the VIGOR which will decrease by 1 pt for each action round where a roll is failed. When the VIGOR is < or = to CON/2 then the maximum %'s skill is limited to VIGORxSTR for physicals skills and VIGORxINT for intellectuals and magic skills. Why?: Because a High skill needs concentration and no tiredness. For this I made a table for each player (in fact a new character sheet, but it can be separated) ranging from VIGOR 0 to 20 or 30. there's enougth room to write before game session the Skills limits, so there is no mathematics to do during play. I tried it from some games session for now but it's too soon to say if it works well or not! Of course, I accept any comments or sugestions... example: A guy with STR 12, CON 15 and INT 18 will have: VIG 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Phys lim. 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 Intel. lim. 0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 I can upload the table (emf file) somewhere if there's people interested. Patrice. From patrice.bousquet at gso.fr Wed Jun 30 01:22:30 2004 From: patrice.bousquet at gso.fr (BOUSQUET Patrice) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:22:30 +0200 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_[RQ-Rules]_Fatigue?= Message-ID: I'm actually testing this system: On a same track we record long and short term fatigue: ( I prefer to call them VIGOR and BREATH.) The long term fatigue is recorded with a pencil, a coin showing the short term fatigue. The VIGOR (or long term fatigue) starts with the same value as CON (minus eventual SIZE pts carried)(In fact I substract (ENC exceeding FOR)/6). The BREATH (or short term fatigue) starts at 0 and increase by 1 pts for each intensive action round where a roll is failed. Why?: I think the less skilled someone is, the more exhausted he becomes. (remenber when you do a new job;-) When the BREATH is equal to the VIGOR, it's the VIGOR which will decrease by 1 pt for each action round where a roll is failed. When the VIGOR is < or = to CON/2 then the maximum %'s skill is limited to VIGORxSTR for physicals skills and VIGORxINT for intellectuals and magic skills. Why?: Because a High skill needs concentration and no tiredness. For this I made a table for each player (in fact a new character sheet, but it can be separated) ranging from VIGOR 0 to 20 or 30. there's enougth room to write before game session the Skills limits, so there is no mathematics to do during play. I tried it from some games session for now but it's too soon to say if it works well or not! Of course, I accept any comments or sugestions... example: A guy with STR 12, CON 15 and INT 18 will have: VIG 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Phys. lim. 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 Intel. lim ... 0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 I can upload the table (emf file) somewhere if there's people interested. Patrice. From lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net Wed Jun 30 01:22:55 2004 From: lorgryt.detroll at verizon.net (Bo Whitten) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:22:55 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] What RQ fatigue rules if any do you use? In-Reply-To: <40E06D3A.6020805@inetnebr.com> References: <40E06D3A.6020805@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <6.1.1.1.0.20040629081526.020e6ec0@incoming.verizon.net> When it came to Fatigue I tried to use it... but it isn't very RQ. It is cumbersome and really seems to be one of those "Gear Head" rules. In a world like Glorantha it just doesn't seem appropriate. However, when I adapted RQ III to Morrow Project and converted the encumbrance system to a more effective system I also included the Fatigue rules. In a Post-Holocaust game of survival little things like Fatigue are VERY important in showing the main character: The World. Other than a game where the world is a leading character of the game (in an adversarial role) I don't think it adds anything to the game except book keeping. The basic rules from RQ II are fine. The important part of that is: ENC PENALTIES ? For each point of ENC over his maximum, a character receives the following penalties. -1 from movement class per 3 ENC -5% Dodge +1 to all strike ranks -5% from all skills, including weapons This is modified to account for RQIII stats of Dodge and Move of 3. Bo At 12:10 PM 6/28/2004, you wrote: >Does anybody use the fatigue rules in RQIII or have any home grown RQian rules.. >D&D integrates hitpoints and fatigue ( as well as defensive skill and heroic luck... sigh.) >in HP Of course I dont like it exactly but it does have the advantage of keeping >book-keeping ones state simple and all in one place > >-- >Lance Dyas From patrice.bousquet at gso.fr Wed Jun 30 01:25:25 2004 From: patrice.bousquet at gso.fr (BOUSQUET Patrice) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:25:25 +0200 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_R=E9f=2E_=3A_[RQ-Rules]_Fatigue?= Message-ID: shit! VIG 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Phys. lim. 0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 Intel. lim 0 18 36 54 72 90 108 126 the table start for each skill at 0!!! Patrice From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Wed Jun 30 01:33:51 2004 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:33:51 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Fatigue In-Reply-To: <20040629120231.B8E762227B9@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20040629120231.B8E762227B9@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <1088523231.299bcc4180574@webmail1.leeds.ac.uk> I use Sandy's variant; whenever you roll 96-00 mark off 10 fatigue points. Works quite well, balances out, means 96-00 is always bad, and means your characters are deathly afraid of taking those high ENC items 'cos two 96-00's in a row and you are screwed. I really like the idea of 2:1 loss of fp's for hp's. Sounds like a good basis for a game mecahnic; I wouldn't do it that way though, sounds a bit abusable. Maybe expending fp's for extra actions or action bonuses would be good... From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Jun 30 01:34:32 2004 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (=?iso-8859-1?q?ASHLEY=20MUNDAY?=) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:34:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] What RQ fatigue rules if any do you use? In-Reply-To: <40E06D3A.6020805@inetnebr.com> Message-ID: <20040629153432.90151.qmail@web86207.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I use the bog standard RQIII ones out of the box. They only annoy me slightly (and I occasionally just dish out 5 fatigue every minute instead for large combats). I've had enough long combats where lumps are being chopped off shields and the combatants are becoming exhausted to enjoy the stress they cause in the players. I did have a play around with the RQIV style rules, but they were a lot more work. Cheers, Ash From Michael.Christian at corbis.com Wed Jun 30 09:14:11 2004 From: Michael.Christian at corbis.com (Michael.Christian at corbis.com) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:14:11 -0700 Subject: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat Message-ID: <306F012D0A00D611BC9D0008C791927410941FA8@seamail1.continuum.corbis.corp> The Greeks had rapiers during the bronze age. I thought that they were a later development as well until just recently. http://www.kroraina.com/thracia/hb/thrac_arms.html -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com]On Behalf Of Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 7:13 AM To: RuneQuest rules discussion. Subject: Re: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat >Does it bug anybody but me that RQ even *has* crossbows? Can you make >a crossbow with bronze? And where does it say in RQII or III that the rules portray realworld bronze age technology only? ;-) It is what the rules do well I grant you, but as any Gloranthan scholar can tell you, Glorantha's Bronze ("Ga-metal"?) isn't the same as Earth Bronze, and in RQIII it explicitly covers up to renaissance style technologies... I think you can make crossbows without steel, but how effective they would be is another matter... >I've thought about leaving crossbows out of my game, or maybe just >letting the dwarves have them. Both valid options, especially for Glorantha... >On a more general note, are there any other loudly anachronistic >things that people have noticed creeping into Runequest by default? I >just happened to think about the crossbows, I bet there's a lot of >other stuff I missed. Rapiers. The metallurgy involved is quite sophisticated (especially given what most of us assume they mean by rapier). And, if one does assume the purely bronze age tech, plate armour looks suspicious (it's either very light, or too effective). >I like the idea of having little bits and pieces of the standard D&D >kit be conspicuously absent, to give my players a little bit of >culture shock. One of the things I loved about original Stormbringer is the fact there are no crossbows in the Young Kingdoms and the Moon is never mentioned... It's often the diffrences as miuch as the similarities in a setting that work. Albeit the radically different nature of religion in typical RQ should be a big clue to switched on D&D players... 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 Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Jun 30 18:50:49 2004 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:50:49 +0100 Subject: Crossbows: was Re: [RQ-Rules] Archery - Missile Combat Message-ID: >The Greeks had rapiers during the bronze age. I thought that they were a >later development as well until just recently. > >http://www.kroraina.com/thracia/hb/thrac_arms.html > Oh it's a thrusting sword undoubtedly, but I don't see that it falls inside any useful _gaming_ definition of 'rapier' as, given its cross section and material, it will behave differently to the rapier shown in the weapon silhouettes in the RQIII rules (which looks to be a 1500 - 1700 pattern blade and by inference steel)... The point was simply that the RQIII weapon list is eclectic (it's a fantasy roleplaying game and Glorantha, its original setting, is an invented world): MOST of what's on that list is anachronistic in that it is NOT a carefully chosen sub set of weapons available at a particular point in history (or a particular level of metallurgy or weapons technology). For most games it doesn't matter, and is easy enough to address if it does matter. But "rapier" in the modern sense cheek by jowl with "gladius" IS anachronistic in my book... Cheers, Nick Middleton