From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Apr 2 02:06:41 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:06:41 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ Fora Message-ID: I've run into a couple of odd RQ-related issues in the last couple of days. Tom Zunder's Tavern is down, apparently for a week; Tom, if you're reading this, I hope you're okay and are able to recover the corrupted data. The other odd thing is that someone created a RuneQuest group over at Google Groups Beta. At first I thought it was a usenet group, which seemed strange because there was so much talk for so many years about possibly creating one. But now I'm pretty sure that it's Google-only. I don't know who created it, and it's quite possibly redundant, but I'm always interested in RQ-related activities. I can't help but wonder who created that group! So...does anyone here want to 'fess up? :D Incidentally, there has only been one post in that group (by me, as it happens). The URL is http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Runequest/browse_thread/thread/afbb7bb4e6f516bd , but the sole post isn't really worth reading. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Apr 15 23:35:29 2005 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:35:29 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tavern BBS Restored! Message-ID: <425FD131.31203.9D6960E@localhost> Following a refurbishment by the marvellous Newt, the Tavern is open again. We have lost the posts, or mor accuratrely we have the posts but can't restore the BBS, so it's start again time! See you there: http://tavern.zunder.org.uk/ -- Tom Zunder http://tavern.zunder.org.uk ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Yahoo: tzunder From jurrubin at earthlink.net Thu Apr 21 09:29:35 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:29:35 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tavern BBS Restored! Message-ID: <3687865.1114039775106.JavaMail.root@rizzo.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Hmmm. I tried to register five times but the Submit button just keeps me on the Registration/Profile Info page and just seems to change the confirmation code at the bottom. And I've ensured all five times I've entered the confirmation code correctly (i.e. with proper case). David -----Original Message----- From: Tom Zunder Sent: Apr 15, 2005 8:35 AM To: "Mark C.MacKinnon" , Richard Crawley , simon Beaver , burntime at netspace.net.au, robin Bugden , Nick Middleton , Mark Kelly , strawdogs at yahoogroups.com, martinhodgkins at blueyonder.co.uk, mh014b4824_3 at blueyonder.co.uk, Peter Maranci , rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] Tavern BBS Restored! Following a refurbishment by the marvellous Newt, the Tavern is open again. We have lost the posts, or mor accuratrely we have the posts but can't restore the BBS, so it's start again time! See you there: http://tavern.zunder.org.uk/ -- Tom Zunder http://tavern.zunder.org.uk ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Yahoo: tzunder _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules David From murfnmurf at suscom.net Fri Apr 22 08:20:59 2005 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:20:59 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] BRP Creature In-Reply-To: <3687865.1114039775106.JavaMail.root@rizzo.psp.pas.earthlink.net> References: <3687865.1114039775106.JavaMail.root@rizzo.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Hi gang, I was reading some information someplace (on the web,maybe?) and I found mention of a "Bronze Gryph" purportedly being in *The Stormbringer Companion*. Now I am aware that this is a RQ list, but does anyone have the stats for these things? The name sounds mighty intriquing. Thanks in advance :) -Ken Murphy- From murfnmurf at suscom.net Fri Apr 22 08:30:10 2005 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:30:10 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Those pesky vampires In-Reply-To: <3687865.1114039775106.JavaMail.root@rizzo.psp.pas.earthlink.net> References: <3687865.1114039775106.JavaMail.root@rizzo.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: Hi gang, Still working on my version of the RQ Bestiary. Anyhow, I was working on vampires, and checking numerous BRPesque sources, I found mention of the use of holy water against them (In CoC, as it happens). While holy water seems to be more of a terran Xian weapons against these beasties, I figure vampires in *whatever* gameworld will likely have something very similar used against them by some sort of Anti-Undead Cult. So my question is just what sort of damage does aqnyone feel such blessed ant-vampire stuff would do, and in what volume? Thanks. -Ken Murphy- From pare_jf at comcast.net Fri Apr 22 09:54:13 2005 From: pare_jf at comcast.net (John F. Pare') Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:54:13 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Low Magic Setting Rules References: <3687865.1114039775106.JavaMail.root@rizzo.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <000b01c546cd$6bba2b10$63fc2144@mydw0bgj229nxr> Hi, I am seriously contemplating a gaming session on Hyboria. After getting Mongooses Conan d20, I have everything I need. However, I want to make this a low magic setting... Since Runequest itself is high magic, does anyone have any ideas how to make being a sorcerer harder? I would really appreciate it.. When finished I will post my conversions for this campaign to the web for free access.. Thanks in advance John From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri Apr 22 09:58:32 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:58:32 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] BRP Creature Message-ID: <29750798.1114127912065.JavaMail.root@huey.psp.pas.earthlink.net> -----Original Message----- From: murfnmurf at suscom.net Sent: Apr 21, 2005 5:20 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [RQ-Rules] BRP Creature Hi gang, I was reading some information someplace (on the web,maybe?) and I found mention of a "Bronze Gryph" purportedly being in *The Stormbringer Companion*. Now I am aware that this is a RQ list, but does anyone have the stats for these things? The name sounds mighty intriquing. Thanks in advance :) -Ken Murphy- _______________________________________________ I don't know if I'd call them intriguing but they are rather good at getting rid of pesky Humaakt rune lords. *evil grin* BRONZE GRYPHS Attributes Average Skills STR 8D8+8 44 See 70% +1D10 CON 5D8+5 28 Track 8D8% SIZ 16D8 72 Fly 99% INT 2D8 9 POW 3D8+4 18 DEX 3d8 14 Weapon Attack Parry Damage Claw 50% + 3D8 25% + 3D8 5D8 Beak 8D8% 8D8% 4D8+4 Wing Buffet 32% --- 3D8 Tail Lash 4D8+4% --- 3D8+3 Bronze gryphs are large winged reptiles that haunt the high mountains of the most remote wastelands of the Young Kingdoms. They are ancient beasts from the times before the coming of Man, and they have very long life- times. Gryphs stand around 15-18 feet high athte shoulder. They look something like a scaled, six-legged lion with huge batwings attached along the length of the spine. They have six lower limbs, each tipped with six sharp and steel- tough claws. The set of legs closest to the heavy flat serrated tail is thicker than the others and mounted on the wide pelvis in such a way that the gryph could walk erect upon them. The gryph's head is relatively small, being not much bigger than a normal man's body, and is set at the end of a long sinuous neck. The mouth is within a narrow, down-hooked beak, made of the same steel-hard material as the claws, and holding an upper and lower set of molars. Gryphs range in color from dark greenish-bronze to brilliant gold. They are intense predators, and will attack any creature smaller than themselves. They especially like men in armor, whom they devour whole. Mere flesh and blood cannot fully satisfy their appetite - they need to ingest metals in order to keep up their fantastic strength. Gryphs were created originally from the primal stuff of Chaos itself, and their attack is harmful to all creatures of Chaos, even demons and gods. They are untameable, and almost uncapturable. They have ravenous appetites which must often be satisfied in the wild by eating herds of deer and metal-bearing stones. If a gryph eats a great deal of food at once (such as 1/4 their own weight in a single sitting), it will be satiated and sleep for several weeks (up to 8). It is said the Patriarch of Pan Tang has a captive gryph kept in a remote part of the island. It is supposedly kept full-fed most of the time. David From erewan at terra.es Fri Apr 22 10:34:23 2005 From: erewan at terra.es (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s_Piquer_Otero?=) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:34:23 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Those pesky vampires In-Reply-To: References: <3687865.1114039775106.JavaMail.root@rizzo.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <4268468F.4050108@terra.es> Hi! The most generic system would be to treat "holy" substances or objects against vampires and some other undead as acid. You assign a POT to the thing according to its degree of power (you can then have a whole scale of products, from blessed water to the powdered bones of a saint or ichor from an angel's wound, to follow up with the Western Christian samples). If you treat it like acid, you can follow the standard RQ rules for acid splashes, direct hits, immersion, etc. That would work for fluids or powders. For objects (like a saint's skull, a relicary with a splinter of the Rood, etc) as default I would treat a direct blow to the vampire as fire damage (like hitting with a torch). Some items could have a specific spell on them, like a cross with a "Disruption vs. Undead" matrix or a "mirror of glimpses of the lost soul", which befuddles a vampire looking into it. Andres > So my question is just what sort of damage does aqnyone feel such > blessed ant-vampire stuff would do, and in what volume? From jurrubin at earthlink.net Fri Apr 22 11:39:05 2005 From: jurrubin at earthlink.net (David Smart) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 20:39:05 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Those pesky vampires Message-ID: <19517415.1114133945484.JavaMail.root@huey.psp.pas.earthlink.net> This is a great idea! David -----Original Message----- From: Andr???s Piquer Otero Sent: Apr 21, 2005 7:34 PM To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Those pesky vampires Hi! The most generic system would be to treat "holy" substances or objects against vampires and some other undead as acid. You assign a POT to the thing according to its degree of power (you can then have a whole scale of products, from blessed water to the powdered bones of a saint or ichor from an angel's wound, to follow up with the Western Christian samples). If you treat it like acid, you can follow the standard RQ rules for acid splashes, direct hits, immersion, etc. That would work for fluids or powders. For objects (like a saint's skull, a relicary with a splinter of the Rood, etc) as default I would treat a direct blow to the vampire as fire damage (like hitting with a torch). Some items could have a specific spell on them, like a cross with a "Disruption vs. Undead" matrix or a "mirror of glimpses of the lost soul", which befuddles a vampire looking into it. Andres > So my question is just what sort of damage does aqnyone feel such > blessed ant-vampire stuff would do, and in what volume? _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules David From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Apr 22 18:16:31 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:16:31 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Low Magic Setting Rules Message-ID: John, Is Runequest necessarily high magic though? As described in the rules it assumes a world where low level magic is ubiquitous (Spirit Magic) and Priests have real significant magic power, but Sorcery in most non-civilised cultures will be pretty rare anyway... It might be possible to achieve what you want simply be shifting the chances of finding or meeting a Sorcerer from that suggested by the default tables. If you still feel rules changes are needed to limit sorcery one could limit the total manipulation levels applied to a spell to Skill/10 (so a Palsy 76 could have Range, Duration and Intensity levels boosted to a total of 8), with similar limits on ceremony etc. Other schemes might also suggest themselves that govern back the power of actual spells. Of course, is it the power of Sorcerer's, or the frequency o f Sorcerer's that's the problem? If becoming a Sorcerer - the easy fix is that one _cannot_ just learn Sorcery - one _must_ be initiated by an existing Sorcerer and the Apprentice Bond leaves a permanent mark (both physical and arcane) that people shun. One could develop this further: continued use of Sorcery taints the Sorcerer: keep a running total of MP's of Sorcery cast and for every 10MP, impose a -1 penalty on all 'positive' Communications (so friendly Bargaining, Handle Animal/Ride checks etc) and a +1 on all 'negative' Communications (so trying intimidatory Bargaining, scaring animals off with Handle Animal). And every 100MP cast gives the character a physical disfigurement e.g. Club foot, humpback etc (excessive Taint should actually be life threatening and Taint should NOT grant Chaos feature type powers - it should always be a negative price paid for working Sorcery) although this means you might need some Ceremony for purging taint (for "good" Sorcerers) - say reduce taint by 10 per hour spent in the Ritual of Cleansing. Sentient sacrifices might be a way of "soaking" Taint away from the Sorcerer... Any of that any use? I was thinking as I typed and it's years since I read any Conan, but IIRC that might roughly fit the sorts of Sorcerer's appropriate to Hyboria. Cheers, Nick Middleton "John F. Pare'" et> cc: Sent by: Subject: [RQ-Rules] Low Magic Setting Rules rq-rules-bounces at c rashbox.com 22/04/2005 00:54 Please respond to "RuneQuest rules discussion." Hi, I am seriously contemplating a gaming session on Hyboria. After getting Mongooses Conan d20, I have everything I need. However, I want to make this a low magic setting... Since Runequest itself is high magic, does anyone have any ideas how to make being a sorcerer harder? I would really appreciate it.. When finished I will post my conversions for this campaign to the web for free access.. Thanks in advance John _______________________________________________ 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 zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com Fri Apr 22 23:41:27 2005 From: zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com (zeitgeistgeist at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Low Magic Setting Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050422134128.16278.qmail@web53003.mail.yahoo.com> Yup, or, for every 100mp give them some extreme mental disorder... (crazy sorcerers) --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > John, > > Is Runequest necessarily high magic though? As > described in the rules it > assumes a world where low level magic is ubiquitous > (Spirit Magic) and > Priests have real significant magic power, but > Sorcery in most > non-civilised cultures will be pretty rare anyway... > It might be possible > to achieve what you want simply be shifting the > chances of finding or > meeting a Sorcerer from that suggested by the > default tables. > > If you still feel rules changes are needed to limit > sorcery one could limit > the total manipulation levels applied to a spell to > Skill/10 (so a Palsy 76 > could have Range, Duration and Intensity levels > boosted to a total of 8), > with similar limits on ceremony etc. Other schemes > might also suggest > themselves that govern back the power of actual > spells. > > Of course, is it the power of Sorcerer's, or the > frequency o f Sorcerer's > that's the problem? If becoming a Sorcerer - the > easy fix is that one > _cannot_ just learn Sorcery - one _must_ be > initiated by an existing > Sorcerer and the Apprentice Bond leaves a permanent > mark (both physical and > arcane) that people shun. One could develop this > further: continued use of > Sorcery taints the Sorcerer: keep a running total of > MP's of Sorcery cast > and for every 10MP, impose a -1 penalty on all > 'positive' Communications > (so friendly Bargaining, Handle Animal/Ride checks > etc) and a +1 on all > 'negative' Communications (so trying intimidatory > Bargaining, scaring > animals off with Handle Animal). And every 100MP > cast gives the character a > physical disfigurement e.g. Club foot, humpback etc > (excessive Taint should > actually be life threatening and Taint should NOT > grant Chaos feature type > powers - it should always be a negative price paid > for working Sorcery) > although this means you might need some Ceremony for > purging taint (for > "good" Sorcerers) - say reduce taint by 10 per hour > spent in the Ritual of > Cleansing. Sentient sacrifices might be a way of > "soaking" Taint away from > the Sorcerer... > > Any of that any use? I was thinking as I typed and > it's years since I read > any Conan, but IIRC that might roughly fit the sorts > of Sorcerer's > appropriate to Hyboria. > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > > > > > > "John F. Pare'" > > > "RuneQuest rules discussion." > > et> cc: > > > Sent by: > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Low Magic Setting Rules > > rq-rules-bounces at c > > > rashbox.com > > > > > > > > > 22/04/2005 00:54 > > > Please respond to > > > "RuneQuest rules > > > discussion." > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, I am seriously contemplating a gaming session on > Hyboria. After > getting > Mongooses Conan d20, I have everything I need. > However, I want to make > this > a low magic setting... Since Runequest itself is > high magic, does anyone > have any ideas how to make being a sorcerer harder? > I would really appreciate it.. When finished I will > post my conversions > for > this campaign to the web for free access.. > Thanks in advance > John > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From murfnmurf at suscom.net Sat Apr 23 01:41:13 2005 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:41:13 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] BRP Creature In-Reply-To: <29750798.1114127912065.JavaMail.root@huey.psp.pas.earthlink.net> References: <29750798.1114127912065.JavaMail.root@huey.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Message-ID: I don't know if I'd call them intriguing but they are rather good at getting rid of pesky Humaakt rune lords. *evil grin* BRONZE GRYPHS [snip and save of interesting stuff] Wow! Seeing the Elric/Stormbringer take on the Griffin was really cool. Always nice to see alternate write ups of the same creature. Thanks, David. -Ken Murphy- From murfnmurf at suscom.net Sat Apr 23 01:55:32 2005 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:55:32 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Those pesky vampires In-Reply-To: <4268468F.4050108@terra.es> References: <3687865.1114039775106.JavaMail.root@rizzo.psp.pas.earthlink.net> <4268468F.4050108@terra.es> Message-ID: Andres offers some excellent (and saved) ideas on dealing with that most-pesky of revenants, the Vampire. I'd been using the info from someplace (RQ3 maybe, or CoC?)where a holy symbol did 1D3 to a missile location, and if actually struck against the vampire, did the D3 to the location hit. I'd thought reliqueries(?) would be more potent, doing a much- improved 1D3+3 It had never would've occured to me to have the Holy Things act, mechanics-wise, like acid (especially the mentioned splashing of the holy water), but on having it pointed out to me, seems like a pretty *obvious* thing to do. Excellent and Thanks! -Ken Murphy- From erewan at terra.es Sat Apr 23 03:37:00 2005 From: erewan at terra.es (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s_Piquer_Otero?=) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 10:37:00 -0700 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Those pesky vampires In-Reply-To: References: <3687865.1114039775106.JavaMail.root@rizzo.psp.pas.earthlink.net> <4268468F.4050108@terra.es> Message-ID: <4269363C.3090004@terra.es> Hi! thanks for the nice comments... well, IIRC, the "splashes" idea was in the very first edition of AD&D, Gygax penned a really complicated table of grenade-like weapons, scatter templates and damages from splashes and direct hits... in those times the wargaming element in RPGs was quite visible still. Even though the approach to rules in AD&D is quite different from RQ, the old Dungeon Master's Guide is quite a resource for mechanics and inspiration for odd things, from splashes of oil and acid to management of a feudal castle. like acid (especially the mentioned splashing of the > holy water), but on having it pointed out to me, seems like a pretty > *obvious* thing to do. > Excellent and Thanks! > -Ken Murphy- From katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com Sat Apr 23 05:24:22 2005 From: katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com (John Raner) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:24:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Low Magic Setting Rules In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050422192422.85553.qmail@web53707.mail.yahoo.com> --- "John F. Pare'" wrote: > Hi, I am seriously contemplating a gaming session on > Hyboria. After getting > Mongooses Conan d20, I have everything I need. > However, I want to make this > a low magic setting... Since Runequest itself is > high magic, does anyone > have any ideas how to make being a sorcerer harder? > I would really appreciate it.. When finished I will > post my conversions for > this campaign to the web for free access.. I would be very interested in seeing your conversions when you have them finished. Did you know there is an English translation of a French conversion already on the web? It uses the BaSIC rulesystem (a French version of BRPs). Go Here: http://www.concentric.net/~slposey/Gamelinks.htm I hope that is of some help to you. Cheers, John "Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right." --- Ani DiFranco "There is no such thing as an obsolete weapon or tool, merely obsolete thinking in its employ." ---- Mark D. (CapnCarp at yahoo.com) 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 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ From grogthing at yahoo.com Sat Apr 23 05:59:25 2005 From: grogthing at yahoo.com (grogthing) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 12:59:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Low Magic Setting Rules In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050422195925.25354.qmail@web41506.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, I am running a Conan game tonight, by the way. I just wanted to point out that Conan is not a low magic setting. Every Conan story has powerful magic, sorcerers and some supernatural threat. It is very high magic, it is just dark and twisted magic. It would difficult for a good PC to play a sorceror type character because the magic in Conan has a price, it cost massive amounts of time and resources that prohibit a sorceror character from adventuring with his friends, and it becomes a corrupting obsession that becomes more important than the people around you, causing you to become inhuman. Sorcerors are feared and hated. And a PC who gets into sorcery will have to pay the social costs as well as the cost of becoming a recluse devoted to studying your obsession. Gregory --- John Raner wrote: > --- "John F. Pare'" wrote: > > Hi, I am seriously contemplating a gaming session > on > > Hyboria. After getting > > Mongooses Conan d20, I have everything I need. > > However, I want to make this > > a low magic setting... Since Runequest itself is > > high magic, does anyone > > have any ideas how to make being a sorcerer > harder? > > I would really appreciate it.. When finished I > will > > post my conversions for > > this campaign to the web for free access.. > > I would be very interested in seeing your > conversions > when you have them finished. > > Did you know there is an English translation of a > French conversion already on the web? It uses the > BaSIC rulesystem (a French version of BRPs). > > Go Here: > http://www.concentric.net/~slposey/Gamelinks.htm > > I hope that is of some help to you. > > Cheers, > John > > "Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right." > --- Ani DiFranco > > "There is no such thing as an obsolete weapon or > tool, merely obsolete thinking in its employ." > ---- Mark D. (CapnCarp at yahoo.com) > > 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 > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > "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!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Sun Apr 24 07:54:43 2005 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 16:54:43 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Low Magic Setting Rules In-Reply-To: <20050422195925.25354.qmail@web41506.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050422195925.25354.qmail@web41506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <426AC423.8010601@sbcglobal.net> grogthing wrote: >Every Conan story has powerful magic, sorcerers and >some supernatural threat. It is very high magic, it is >just dark and twisted magic. > >It would difficult for a good PC to play a sorceror >type character because the magic in Conan has a price, >it cost massive amounts of time and resources that >prohibit a sorceror character from adventuring with >his friends, and it becomes a corrupting obsession >that becomes more important than the people around >you, causing you to become inhuman. > >Sorcerors are feared and hated. And a PC who gets into >sorcery will have to pay the social costs as well as >the cost of becoming a recluse devoted to studying >your obsession. > > > That's true about what might be called "sorcery", but there is also helpful or "white" magic (if I might indulge in archaic labels here). Such magic is generally only used to heal or protect, and the practitioner of such magic must usually only use it for benign purposes, rather like Chalana Arroy but not strictly devoted to healing. It's usually weaker than sorcery, as well. Guy (Hoyle) From pare_jf at comcast.net Sun Apr 24 07:59:22 2005 From: pare_jf at comcast.net (John F. Pare') Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 17:59:22 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Low Magic Setting Rules References: <20050422195925.25354.qmail@web41506.mail.yahoo.com> <426AC423.8010601@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <000d01c5484f$b7d2d0f0$63fc2144@mypmpajf0ycz03> Thanks to all of you that responded. I think the magic system is going to remain unchanged. As someone pointed out, different areas will have access ot sorcery. The actual system, once I looked at it, does not need to be reworked. I will add a few POWERFUL spells, though. As sorcery in itself was dreadful and deadly. I will keep you posted on the conversions I am doing, mostly race (benefits) new occupations, lotus, etc... and of course demons.. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Hoyle" To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 5:54 PM Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] Low Magic Setting Rules > grogthing wrote: > >>Every Conan story has powerful magic, sorcerers and >>some supernatural threat. It is very high magic, it is >>just dark and twisted magic. >> >>It would difficult for a good PC to play a sorceror >>type character because the magic in Conan has a price, >>it cost massive amounts of time and resources that >>prohibit a sorceror character from adventuring with >>his friends, and it becomes a corrupting obsession >>that becomes more important than the people around >>you, causing you to become inhuman. >> >>Sorcerors are feared and hated. And a PC who gets into >>sorcery will have to pay the social costs as well as >>the cost of becoming a recluse devoted to studying >>your obsession. >> >> > That's true about what might be called "sorcery", but there is also > helpful or "white" magic (if I might indulge in archaic labels here). > Such magic is generally only used to heal or protect, and the practitioner > of such magic must usually only use it for benign purposes, rather like > Chalana Arroy but not strictly devoted to healing. It's usually weaker > than sorcery, as well. > > Guy (Hoyle) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 10:31:43 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 20:31:43 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy Message-ID: Has anyone else received an email from Issaries? They have some new mandatory legalese. They got me because they hold the trademark to "RuneQuest", of course. That's particularly annoying to me because THEY DON'T PUBLISH RUNEQUEST, and their material isn't even *compatible* with RuneQuest. I've got to admit that that really pisses me off. And I HATE that the legal language is so confusing; I'm not 100% sure that I'm allowed to have the word "RuneQuest" in my site title, since it's an Issaries trademark. Not to mention the rune art stuff. Totally confused. Man, I wish Greg had done the decent thing and given the RuneQuest trademark to Chaosium. I am more inclined than ever to never use Glorantha as a setting again. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Apr 25 17:05:46 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:05:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050425070546.52931.qmail@web21122.mail.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Has anyone else received an email from Issaries? > They have some new > mandatory legalese. They got me because they hold > the trademark to > "RuneQuest", of course. That's particularly annoying > to me because THEY > DON'T PUBLISH RUNEQUEST, and their material isn't > even *compatible* with > RuneQuest. > Organisations get fussy about trademarks under two circumstances. Either they're so big that they don't care or want for "fannish" advertising, or they're dying in the arse so badly that they're trying to control what meagre potential resources they have. > I've got to admit that that really pisses me off. > And I HATE that the legal > language is so confusing; I'm not 100% sure that I'm > allowed to have the > word "RuneQuest" in my site title, since it's an > Issaries trademark. Not to > mention the rune art stuff. Totally confused. I would have though that your link to Issaries (http://www.glorantha.com/inc/required_statements.html) would be sufficient. > Man, I wish Greg had done the decent thing and given > the RuneQuest trademark > to Chaosium. I am more inclined than ever to never > use Glorantha as a > setting again. Glorantha's brilliance wasn't the setting per se, but the example it served on how to portray a mythic setting. In terms of its contribution to rpg literary elements, it was a text-book work of genius. Best regards, Lev __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon Apr 25 17:48:03 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:48:03 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy Message-ID: Peter This is pretty diabolical. Running a RQ site myself, I am now a spot concerned. I have not as yet received a letter though. It would be interesting to see what they have to say, are you planning to post the letter on this forum? Tony -----Original Message----- f Peter Maranci Has anyone else received an email from Issaries? They have some new mandatory legalese. They got me because they hold the trademark to "RuneQuest", of course. That's particularly annoying to me because THEY DON'T PUBLISH RUNEQUEST, and their material isn't even *compatible* with RuneQuest. I've got to admit that that really pisses me off. And I HATE that the legal language is so confusing; I'm not 100% sure that I'm allowed to have the word "RuneQuest" in my site title, since it's an Issaries trademark. Not to mention the rune art stuff. Totally confused. Man, I wish Greg had done the decent thing and given the RuneQuest trademark to Chaosium. I am more inclined than ever to never use Glorantha as a setting again. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website http://www.standardbank.co.za ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Mon Apr 25 20:00:30 2005 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 12:00:30 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <426CBFBE.8030205@brinkdata.se> Den, Tony T skrev: > Peter > > This is pretty diabolical. Running a RQ site myself, I am now a spot > concerned. People, do remember that Issaries only owns the trademark RuneQuest (and Glorantha) in the US... and even if they had a international trademark their ability to restrict non-commercial uses of their mark would be limited by national laws. For example, in the EU many countries limit the scope of the protection a trademark may have to a business context only. When a private person displays a trademark on a t-shirt, webpage, car, etc, they are not using the mark in a business context so the rules of the trademark law does not apply. I.e. a mark can only operate as a mark when it's used for commercial purposes. In the EU you are also explicitly allowed to use someone elses trademark (in a business context) to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service as long as you do so in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. > I have not as yet received a letter though. It would be > interesting to see what they have to say, are you planning to post the > letter on this forum? > Out of curiosity I would too... From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 21:26:19 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 07:26:19 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy Message-ID: Argh! Greg wrote me a nice email (obviously he didn't read my comments here or on my site), so now I'll have to be nice. Jeeze, I wish Chaosium had the trademark for RuneQuest. I really don't see what Issaries gets out of it. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Apr 25 21:33:39 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:33:39 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Those pesky vampires In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Look to the wolrld of darkness -vampires, I like them. They're very vurnerable towards sunlight. In addition some of them can be allergic to all the clishe-stuff like crusefixies, garlic, etc, which is the reason why someone might try to use them. (I like that the anti-vampire-dudes have to bring a wide array of stuff and HOPE that some of it might work. For sun-magic-wielders, it'd be a peace of kake, though, much worse for UZ >From: >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: [RQ-Rules] Those pesky vampires >Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:30:10 -0400 > > Hi gang, > Still working on my version of the RQ Bestiary. > Anyhow, I was working on vampires, and checking numerous BRPesque >sources, I found mention of the use of holy water against them (In CoC, as >it happens). > While holy water seems to be more of a terran Xian weapons against >these beasties, I figure vampires in *whatever* gameworld will likely have >something very similar used against them by some sort of Anti-Undead Cult. > So my question is just what sort of damage does aqnyone feel such >blessed ant-vampire stuff would do, and in what volume? > Thanks. > -Ken Murphy- >_______________________________________________ >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 stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Mon Apr 25 21:36:04 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:36:04 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Low Magic Setting Rules In-Reply-To: <000b01c546cd$6bba2b10$63fc2144@mydw0bgj229nxr> Message-ID: Well, if you look to the RQ3-rules, I find it pretty hard to be a good sourerer, priest or shaman; you need to have several skills near 80%; it's just to be tight on your experience-checks, and voala; a low magic setting! >From: "John F. Pare'" >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >Subject: [RQ-Rules] Low Magic Setting Rules >Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 19:54:13 -0400 > >Hi, I am seriously contemplating a gaming session on Hyboria. After >getting Mongooses Conan d20, I have everything I need. However, I want to >make this a low magic setting... Since Runequest itself is high magic, >does anyone have any ideas how to make being a sorcerer harder? >I would really appreciate it.. When finished I will post my conversions >for this campaign to the web for free access.. >Thanks in advance >John > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Messenger http://www.msn.no/computing/messenger - Den korteste veien mellom deg og dine venner From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Mon Apr 25 22:00:10 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:00:10 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy Message-ID: >Argh! Greg wrote me a nice email (obviously he didn't read my comments here >or on my site), so now I'll have to be nice. To be fair to Issaries, the Fan Policy is actually a remarkably fair and reasonable set of agreements: given the desperately tricky balancing act between commercial ownership, fan aspirations and the collaborative ideal, they've don equite well. And it's far more generous than any other commercial setting I'm aware of (try charging for an Unspoken Word type Forgotten Realms product...) >Jeeze, I wish Chaosium had the trademark for RuneQuest. I really don't see >what Issaries gets out of it. Here, I'm afraid my cynicism kicks in. Despite what crusty old grognards on this list might think, Runequest (a long out of print game) has little perceived connection with Glorantha any more (that's the world of HeroQuest to the current market): ergo, Issaries adventitious acquisition of the RuneQuest trademark smacks of "squatting" at worst and an arrogant misunderstanding of the market at best. "Runequest" to those who don't recognise the name will mean nothing, it's "market recognition value" is with those who WILL recognise it, but for them it will mean "Cults-of-Prax-Balastors-Barracks-Ducks-Broos-Hilarious-Fumbles-Gimpy's-Tavern" etc etc: and a significant portion of said people will actually be annoyed when it turns out that name has been applied to a HeroQuest product... Unless Issaries intend to license BRP off of Chaosium (Ha!) for a Gloranthan game, they can only be intending to bury the RuneQuest Trademark for good, or misappropriate it for a HeroQuest product. Both of which actions would be whitewashing the history and heritage of a great game that is at least as important as the world of Glorantha in the history of RPG's. I shall await developments with interest, and more than a little trepidation... But it would probably clarify things a bit Pete if you could make public what Issaries wrote to you? Cheers, Nick Middleton From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Mon Apr 25 22:59:50 2005 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:59:50 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <426CE9C6.4020408@brinkdata.se> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com skrev: [snip] > > Here, I'm afraid my cynicism kicks in. Despite what crusty old grognards on > this list might think, Runequest (a long out of print game) has little > perceived connection with Glorantha any more (that's the world of HeroQuest > to the current market): ergo, Issaries adventitious acquisition of the > RuneQuest trademark smacks of "squatting" at worst and an arrogant > misunderstanding of the market at best. "Runequest" to those who don't > recognise the name will mean nothing, it's "market recognition value" is > with those who WILL recognise it, but for them it will mean > "Cults-of-Prax-Balastors-Barracks-Ducks-Broos-Hilarious-Fumbles-Gimpy's-Tavern" > etc etc: and a significant portion of said people will actually be annoyed > when it turns out that name has been applied to a HeroQuest product... If you do a search on United States Patent and Trademark Office (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=vs6fd.1.1) for "RUNEQUEST" and "GLORANTHA" you will find that Runequest is owned by Issaries since November 16, 2004. Chaosium tried to lay hands on the trademark GLORANTHA but has recently abandoned that project. Just why Chaosium tried to register GLORANTHA we will probably never know, if I would guess it was to have something to bargain with (to get the Runequest mark). /Peter Brink From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 00:32:56 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:32:56 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries new web policy Message-ID: I'll admit that I'm a little concerned about posting the email due to privacy issues. On the other hand, it's not a *personal* email (unlike the follow-up). I assumed that all RQ site owners had received one. What do you think - is it appropriate to post? -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From aescleal at btinternet.com Tue Apr 26 00:45:35 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:45:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries new web policy In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050425144535.51635.qmail@web86103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I don't think the email off Greg to all site holders really adds anything to Issaries fan publication policies already stated on their web-site. It's just a prod to those that might have missed the fan publication policy in the last month. Having said that, if someone sends you an unsolicited email they can't really complain about you posting it on a public forum. Cheers, Ash --- Peter Maranci wrote: > I'll admit that I'm a little concerned about posting > the email due to > privacy issues. On the other hand, it's not a > *personal* email (unlike the > follow-up). I assumed that all RQ site owners had > received one. What do you > think - is it appropriate to post? > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! > http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Tue Apr 26 00:51:23 2005 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:51:23 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries new web policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <426D03EB.8090300@brinkdata.se> Peter Maranci skrev: > I'll admit that I'm a little concerned about posting the email due to > privacy issues. On the other hand, it's not a *personal* email (unlike the > follow-up). I assumed that all RQ site owners had received one. What do you > think - is it appropriate to post? > If it's not an personal email Issaries would IMHO have to accept that it's made public for further discussions, comments and/or criticism. From aescleal at btinternet.com Tue Apr 26 01:27:47 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 16:27:47 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050425152747.13623.qmail@web86108.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Nick Middleton he say: "To be fair to Issaries, the Fan Policy is actually a remarkably fair and reasonable set of agreements: given the desperately tricky balancing act between commercial ownership, fan aspirations and the collaborative ideal, they've done quite well. And it's far more generous than any other commercial setting I'm aware of (try charging for an Unspoken Word type Forgotten Realms product...)" There are two main differences between the Issaries policy and WoTC: 1. WoTC weren't started up by fan subscription; 2. WoTC hasn't had any of it's game worlds supported exclusively by fan publications with no license for a period of nearly 6 years and then attempted to stick it back in print again, or assert exclusive rights above copyright after nearly 10. In the case of Glorantha (and by implication RQ and HQ) Issaries are now basically saying: "Thanks lads for the support, now let the true professionals do their stuff." The interesting point here is that tommorrow I could release a supplement with HeroQuest plastered all over it and sell it legally in the UK. If I had to get permission it would be from Hasbro UK rather than Issaries! It's even funnier with Runequest and Glorantha. I could slap the names on anything I produced AND flog 'em (if anyone would buy it) without asking Issaries for permission. About all I'd have to do is stick "Not for sale in the US" on it. Issaries license also seems to bang into the UK trademark and patent law as well, but I don't want to comment on something I don't understand that well. What they've done essentially is risk alienating a lot of people for no reason. They've managed to knock several (quite good) websites off the internet because despite all the friendly bollocks of "The license is your friend" very few people understand it enough to want to keep going, or they understand it enough to know that it's a lot more work than they're prepared to do. While I hate ascribing motives for things, there look to be several reasons for this license rolling up: - A picture of some bint getting shafted on the front of Tradetalk's "adult's only issue"; - Chaosium trying to trademark Glorantha; - "Sons of Kargzant" being a lot better than most of the official Issaries stuff. A combo of these three things got the Staffordenfuhrer a bit windy and, being a control freak (if you don't think he is, trying being a player in a game he runs. Player choice? Fuck that, this is his story and you better sit still and listen), he's trying to rein it all in. He let the genie out of the bottle in the mid 90s. While he may be able to stuff it back in again, he's going to pack a few more fans away with it. Cheers, Ash From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Apr 26 01:55:53 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 08:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries new web policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I for one (who only have a modest site) never received the email. Also, as maintainer of the list, I would like to see this to make sure no abuses are on this list. That being said, I think it is relevant to all poster to make sure that they don't post inappropriate material. Please post this email. -Andrew On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Peter Maranci wrote: > Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:32:56 -0400 > From: Peter Maranci > To: RuneQuest-Rules > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries new web policy > > I'll admit that I'm a little concerned about posting the email due to > privacy issues. On the other hand, it's not a *personal* email (unlike the > follow-up). I assumed that all RQ site owners had received one. What do you > think - is it appropriate to post? > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 01:57:56 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:57:56 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy Message-ID: How about this: if you want to see it, email me (at my Gmail address, please) and I'll send it to you. And by the way, I still have 50 Gmail invites to give away. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Tue Apr 26 02:05:21 2005 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:05:21 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries new web policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <426D1541.9030807@brinkdata.se> Andrew Mellinger skrev: > I for one (who only have a modest site) never received the email. Also, > as maintainer of the list, I would like to see this to make sure no > abuses are on this list. That being said, I think it is relevant to all > poster to make sure that they don't post inappropriate material. > > Please post this email. > > -Andrew > Where (in which jurisdiction) is rq-rules hosted? If it's not in the US whatever Issaries license contains it might not apply (to a more or less extent). I also have a minor site, and I too have not received any email from Issaries. I have studied their (at http://www.glorantha.com/inc/FanMaterialPolicy.pdf) license and I'm pretty sure that beyond some of the copyright parts it does not apply to me... /Peter Brink From andrew at crashbox.com Tue Apr 26 02:43:51 2005 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew Mellinger) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:43:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries new web policy In-Reply-To: <426D1541.9030807@brinkdata.se> References: <426D1541.9030807@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: Portland, Oregon. -Andrew On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Peter Brink wrote: > Where (in which jurisdiction) is rq-rules hosted? If it's not in the US > whatever Issaries license contains it might not apply (to a more or less > extent). From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 11:20:00 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:20:00 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy Message-ID: Okay, I've done the sensible thing - I've emailed Greg and asked for his permission to repost the email. I also let him know that there are a lot of people who really want to know what Issaries plans to do with the RQ trademark. * *Peter Brink* peter.brink at brinkdata.sewrote: > If you do a search on United States Patent and Trademark Office > (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=vs6fd.1.1) for > "RUNEQUEST" and "GLORANTHA" you will find that Runequest is owned by > Issaries since November 16, 2004. Chaosium tried to lay hands on the > trademark GLORANTHA but has recently abandoned that project. > > Just why Chaosium tried to register GLORANTHA we will probably never > know, if I would guess it was to have something to bargain with (to get > the Runequest mark). > > Holy cow. That's positively brilliant. Thanks Peter - great detective work. And that certainly sheds an intriguing light on an area that has been totally dark for me - the relationship between Chaosium and Issaries. Hmm. Maybe that's why Chaosium has possibly been slowing down the Deluxe Basic Roleplaying project; they thought they had a shot at publishing it as RuneQuest, instead? Mind you, I have no evidence that they're slowing the project down - it's just that they seem to have de-emphasized it on their website. I do wish they had a representative on this list. Why are game companies so damned reticent? Suddenly I suspect that there are lawyers involved in all this. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Apr 26 18:37:24 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 09:37:24 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy Message-ID: >> Just why Chaosium tried to register GLORANTHA we will probably never >> know, if I would guess it was to have something to bargain with (to get >> the Runequest mark). >> > Holy cow. That's positively brilliant. Thanks Peter - great detective >work. And that certainly sheds an intriguing light on an area that has been >totally dark for me - the relationship between Chaosium and Issaries. I thought so when it first came to light a while back on the list... >Hmm. Maybe that's why Chaosium has possibly been slowing down the Deluxe >Basic Roleplaying project; they thought they had a shot at publishing it as >RuneQuest, instead? Mind you, I have no evidence that they're slowing the >project down - it's just that they seem to have de-emphasized it on their >website. There's never been much emphasis on the web site though - pretty much everything I know about it has come from Jason's posts at RPGNet and The Tavern - one of Chaosium's recent policies has been to avoid talking about projects until they are so close there nearly certain - which is laudable and, as SoJ showed, still prone to coming unstuck. DBRP was always a mammoth undertaking and the manuscript will be delivered this year - that still requires editing, art, layout and printing etc which take time and can all go pear-shaped delaying things... >I do wish they had a representative on this list. Why are game companies so >damned reticent? Ehn? Chaosium are frankly a relief in that they are pleasantly reticent about things unless it's _actually_ news worthy - the majority of RPG companies constantly froth and blather about absolutely nothing, and these days do it via websites. Since the WWW is the biggest source of lies, dis-information and inane rubbish in the history of the planet, I really wish they'd stop adding to it. The written equivalent of leaping up and down like an ADD 3 year old yelling "look at me!" mostly convinces me that an RPG company is short on actual talent and long on marketing strategies (WW, WotC, ;-) ); even Malhavoc Press' weekly updates make my teeth ache, and I rate them about the best of the d20 herd - I cannot abide "ad speak"... >Suddenly I suspect that there are lawyers involved in all this. Possibly - but given how it looks from the outside I can equally believe it's people who should have consulted a lawyer dabbling in a complicated legal area. Which still doesn't explain what is going on of course. Cheers, Nick Middleton From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Apr 27 00:51:38 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:51:38 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy Message-ID: Well, they've done a version of the RuneQuest name in the rather clumsy new "HeroQuest" font and put it on one of their "Pre-finished" works http://www.glorantha.com/products/images/3007.jpg Strange... Cheers, Nick Middleton Peter Maranci m> cc: Sent by: Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy rq-rules-bounces at c rashbox.com 25/04/2005 12:26 Please respond to Peter Maranci; Please respond to "RuneQuest rules discussion." Argh! Greg wrote me a nice email (obviously he didn't read my comments here or on my site), so now I'll have to be nice. Jeeze, I wish Chaosium had the trademark for RuneQuest. I really don't see what Issaries gets out of it. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Apr 27 01:18:11 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:18:11 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050426151811.54352.qmail@web86109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> There was a fair chunk (probably about a quarter of the book) that referred to RQ mechanics, so that's probably why they did it. Cheers, Ash --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > Well, they've done a version of the RuneQuest name > in the rather clumsy new > "HeroQuest" font and put it on one of their > "Pre-finished" works > http://www.glorantha.com/products/images/3007.jpg > > Strange... > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > > > > > > > Peter Maranci > > > RuneQuest-Rules > > m> cc: > > > Sent by: > Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy > > rq-rules-bounces at c > > > rashbox.com > > > > > > > > > 25/04/2005 12:26 > > > Please respond to > > > Peter Maranci; > > > Please respond to > > > "RuneQuest rules > > > discussion." > > > > > > > > > > > > > Argh! Greg wrote me a nice email (obviously he > didn't read my comments here > or on my site), so now I'll have to be nice. > > Jeeze, I wish Chaosium had the trademark for > RuneQuest. I really don't see > what Issaries gets out of it. > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! > http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 11:46:58 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:46:58 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy Message-ID: Well, I wrote to Greg, and he'd rather send the emails himself. Just FYI. Actually, it was reasonably thoughtful - I *might* catch some flak if anyone thought that I had written the policy. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Apr 27 18:28:49 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:28:49 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy Message-ID: >There was a fair chunk (probably about a quarter of >the book) that referred to RQ mechanics, so that's >probably why they did it. I'm not so sure: material written to use a previous rule system, provided it didn't name check that rule system, nor quote any of the copyright text of the previous rule system, _wouldn't_ require Issaries to own the Trademark, nor to have permission from the copyright holder. Saying "Under the previous rules used for Gloranthan role playing it would work like this..." would be IIRC entirely legal. Getting possession of the Trademark surely suggests Issaries have continuing plans to use it (indeed, not doing so would lead to it lapsing again IIRC) and using it in the fashion they have would also suggest that the value Issaries see in it is precisely it's dual association: to Glorantha and to the-rules-system-formerly-known-as-runequest. So is this just a way for Greg to have his cake and eat it, both keeping Glorantha and being able to lure the RQ Gloranthaphiles to Issaries? If so, it's poorly timed: Issaries have put too much prior effort into telling everyone WH/HQ is the Gloranathan rule system, rather putting the backs up of the non-Gloranthaphile RQ fans (and the stick in the mud RQ-only Gloranthaphiles): so why bother back peddling now? And at the same time, Chaosium are selling the Moon Design Reprints, and the actual rules they'd work with... but they can't call it RuneQuest any more! Is it just me, or is this turning in to a bad farce? And Rick hasn't made any mention of Volume four of the reprints for _ages_ either... so now I'm apprehensive that all this has had some impact on that! Gah! This is all rather frustrating and a bit depressing. Cheers, Nick Middleton From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Apr 27 19:23:06 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:23:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050427092306.21377.qmail@web86109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I wasn't only commenting on why they trademarked RQ, only on why they could put "RuneQuest" on the cover without any fear of embarrassment. Cheers, Ash --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > >There was a fair chunk (probably about a quarter of > >the book) that referred to RQ mechanics, so that's > >probably why they did it. > > I'm not so sure: material written to use a previous > rule system, provided > it didn't name check that rule system, nor quote any > of the copyright text > of the previous rule system, _wouldn't_ require > Issaries to own the > Trademark, nor to have permission from the copyright > holder. Saying "Under > the previous rules used for Gloranthan role playing > it would work like > this..." would be IIRC entirely legal. > > Getting possession of the Trademark surely suggests > Issaries have > continuing plans to use it (indeed, not doing so > would lead to it lapsing > again IIRC) and using it in the fashion they have > would also suggest that > the value Issaries see in it is precisely it's dual > association: to > Glorantha and to > the-rules-system-formerly-known-as-runequest. So is > this > just a way for Greg to have his cake and eat it, > both keeping Glorantha and > being able to lure the RQ Gloranthaphiles to > Issaries? If so, it's poorly > timed: Issaries have put too much prior effort into > telling everyone WH/HQ > is the Gloranathan rule system, rather putting the > backs up of the > non-Gloranthaphile RQ fans (and the stick in the mud > RQ-only > Gloranthaphiles): so why bother back peddling now? > And at the same time, > Chaosium are selling the Moon Design Reprints, and > the actual rules they'd > work with... but they can't call it RuneQuest any > more! > > Is it just me, or is this turning in to a bad farce? > > And Rick hasn't made any mention of Volume four of > the reprints for _ages_ > either... so now I'm apprehensive that all this has > had some impact on > that! Gah! This is all rather frustrating and a bit > depressing. > > 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 Apr 27 20:54:38 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:54:38 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Issaries' new web policy Message-ID: >I wasn't only commenting on why they trademarked RQ, >only on why they could put "RuneQuest" on the cover >without any fear of embarrassment. Oh, I know: it's just being able to do that on one book seems highly unlikely motivation for the hassle and expense of acquiring the Trademark. Acquiring the trademark surely means they plan to use it sufficiently frequently and prominently that they need ownership - which does beg the question as to what that use might be for Issaries, since we have been repeatedly told that the-rules-formerly-known-as-runequest not only aren't, but actually never were, a good fit for Glorantha, and anyway II have their own generic game in QuestWorlds. My cynicism aside, some clarification would be welcome, I feel. Cheers, Nick Middleton From pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Apr 28 03:41:42 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:41:42 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Gloranthan Fan Policy Message-ID: Greg changed his mind, so here's the email I received in its entirety. Initially it confused me quite a bit (still does), and I HATE legalese. But according to Greg I was able to satisfy the requirement by putting a "LEGALESE" link on my main page with a link to http://www.glorantha.com/inc/apply_informal.html . Some sites might require the more extensive version referenced in the email, though. Anyway, here's the email. *** Dear Website Holder, Hello from Issaries, Inc. Please ignore this and forgive us if you have gotten this letter already, or have already fulfilled its requirements. As you know, Glorantha is Issaries' IP, or Intellectual Property. It has become expedient for us to publish the official fan policy, and (regrettably) inconvenience us all a bit. Since you're one of our Gloranthan Links from our official web site, we know you have some Gloranthan material on your website. This will impact you, probably only a little bit. I thank you for that support all these years, and hope you understand the necessity of this. Please go to http://www.glorantha.com/inc/fan_policy.html and, for the simplest method of all, go to point 6.a. If your site meets ALL the requirements in that short list then you will qualify to be an informal site. You will need to load two little sections onto your web site (which are on that page), notify us that you have done it so we can link to you. You're done. If you DON'T meet all the points in 6.a., read 6.b. You'll need to get a formal license from that site. To make it easy on us all we will temporarily "grandfather in" your site now, based on your compliance with the policy and your emailed letter stating you will bring it into compliance soon. We will check shortly afterwards to see if everything is correct, and if not, help determine what needs to be done. If you want some additional background and understanding about what this is about, then please read anything else on that page that will explain it to you. If all that fails contact me at greg at glorantha.com, with a subject line of Fan Policy License Question. We appreciate your cooperation in this. Just contact me if there seems to be a problem. Sincerely, Greg Stafford -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From pmaranci at gmail.com Thu Apr 28 03:50:45 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:50:45 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Mostly OT: LiveJournal? Message-ID: Does anyone else on this list have an account on LiveJournal? This is not as OT as it may sound. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From gkahla at chromebob.com Thu Apr 28 04:30:33 2005 From: gkahla at chromebob.com (Gerall Kahla) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:30:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Mostly OT: LiveJournal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <61839.65.70.252.73.1114626633.squirrel@65.70.252.73> On Wed, April 27, 2005 12:50 pm, Peter Maranci said: > Does anyone else on this list have an account on LiveJournal? This is not > as > OT as it may sound. an ancient, decrepit, langorous account on LiveJournal; but yes, I have one... what's the interest? -- Gerall Kahla / gkahla / the Celestial Mechanic remember: all waves collapse. From rjmeints at aol.com Thu Apr 28 10:57:42 2005 From: rjmeints at aol.com (rjmeints at aol.com) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 20:57:42 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Issaries' new web policy In-Reply-To: <20050427203426.AD24C2226C7@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050427203426.AD24C2226C7@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <8C719A46AFF1D53-1D8-173A7@mblk-d51.sysops.aol.com> Why Issaries Trademarked Runequest: ------------------------------------- Originally, Issaries wanted to reprint the Runequest Rules. I provided some initial help with that project. It might have seen fruition had Chaosium not had other intentions. Chaosium did not want a competitor to their BRP system published by another company. They wanted to publish Runequest themselves. Avalon Hill has let the Trademark for Runequest lapse in the mid 90's. Issaries beat Chaosium to the punch in reregistering it. While tensions briefly rose, everything worked out OK in the end. Chaosium publishes the Runequest 3 rules, without any Glorantha, via their new line of Basic Roleplaying Monographs. Combine those with the Gloranthan Classics (which Chaosium sells on their website) and you've got lots of Gloranthan RQ era stuff to play as well. That doesn't mean that Issaries has totally abandoned doing anything with the Runequest name. The 4th Gloranthan Classic book, Borderlands & Beyond, is due out by July this summer. I'm the publisher of it, so I'm pretty sure of the date. The publication policy didn't affect me at all. I have a contract that precedes the new policy, so no problems there. I'm just behind schedule, not embroiled in some pub policy disagreements. Borderlands reprint will bear the Runequest logo on it. After that, who knows, Volume 5 is a possibility. From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Apr 28 18:09:05 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:09:05 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Gloranthan Fan Policy Message-ID: Pete, >Greg changed his mind, so here's the email I received in its entirety. Very decent of him, helps clarify what's going on. >Initially it confused me quite a bit (still does), and I HATE legalese. But >according to Greg I was able to satisfy the requirement by putting a >"LEGALESE" link on my main page with a link to >http://www.glorantha.com/inc/apply_informal.html . >Some sites might require the more extensive version referenced in the >email, though. Anyway, here's the email. >(SNIPPAGE) Well, pretty much as I thought... I'm not sure I like it, but given Issaries entirely understandable (and actually, pretty laudable) aims, I'm not sure there is a better compromise possible. And "current" Glorantha doesn't really interest me so it won't affect me directly. Thanks for posting that Pete. Cheers, Nick M From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Apr 28 20:41:39 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:41:39 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Issaries' new web policy Message-ID: Rick, thanks for posting this. >Why Issaries Trademarked Runequest: >------------------------------------- >Originally, Issaries wanted to reprint the Runequest Rules. >I provided some initial help with that project. It might have >seen fruition had Chaosium not had other intentions. >Chaosium did not want a competitor to their BRP system >published by another company. They wanted to publish >Runequest themselves. Avalon Hill has let the Trademark >for Runequest lapse in the mid 90's. Issaries beat Chaosium >to the punch in reregistering it. While tensions briefly rose, >everything worked out OK in the end. Chaosium publishes >the Runequest 3 rules, without any Glorantha, via their >new line of Basic Roleplaying Monographs. Combine those >with the Gloranthan Classics (which Chaosium sells on their >website) and you've got lots of Gloranthan RQ era stuff to >play as well. Hmm, well. For me, RuneQuest has NEVER automatically meant Glorantha, and RuneQuest has ALWAYS meant BRP with Strike Ranks and ubiquitous magic, so my apologies to Issaries and Chaosium, but I remain deeply disgruntled by this situation: the rule system is called RuneQuest, and that rule system is one Issaries _explicitly_ say isn't suited to Glorantha http://www.glorantha.com/news/HQ-FAQ.html#RuneQuest, so I really think they should just stop fiddling with the name and get on with HW/HQ/QW. Harrumph. >That doesn't mean that Issaries has totally abandoned >doing anything with the Runequest name. The 4th >Gloranthan Classic book, Borderlands & Beyond, is >due out by July this summer. Yipee! What's in that one besides Borderlands? > I'm the publisher of it, >so I'm pretty sure of the date. So my cunning plan of name checking you earlier in the debate to lure you out to get more news worked then? Excellent... ;-) > The publication policy >didn't affect me at all. I would have been surprised if it had, and I'm delighted to have that clarified. And yet we STILL haven't seen a definitive statement from Issaries themselves as to what they are going to do with the RQ trademark. > I have a contract that precedes >the new policy, so no problems there. I'm just behind >schedule, not embroiled in some pub policy disagreements. >Borderlands reprint will bear the Runequest logo on it. >After that, who knows, Volume 5 is a possibility. Ooooh! What would be in that? Cheers, Nick Middleton From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 02:59:57 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:59:57 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules Message-ID: Hokay. This came up in one of the semi-orphaned RQ fora recently, and I found it kind of interesting. Basically it boils down to this: Which RQ3 rules are broken? and Which RQ3 rules need improvement? I think that everyone would agree that the Dodge skill was broken, for example. But that was easy to fix. On the other hand, there were a lot of rules that fell somewhere between the two questions. For example, ENC. It was logical, even sensible, but it required too much bookkeeping; I never ran into a group that didn't drop that rule, except for the first year or so after the system came out. Likewise Fatigue. Nice idea, but not *playable*. It slowed things down way too much, and slowing down is not something that RQ ever needed. Another one: knockback on specials. SOME sort of knockback rules were needed, but the rules as written resulted in bodies flying around like the 1960s Batman show. We could argue about Sorcery...nah, I probably shouldn't bring that up. But now that (RQ/DBRP) is separate from Glorantha, there's no reason to be nailed down to that magic system...nor to Spirit or Divine magic, actually. But that would be a whole thread in itself. The shaman daily spirit encounter rules had problems, as I recall. They bogged down play with frequent spirit combats (focused only on the shaman, and leaving everyone else out - a bad idea), and over the long term made it necessary for the GM to frequently figure out reasons for godlike spirit beings to NOT crush the shaman. So what rules do YOU think are broken? And what would you like to see changed? ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Apr 29 03:21:51 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:21:51 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050428172151.28059.qmail@web86101.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Just to provide a counterpoint - I still use fatigue and encumbrance almost as written (encumbrance doesn't subtract from any skills, however, to save embarrasment to bigger than human scale creatures, like giants, drowning in just their 100 ENC underpants). - Dodge is okay, never bothered changing it. - Knockback on specials crushing and slashing attacks were never a big deal. It didn't come up that often. Could have perhaps done with having a larger divisor for the distance you get knocked back in relationship to damage. (one variation is to say that only damage that is absorbed by armour causes knockback. If it damages the character's body, it doesn't knock them back). Other things: - I never liked the subtract the successful stealth skill from detecting perception skill. It wasn't symmetric with other die rolls. - The resistance table was a bit crap. I'm sure there was a better way of doing it, perhaps using ratios of abilitites instead, but I never worked one out that didn't need some mental arithmetic or, often a calculator. - Any form of DnD style encounter table. - One unified magic system with some sort of customisation to make it fit your world's magic. I played with knicking bits of GURPS magic but never finished hammering into shape. Cheers, Ash From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 04:25:03 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:25:03 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules Message-ID: * *Ashley Munday* (aescleal at btinternet.com ) wrote: > Dodge is okay, never bothered changing it. I've done some long posts about Dodge over the years. The problem is that the flaw is subtle, but serious. The crux of the problem is that it takes a special Dodge to evade a special attack success, and a critical Dodge to evade a critical attack. If the Dodger merely rolls a success (or a special Dodge against a critical attack), it is as if s/he FAILED. S/he takes the full special or critical damage. I'll repeat that: a successful Dodge is *totally negated* by a special attack. And a special Dodge success is likewise negated by a critical attack. Meanwhile, a successful parry allows the parrying weapon or shield to absorb its AP in damage. That absorption applies *equally* to special and critical attacks. So under the *same circumstances*, Dodge has no effect at all while Parry *does*. Obviously the chance of rolling a special or critical when an opponent does is very low (the metaphor that comes to mind is hitting a bullet with another bullet). Which means that when a Dodger is hit, they are far more likely to be hit with the full special or critical attack effect. In the long run, a Dodger is far less likely to survive that someone who parries - not because of the inherent real-world logic of dodging, but because the rules in that one instance negate a successful Dodge *precisely* at the time when such failure is most lethal. I don't know if that's why so many people don't use the Dodge skill. But if the new DBRP goes through, and is truly multi-genre, then that Dodge skill will certainly need to be fixed. The fix that I've used is for each level of success of Dodge to subtract one level of success from the opposing attack. So a normal Dodge negates a normal attack, reduces a special attack to a normal success, and reduces a critical attack to a special one. The logic is that the Dodger moved partially away from or with the movement of the attack, reducing its impact. A special Dodge negates special and normal attacks, and reduces a critical attack to a normal success. A critical Dodge negates any attack. > - Any form of DnD style encounter table. Interesting...what would you replace those with? -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri Apr 29 04:33:13 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules Message-ID: <20050428183314.16799.qmail@web41110.mail.yahoo.com> Yes, that is an obvious fix for Dodge and I have been using it for a while now. I use a same rule for shaft vs. shaft combat (as in two opponents using spears). As for the shaman encounter table, get rid of it. A PC shaman has enough to worry about without it. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > * *Ashley Munday* (aescleal at btinternet.com ) > wrote: > > Dodge is okay, never bothered changing it. > I've done some long posts about Dodge over the years. The problem is that > > the flaw is subtle, but serious. > The crux of the problem is that it takes a special Dodge to evade a specia > l > attack success, and a critical Dodge to evade a critical attack. > If the Dodger merely rolls a success (or a special Dodge against a critica > l > attack), it is as if s/he FAILED. S/he takes the full special or critical > > damage. I'll repeat that: a successful Dodge is *totally negated* by a > special attack. And a special Dodge success is likewise negated by a > critical attack. > Meanwhile, a successful parry allows the parrying weapon or shield to > absorb its AP in damage. That absorption applies *equally* to special and > > critical attacks. So under the *same circumstances*, Dodge has no effect at > > all while Parry *does*. > Obviously the chance of rolling a special or critical when an opponent doe > s > is very low (the metaphor that comes to mind is hitting a bullet with > another bullet). Which means that when a Dodger is hit, they are far more > > likely to be hit with the full special or critical attack effect. > In the long run, a Dodger is far less likely to survive that someone who > > parries - not because of the inherent real-world logic of dodging, but > because the rules in that one instance negate a successful Dodge *precisely > * > at the time when such failure is most lethal. > I don't know if that's why so many people don't use the Dodge skill. But i > f > the new DBRP goes through, and is truly multi-genre, then that Dodge skill > > will certainly need to be fixed. > The fix that I've used is for each level of success of Dodge to subtract > > one level of success from the opposing attack. So a normal Dodge negates a > > normal attack, reduces a special attack to a normal success, and reduces a > > critical attack to a special one. The logic is that the Dodger moved > partially away from or with the movement of the attack, reducing its impact > . > > A special Dodge negates special and normal attacks, and reduces a critical > > attack to a normal success. > > A critical Dodge negates any attack. > > - Any form of DnD style encounter table. > Interesting...what would you replace those with? > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Apr 29 04:37:49 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:37:49 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050428183749.56721.qmail@web86109.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I know all the problems with dodge - as far as I'm concerned if you go into combat not wearing any armour or with decent weapons you deserve everything you get. That might just be my cynical reaction to the whole chop-sockey style asian uberstyle combat mythology. As for DnD style encounter tables, I wouldn't replace them with anything. It's easier to pace the game if instead of random encounters you just pick something c(or nothing) and sling it in the characters way. Gives me the same dose of shrieking ab-dabs that treasure tables do! Cheers, Ash From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri Apr 29 04:45:44 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:45:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules Message-ID: <20050428184545.46415.qmail@web41102.mail.yahoo.com> I think you are vastly overrating armour. It just was not that good. provided some protection but reduced mobility. In many cases it lead directly to the wearers death. The one time you want to wear armor is when facing missle fire, but in melee, one on one its agility what really counted. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > I know all the problems with dodge - as far as I'm > concerned if you go into combat not wearing any armour > or with decent weapons you deserve everything you get. > > That might just be my cynical reaction to the whole > chop-sockey style asian uberstyle combat mythology. > > As for DnD style encounter tables, I wouldn't replace > them with anything. It's easier to pace the game if > instead of random encounters you just pick something > c(or nothing) and sling it in the characters way. > Gives me the same dose of shrieking ab-dabs that > treasure tables do! > > Cheers, > > Ash > > > _______________________________________________ > 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!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From murfnmurf at suscom.net Fri Apr 29 06:34:39 2005 From: murfnmurf at suscom.net (murfnmurf at suscom.net) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:34:39 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hmm, what is busted, huh? Well, one of the things I've discovered while putting together my version of the RQ Bestiary is that the SIZ ranges provided for most real world animals in RQ3 (and most of the BRP games in general) tends to produce decidedly *larger* than normal animals. Not really anything you can easily fix with a single, sweeping tweek to the game mechanics, really, but certianly something that gets to me :) -Ken Murphy- From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 29 06:52:08 2005 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:52:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Rules to Change In-Reply-To: <20050428184556.7FFD32226D1@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050428205209.89387.qmail@web31008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'd love to enter into the conversation, but I cannot remember which rules I cribbed from which version of RQ, which ones I stole from somewhere else, and which ones I made up on my own :-) My players have taken to calling the game "SteveQuest" to avoid setting the wrong expectation with new players. Steve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 08:03:08 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 18:03:08 -0400 Subject: Fwd: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules In-Reply-To: <20050428195619.19260.qmail@ibusy.com> References: <20050428195619.19260.qmail@ibusy.com> Message-ID: Steve was right - this doesn't seem to have made it to the list. So I'm forwarding it for him. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: steve at perrinworlds.com Date: Apr 28, 2005 3:50 PM Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules To: pmaranci at gmail.com Lessee here... Dodge problems are taken care of by my number of successes system. That might be a bit clumsy, though. Essentially the same solution as described below. For ENC I use a system suggested on the previous RQ list I was on. It hasn't come into play much. I dumped Strike Ranks and the Resistance Table. Choosing dodging instead of parry and armor is so very very Hollywood. When Shakespeare talked about armor that "scalded with safety" he knew exactly what he was talking about. I don't use encounter tables. I prefer to customize them and either have a short list or an established monster when I want one. Check out my SPQR at www.perrinworlds.com if you haven't already. Peter, sometimes these missives only go to the individual rather than everyone on the list. If it doesn't show up about the same time you get yours, could you pass it on, please? Thanks, Steve Perrin From gianni at basicrps.com Fri Apr 29 08:10:06 2005 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:10:06 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1114726206.42715f3e4b320@imp.webhuset.no> Quoting Peter Maranci : > Which RQ3 rules are broken? > and > Which RQ3 rules need improvement? <...> > So what rules do YOU think are broken? And what would you like to see > changed? The easy solution..... use RQ2 :-P G. From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Fri Apr 29 15:37:17 2005 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:37:17 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules Message-ID: Wow! I never realised this facet of Dodging, looks like my group has been playing it wrong all these years. Basically we have been using it as an alternative to parry. (You either parry or you can dodge type idea). Having said that, my main issue with dodge is that it starts at a base of 5% and really is not addressed in the quick experience rules, which for a group like mine with players constantly having characters replaced means that dodge skill always sucks. Nowadays as a house rule I tend to look at new characters stats and juice things like dodge a bit just to get some balance. -----Original Message----- Peter Maranci wrote * *Ashley Munday* (aescleal at btinternet.com ) wrote: > Dodge is okay, never bothered changing it. I've done some long posts about Dodge over the years. The problem is that the flaw is subtle, but serious. The crux of the problem is that it takes a special Dodge to evade a special attack success, and a critical Dodge to evade a critical attack. If the Dodger merely rolls a success (or a special Dodge against a critical attack), it is as if s/he FAILED. S/he takes the full special or critical damage. I'll repeat that: a successful Dodge is *totally negated* by a special attack. And a special Dodge success is likewise negated by a critical attack. Meanwhile, a successful parry allows the parrying weapon or shield to absorb its AP in damage. That absorption applies *equally* to special and critical attacks. So under the *same circumstances*, Dodge has no effect at all while Parry *does*. Obviously the chance of rolling a special or critical when an opponent does is very low (the metaphor that comes to mind is hitting a bullet with another bullet). Which means that when a Dodger is hit, they are far more likely to be hit with the full special or critical attack effect. In the long run, a Dodger is far less likely to survive that someone who parries - not because of the inherent real-world logic of dodging, but because the rules in that one instance negate a successful Dodge *precisely* at the time when such failure is most lethal. I don't know if that's why so many people don't use the Dodge skill. But if the new DBRP goes through, and is truly multi-genre, then that Dodge skill will certainly need to be fixed. The fix that I've used is for each level of success of Dodge to subtract one level of success from the opposing attack. So a normal Dodge negates a normal attack, reduces a special attack to a normal success, and reduces a critical attack to a special one. The logic is that the Dodger moved partially away from or with the movement of the attack, reducing its impact. A special Dodge negates special and normal attacks, and reduces a critical attack to a normal success. A critical Dodge negates any attack. > - Any form of DnD style encounter table. Interesting...what would you replace those with? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Standard Bank Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Standard Bank Group Limited and/or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is confidential, private and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail, immediately and do not disclose or use same in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages whatsoever and howsoever incurred, or suffered, resulting, or arising, from the use of this email or its attachments. The Group does not warrant the integrity of this e-mail nor that it is free of errors, viruses, interception or interference. Licensed divisions of the Standard Bank Group are authorised financial services providers in terms of the Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act, No 37 of 2002 (FAIS). For information about the Standard Bank Group Limited visit our website http://www.standardbank.co.za ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Apr 29 16:01:57 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 23:01:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050429060158.22057.qmail@web21126.mail.yahoo.com> This doesn't seem right. If armour wasn't useful people wouldn't have worn it, for the very same reasons that no culture in their right mind would use bronze tools when iron was readily available. Whatever negatives there were in mobility must have been outweighed by the benefits, which I presume is their ability to protect vital organs.. There were circumstances when armour wasn't a good idea. In the hot desert sun of the Holy Land, as many crusaders found out. It was also pretty useless once firearms developed to a reasonable extent as they were able to punch through the armour. Regards, Lev --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > I think you are vastly overrating armour. It just > was > not that good. provided some protection but reduced > mobility. In many cases it lead directly to the > wearers death. > > The one time you want to wear armor is when facing > missle fire, but in melee, one on one its agility > what > really counted. > > Leon > > --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > wrote: > > I know all the problems with dodge - as far as I'm > > concerned if you go into combat not wearing any > armour > > or with decent weapons you deserve everything you > get. > > > > That might just be my cynical reaction to the > whole > > chop-sockey style asian uberstyle combat > mythology. > > > > As for DnD style encounter tables, I wouldn't > replace > > them with anything. It's easier to pace the game > if > > instead of random encounters you just pick > something > > c(or nothing) and sling it in the characters way. > > Gives me the same dose of shrieking ab-dabs that > > treasure tables do! > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ash > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Fri Apr 29 18:55:17 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:55:17 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050429085517.53870.qmail@web86110.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Really? Why did people keep wearing it then? As it is, dodge is going to work against 80% of all successful attack rolls, so why bother enhancing it? Cheers, Ash --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > I think you are vastly overrating armour. It just > was > not that good. provided some protection but reduced > mobility. In many cases it lead directly to the > wearers death. > > The one time you want to wear armor is when facing > missle fire, but in melee, one on one its agility > what > really counted. > > Leon > > --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > wrote: > > I know all the problems with dodge - as far as I'm > > concerned if you go into combat not wearing any > armour > > or with decent weapons you deserve everything you > get. > > > > That might just be my cynical reaction to the > whole > > chop-sockey style asian uberstyle combat > mythology. > > > > As for DnD style encounter tables, I wouldn't > replace > > them with anything. It's easier to pace the game > if > > instead of random encounters you just pick > something > > c(or nothing) and sling it in the characters way. > > Gives me the same dose of shrieking ab-dabs that > > treasure tables do! > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ash > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.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 Fri Apr 29 19:19:43 2005 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:19:43 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules Message-ID: Hi All, lots to comment on. First: "Broken" rules. Last time I checked "broken" means "does not work" and there aren't any "broken" rules in RQ. There are plenty that people may not think work the right way, but there aren't any that stop the game from functioning, unlike Traveller:2300, where creating a conscious character was impossible... Next Dodge and armour: as Lev and others have pointed out, the RAW reflects the realities of actual historical hand to hand melee pretty well. Unless environmental conditions (excessive heat is always a problem) or technology (bronze armour is excessively heavy) intervene, armour IS effective and Dodging is a high risk strategy that can go disastrously wrong despite the Dodger's best efforts ("wearing no armour, being "clipped" by a broadsword is no joke, whereas in decent armour it's an irrelevance) but the rule is NOT broken - although I quite concede that it's asymmetry is not to everyone's taste. For an "Erol Flyn" game, beefing up Dodge so that it cancels attacks of equal success level or similar is a fine variant. Sorcery, likewise isn't "broken", just not everyone's taste. Along with RQIII's fatigue, I suspect it's the most "house ruled" part of RQIII. For what it's worth, as I mentioned previously on the list, I drop Free INT and use skill/5 as a limit (so Palsy 80 can have total manipulations of 16, but with a Range of 45, the most levels of range boost is 9). Fatigue, I have in the past soldiered on with the RAW, or ignored, but following the lead of the GM in the RQ game I'm playing in at present#, I think an RQIV style system of "levels of fatigue" and CON rolls as the GM deems appropriate is looking increasingly appealing. ENC we use as a limit to what you can carry and a source of penalties on skills like swimming etc, adn the GM is taking in to consideration in the CON rolls: previously I just used it as a limiting factor on skill and spell use and to stop players being silly, but didn't police it too closely. Strike Ranks I'm terribly torn over - they actually worked really well for me, and for a decade or more (from when I started playing RQ until the post University slump when games became very infrequent) I was a staunch supporter of the system. But equally, I'm very comfortable with DEX ranking... (as in CoC, Stormbringer, WoW etc). And the one thing that playing lots of d20 in the last few years has made clear is that a clearly defined round structure and definition of actions helps the players tactical evaluation of combat enormously, and made me and the other RQ GM realise (when we tried explaining to newbies how SR worked) how unclear bit s of the RQII rules are... The resistance table I actually like, because (as I pointed at to Tom Zunder recently at the Tavern), I like the fact that in an RQ/BRP game as GM I have three tools to make a action/situation dramatic (i.e. uncertain): Skill roll; Stat x n roll or resistance table roll. Since all are ultimately of the same incredibly intuitive form ("the chance of outcome A is X%, roll percentile dice"), it doesn't confuse my players but introduces mechanical variety which I find helps the game. I loathe modern rpg's which obsess so much about "balance" and "unified design" that they distort everything to fit on one mechanic, strangling any sense of variety or spontaneity out of the game. RQIII's Shaman rules have never been to my taste: I've never been able to believe how one would get from a neophyte 15 year old Shaman Apprentice to a potent old Shaman - so I kludge across the RQII shaman rules. I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the RQIII background experience system - I've been seriously thinking about it recently because of discussing porting Jorune to BRP at the Tavern (and thinking about character gen for my bit of Gwenthia, the shared world project at the Tavern), and it's made me increasingly aware that the full system doesn't produce characters that leap of the sheet the way I'd like... But that's an itch I have yet to scratch, so I've no real suggestions there at present. Recent thinking about combat has also lead me to think that I may start using the RQIV flattened damage system (simplified, mostly single die for weapons) with my own damage bonus table (single die for DB, so no matter how strong a creature is, it _might_ only get a 1 on DB). Cheers, Nick Middleton #Set in Pavis and drawing rather heavily on a certain person's website for material - Peter, smilodons the size of Elephants?!? From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Apr 29 19:32:08 2005 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:32:08 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Gloranthan Fan Policy In-Reply-To: <20050427203426.AD24C2226C7@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <20050429093208.94000.qmail@web51004.mail.yahoo.com> Peter Maranci: > Greg changed his mind, so here's the email I received in its entirety. > Initially it confused me quite a bit (still does), and I HATE legalese. But > according to Greg I was able to satisfy the requirement by putting a > "LEGALESE" link on my main page with a link to > http://www.glorantha.com/inc/apply_informal.html . > Some sites might require the more extensive version referenced in the > email, though. Anyway, here's the email. Yes, that's the same email I received. It turns out that I need a formal licence as I have some redrawn maps on my site, but all I need to do is to print out an agreement, sign it in blood and send it to Issaries and everyone's happy. (OK, so biro would probably do instead of blood) And, yes, Greg Stafford was very nice about it, as usual, which is very disarming sometimes. I'm still not happy with some aspects of the Fan Policy, but it doesn't seem to affect people with websites, it seems to be aimed more at people who are trying to sell Gloranthan supplements. As far as RuneQuest goes, anyone trying to sell anything based on RuneQuest who hasn't spoken to Issaries or perhaps Chaosium deserves everything they get. See Ya Simon Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Apr 29 20:01:33 2005 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:01:33 +0100 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Broken In-Reply-To: <20050429093232.DBB422226CE@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <4272140D.23170.8064976@localhost> Dodge. I don't think RQ3 Dodge was broken, I guess it was written exactly as it works, if someone specials and you don't do a special Dodge, you're toast. It fits the all or nothing feel of Dodge. I think DBRP could actually provide both approaches (the scaling down of damage approach suggested) or the all or nothing RQ3 version. The subtletly of the RQ3 one is nice, although I think it took me 5 years to notice! Strike Ranks. Always liked them, they're not broken, but I also don't miss them when I play Stormbringer. Happy to keep with them since they take no time in play and do make some nice little differences between weapons as well as the fast. Fatigue. It all didn't work. I used the RQIV version and that worked fine but whilst it's fine to have it in the ruleset I probably won't use it again. Sorcery. Just didn't like it. It was a valiant version of a flexible system, but somehow never had the charm of HERO or the new D6 system or (best of all) Ars Magica. Another go might be in order for the future, especially since we coud write several different versions. Or just use the Magic World one with a few meta-spells to tweak the basic spell type. (Like Lunar magic in Glorantha, but not Moon based.) -- Tom Zunder http://tavern.zunder.org.uk ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Yahoo: tzunder From stolenbjorn at hotmail.com Fri Apr 29 20:23:58 2005 From: stolenbjorn at hotmail.com (Bjorn Stolen) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:23:58 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules In-Reply-To: <20050428184545.46415.qmail@web41102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Totally wrong. If armor doesn't work, why bother wearing it? It is impossible to penentrate plate armor Chainmail is all but impossible to penentrate But there are situations where armor doesn't nessecarily work, not because it doesn't protect you, but because it makes your opponent faster, so that he can choose time place and duration of the encounter and thus wear out the armoured person (Like when a roman army was oblitterated by parthian light cavallery, that should be applied when\if praxian nomads fight Lunar\Yelmalian phalanxes) >From: Leon Kirshtein >Reply-To: "RuneQuest rules discussion." >To: rq-rules at crashbox.com >Subject: Re: Re: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules >Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:45:44 -0700 (PDT) > >I think you are vastly overrating armour. It just was >not that good. provided some protection but reduced >mobility. In many cases it lead directly to the >wearers death. > >The one time you want to wear armor is when facing >missle fire, but in melee, one on one its agility what >really counted. > >Leon > >--- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > wrote: > > I know all the problems with dodge - as far as I'm > > concerned if you go into combat not wearing any >armour > > or with decent weapons you deserve everything you >get. > > > > That might just be my cynical reaction to the whole > > chop-sockey style asian uberstyle combat mythology. > > > > As for DnD style encounter tables, I wouldn't >replace > > them with anything. It's easier to pace the game if > > instead of random encounters you just pick something > > c(or nothing) and sling it in the characters way. > > Gives me the same dose of shrieking ab-dabs that > > treasure tables do! > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ash > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.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 _________________________________________________________________ MSN Hotmail http://www.hotmail.com Med markedets beste SPAM-filter. Gratis! From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Fri Apr 29 21:02:40 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 04:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050429110240.90008.qmail@web21121.mail.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > I've done some long posts about Dodge over the > years. The problem is that > the flaw is subtle, but serious. > The crux of the problem is that it takes a special > Dodge to evade a special > attack success, and a critical Dodge to evade a > critical attack. Not only that but a fumbled dodge _causes_ an automatic hit, whereas a fumbled parry is a roll on the fumble table (which could be worse...) > The fix that I've used is for each level of success > of Dodge to subtract > one level of success from the opposing attack. So a > normal Dodge negates a > normal attack, reduces a special attack to a normal > success, and reduces a > critical attack to a special one. The logic is that > the Dodger moved > partially away from or with the movement of the > attack, reducing its impact. > > A special Dodge negates special and normal attacks, > and reduces a critical > attack to a normal success. > > A critical Dodge negates any attack. Nice fix. Could probably work well with other opposed skills too, right? You know, Hide vs Scan. Oratory vs Oratory, all that stuff. One other thing to keep in mind however, is that a dodge works on multiple attacks from the same source whereas a parry only works once. It would seem that under those circumstances, you'd want to use dodge against a creature with multiple attacks (e.g., a lion) and parry someone who has a single weapon (e.g., a knight). Now, intuitively, I'd be thinkin the opposite would be case.. You know, "threaten parry" (wasn't that an A&E article years ago? Or was it Different Worlds?) to the lion and get the hell out of the way from the knight... Best regards, Lev PS: I actually think that the Resistance Table and automatic knockback from specials are more seriously broken. Especially the later. A trollkin with a single stick doing knockback to an dragon on a special? C'mon, give me a break. If I wanted to suspend reality that much I'd be playing The Other Game (tm). Lev Lafayette lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Fri Apr 29 23:29:08 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:29:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules Message-ID: <20050429132908.53606.qmail@web41108.mail.yahoo.com> I am not saying that armor that armor is useless, just not as usefull as the RQ3 imply vs. Dodge. Historically the heaviest armor, did not stick around for very long and was mostly used for decorative purposes in Europe. Chain armor was around for longer period, but because it offered greater flexiability. In Japan armor was worn mostly to protect against arrows and over missle weapons. And, according to things I saw and read about recently, at the Battle of Agincourt, the French armor was good enough vs the English longbows, but prooved the Frenchs undoing do to its weight, forcing the French to become bogged down in mud and in some cases even drown in it. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > > This doesn't seem right. > > If armour wasn't useful people wouldn't have worn it, > for the very same reasons that no culture in their > right mind would use bronze tools when iron was > readily available. Whatever negatives there were in > mobility must have been outweighed by the benefits, > which I presume is their ability to protect vital > organs.. > > There were circumstances when armour wasn't a good > idea. In the hot desert sun of the Holy Land, as many > crusaders found out. It was also pretty useless once > firearms developed to a reasonable extent as they were > able to punch through the armour. > > Regards, > > > Lev > > --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > I think you are vastly overrating armour. It just > > was > > not that good. provided some protection but reduced > > mobility. In many cases it lead directly to the > > wearers death. > > > > The one time you want to wear armor is when facing > > missle fire, but in melee, one on one its agility > > what > > really counted. > > > > Leon > > > > --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > > wrote: > > > I know all the problems with dodge - as far as I'm > > > concerned if you go into combat not wearing any > > armour > > > or with decent weapons you deserve everything you > > get. > > > > > > That might just be my cynical reaction to the > > whole > > > chop-sockey style asian uberstyle combat > > mythology. > > > > > > As for DnD style encounter tables, I wouldn't > > replace > > > them with anything. It's easier to pace the game > > if > > > instead of random encounters you just pick > > something > > > c(or nothing) and sling it in the characters way. > > > Gives me the same dose of shrieking ab-dabs that > > > treasure tables do! > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Ash > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list === Message Truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 00:39:48 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:39:48 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge Message-ID: Forgive me; I can't help but take another swing at Dodge. I failed Statistics 101 in college (really); this sort of analysis is hard for me. But I took it again and got a B+, so I'm not hopeless. :D Let's look at a case in which both attacker and defender have a skill of 100%. On one out of five blows, the attacker will special. So all that the Dodger needs to do is move entirely out of combat before every fifth blow! Sorry! A statistics joke. Couldn't help myself. :D But seriously, in this case there is an 80% chance that a special hit will do full special damage to a defender who uses Dodge. Likewise, when the attacker criticals the chance is 95% (!) that the Dodger will effectively just *stand* there and take the full critical damage. But if the defender parries instead? When the attacker specials, there is only a 5% chance that the parrying weapon will NOT absorb its full AP in damage. There's a 5% chance that all damage will be negated entirely (on a critical parry), and only a 5% chance that the defender will simply have to take the blow unprotected. And the exact same numbers apply for criticals! (Yes, I've left the chance of fumbling out of the mix. They affect both types of defense equally, so it's not relevent.) So: Dodge gives an 80% chance of being fully damaged by a special attack. Parry gives a 5% chance of being fully damaged by a special attack. Dodge gives an 95% chance of being fully damaged by a critical attack. Parry gives a 5% chance of being fully damaged by a special attack. I'd argue that this disparity is both unrealistic and a design error. I'd also argue this: even though not everyone is interested in campaigns with viable swashbuckler-types or other Dodge specialists, a good rules system should make that choice available - and practical. -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Apr 30 00:52:17 2005 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050429145218.71547.qmail@web51304.mail.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Forgive me; I can't help but take another swing at > Dodge. > I failed Statistics 101 in college (really); this > sort of analysis is hard > for me. But I took it again and got a B+, so I'm not > hopeless. :D > > Let's look at a case in which both attacker and > defender have a skill of > 100%. > > On one out of five blows, the attacker will special. > So all that the Dodger > needs to do is move entirely out of combat before > every fifth blow! How do you think they get that high a percentage? :-) Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Sat Apr 30 01:47:03 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:47:03 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050429154703.26201.qmail@web86103.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I think you and I have got different ideas of what dodging a critical means. To you, if a defender fails to critically dodge, they just stand there. To me the defender dodges onto the attackers weapon, is feinted particularly effectively, slips which gives the attacker a split second to strike precisely. As for the swashbuckling comment, you might be expecting too much out of the system. RQ has never sold itself as a "cinematic" game. Without magic combat is pretty bloody brutal - if you want to simulate "Tool Shed of The Flying Choppers" then it's not the game for you. Use Feng Sui, HeroQuest, Fudge, d20 or anyone of a number of games that were designed to present that cinematic style. If you get stuck in the middle of a ancient battle without armour or a parrying weapon, get rolling less than your POW 'cause the Gods are going to need to be on your side. Ash --- Peter Maranci wrote: > Forgive me; I can't help but take another swing at > Dodge. > I failed Statistics 101 in college (really); this > sort of analysis is hard > for me. But I took it again and got a B+, so I'm not > hopeless. :D > > Let's look at a case in which both attacker and > defender have a skill of > 100%. > > On one out of five blows, the attacker will special. > So all that the Dodger > needs to do is move entirely out of combat before > every fifth blow! > > Sorry! A statistics joke. Couldn't help myself. :D > > But seriously, in this case there is an 80% chance > that a special hit will > do full special damage to a defender who uses Dodge. > Likewise, when the > attacker criticals the chance is 95% (!) that the > Dodger will effectively > just *stand* there and take the full critical > damage. > > But if the defender parries instead? > > When the attacker specials, there is only a 5% > chance that the parrying > weapon will NOT absorb its full AP in damage. > There's a 5% chance that all > damage will be negated entirely (on a critical > parry), and only a 5% chance > that the defender will simply have to take the blow > unprotected. > > And the exact same numbers apply for criticals! > > (Yes, I've left the chance of fumbling out of the > mix. They affect both > types of defense equally, so it's not relevent.) > > So: > > Dodge gives an 80% chance of being fully damaged by > a special attack. > Parry gives a 5% chance of being fully damaged by a > special attack. > > Dodge gives an 95% chance of being fully damaged by > a critical attack. > Parry gives a 5% chance of being fully damaged by a > special attack. > I'd argue that this disparity is both unrealistic > and a design error. I'd > also argue this: even though not everyone is > interested in campaigns with > viable swashbuckler-types or other Dodge > specialists, a good rules system > should make that choice available - and practical. > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! > http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Apr 30 01:56:31 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:56:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge Message-ID: <20050429155631.37730.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> If you want to make RQ into a swashbuckling system all you need to do is modify the Dodge rule to say: A regular Dodge negates any critical, special, or normal attack. The logic behind that is: I do not care how good is your attack, if I am not there for you to hit me, then you miss. That makes as much sense as your interpretation, but in the other direction. If you want to make armor all important and Dodge ineffective, thats fine. If you want to make Dodge more important than armor, that too is fine. You choose as a GM, how you want it to play. For myself I will take the middle ground and have Dodge reduce the level of attackers success, because it makes the most sence to me. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > I think you and I have got different ideas of what > dodging a critical means. To you, if a defender fails > to critically dodge, they just stand there. To me the > defender dodges onto the attackers weapon, is feinted > particularly effectively, slips which gives the > attacker a split second to strike precisely. > > As for the swashbuckling comment, you might be > expecting too much out of the system. RQ has never > sold itself as a "cinematic" game. Without magic > combat is pretty bloody brutal - if you want to > simulate "Tool Shed of The Flying Choppers" then it's > not the game for you. Use Feng Sui, HeroQuest, Fudge, > d20 or anyone of a number of games that were designed > to present that cinematic style. > > If you get stuck in the middle of a ancient battle > without armour or a parrying weapon, get rolling less > than your POW 'cause the Gods are going to need to be > on your side. > > Ash > > --- Peter Maranci wrote: > > Forgive me; I can't help but take another swing at > > Dodge. > > I failed Statistics 101 in college (really); this > > sort of analysis is hard > > for me. But I took it again and got a B+, so I'm not > > hopeless. :D > > > > Let's look at a case in which both attacker and > > defender have a skill of > > 100%. > > > > On one out of five blows, the attacker will special. > > So all that the Dodger > > needs to do is move entirely out of combat before > > every fifth blow! > > > > Sorry! A statistics joke. Couldn't help myself. :D > > > > But seriously, in this case there is an 80% chance > > that a special hit will > > do full special damage to a defender who uses Dodge. > > Likewise, when the > > attacker criticals the chance is 95% (!) that the > > Dodger will effectively > > just *stand* there and take the full critical > > damage. > > > > But if the defender parries instead? > > > > When the attacker specials, there is only a 5% > > chance that the parrying > > weapon will NOT absorb its full AP in damage. > > There's a 5% chance that all > > damage will be negated entirely (on a critical > > parry), and only a 5% chance > > that the defender will simply have to take the blow > > unprotected. > > > > And the exact same numbers apply for criticals! > > > > (Yes, I've left the chance of fumbling out of the > > mix. They affect both > > types of defense equally, so it's not relevent.) > > > > So: > > > > Dodge gives an 80% chance of being fully damaged by > > a special attack. > > Parry gives a 5% chance of being fully damaged by a > > special attack. > > > > Dodge gives an 95% chance of being fully damaged by > > a critical attack. > > Parry gives a 5% chance of being fully damaged by a > > special attack. > > I'd argue that this disparity is both unrealistic === Message Truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rjmeints at aol.com Sat Apr 30 02:09:13 2005 From: rjmeints at aol.com (rjmeints at aol.com) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:09:13 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Gloranthan Classics In-Reply-To: <20050428184556.7FFD32226D1@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050428184556.7FFD32226D1@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <8C71AECEBB79EAC-C60-1E632@mblk-r42.sysops.aol.com> Nick, Volume 4 will contain Borderlands, Plunder, Runemasters and some additional praxian material from Nomad Gods. It will be over 300 pages in length. Volume 5 will probably contain all of the Genertela RQ3 boxed set, Missing Lands, stuff like the Holy Country article in the RQ companion and other geography related items from a variety of sources. Issaries and I are close to agreeing on the contents. They have already OKd the book in general. This could be the biggest book of the series. After that, who knows. Some people have asked me about various things like Judges Guild RQ stuff, which is probably not going to get reprinted by me, and Questworld, which I won't say is impossible. Nothing definite planned beyond Volume 5. People have specifically mentioned the RQ companion. Most of it will get reprinted, but it will be spread across several books, because its contents are all over the map and don't link to a single book topic. Feel free to privately email me with suggestions. Rick Meints www.glorantha.info From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 02:26:14 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:26:14 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Gloranthan Classics Message-ID: I know it was only a primitive computer printout, but I've always wanted a copy of Foes. I want the stats for the hamster with the "very cuddly" attack. :D -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From talmeta at talmeta.net Sat Apr 30 02:28:35 2005 From: talmeta at talmeta.net (Tal Meta) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:28:35 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Gloranthan Classics In-Reply-To: <8C71AECEBB79EAC-C60-1E632@mblk-r42.sysops.aol.com> References: <20050428184556.7FFD32226D1@boomstick.screwheads.net> <8C71AECEBB79EAC-C60-1E632@mblk-r42.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <427260B3.60808@talmeta.net> rjmeints at aol.com wrote: > After that, who knows. Some people have asked me about various > things like Judges Guild RQ stuff, which is probably not going > to get reprinted by me, and Questworld, which I won't say is > impossible. Nothing definite planned beyond Volume 5. I, personally, loved the idea behind Questworld. I even did a CC2 map of the principle continent, which Lynn Willis said he liked. :) I have since thoroughly bastardized it for my own nefarious purposes. -- talmeta at talmeta.net - Heretic, Dilettante, & God-Machine AIM - talmeta ICQ - 12594453 Homepage - i now know the depths i reach are limitless -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005 From takenegi at libero.it Sat Apr 30 02:34:16 2005 From: takenegi at libero.it (Alexandre Lanciani) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:34:16 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Broken RQ In-Reply-To: <20050429155643.0CBB32226C6@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: Re: Dodge, I don't know if it's broken. It is true that you need to equate the attacker's success to be able to Dodge, or you take the full damage, but if you successfully Dodge, you take no damage at all, whereas in a parry there's always the chance that the damage is over the parrying weapon's AP. Put differently, what weapon are you going to use to parry a Behemot's tail lash? Sure it is a lot more risky, mainly because to be an effective dodger you can't wear armor, and an adventurer's skill at Dodging is probably going to be lower than another one's at Parry (lower base chance, encumbrance penalty). RQ3 has a few of these "unstable" spots. I call them "unstable" because a small factor can make a big difference. When you wear armor, even if you don't parry the armor will still protect you, and the same goes for normal parry vs. special hit. The same can be said for the damage Resistance Sorcery spell. Since it requires a resistance roll, low damages (that would probably not harm you significantly anyway) are resisted, whereas it is the killing ones that have a greater chance to be inflicted. In my current campaign, nonetheless, I've ruled that Dodge works like parry, moreover those characters that want to use Dodge as their primary defense get a 25% base chance instead of the cultural parrying weapon. However, to avoid everybody using Dodge, I'm using slightly bigger ENC penalties (-5% per ENC calculated as per RQ2). Since the setting is low magic, there aren't a lot of protective spells around. Then again, there are armor piercing firearms, for which neither Dodge nor armor is going to help you a lot! Has anybody else complained about the hit locations? Perhaps it is only me, but sometimes I have a very hard time justifying how a limb can be broken and then mended in one minute with a critical first aid roll ("actually, it wasn't broken, but the pain was so great you thought it was"?). Or impaling wounds to the head that deal only 1 HP ("yeah the spear is stuck inside your cheek, but it's only a bruise!"). I think I will keep only hit locations for armor (if at all) and use a major wound rule a la Stormbringer. -- Regards, Alexandre. "Cinq Milliards de races d'hommes sur Terre Est-ce assez pour croiser le fer...?" From aescleal at btinternet.com Sat Apr 30 02:50:16 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:50:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge In-Reply-To: <20050429155631.37730.qmail@web41103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20050429165016.58395.qmail@web86102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I'm really only playing devil's advocate here but... To make RQ a swashbuckling system, you'd have to: - Reduce the effectiveness of armour (otherwise characters would still wear it); - Remove impaling versus shields or make shields useless (otherwise Erol's Rapier is going to get stuck in someone's shield); - Change the movement rules to encourage moving in combat, including heroic jumps, climbing while fighting, sliding down sails using only a dagger to slow you down; - Add rules to allow multiple parries of far greater effectiveness than splitting your parry / uber dodge skill would allow (maybe something like Stormbringer's parry/riposte idea); - Add "improvised weapon" skills to allow someone to pick up that candelabra and use it with deadly effect; - Have a system of "karma," "script immunity," or "hero points" to allow re-rolls (Heroes don't fumble); - Add bits for the girls - seduction, romance and having it off when both partners have one leg on the floor on opposite sides of the bed; - Change the wounding rules to add some sort of fatigue or subdual damage to allow someone a chance to punch someone out and then wake up 10 minutes later unharmed; - Include rules for psychological effects, witty ripostes and pithy epithets. I'm sure there are other's but my brain's melted. Cheers, Ash --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: [...] From pmaranci at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 02:55:01 2005 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:55:01 -0400 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge Message-ID: * Ashley Munday (aescleal at btinternet.com) wrote: > I think you and I have got different ideas of what dodging a critical means. > To you, if a defender fails to critically dodge, they just stand there. Actually that was a metaphor. But I think the 95% vs. 5% effectiveness really expresses my concern about the mechanic. And that's my primary concern here: the mathematics of RuneQuest. To be honest, I've almost never played a character who relied on Dodge. I've been forced to play D&D 3.5 for more than a year now, and I've had my face rubbed in what a badly-constructed ruleset it is. If it weren't for my experience with RQ I might not realize just how BADLY D&D sucks. So I take any flaw in the RQ rules a bit more seriously than I would otherwise. I have a sneaking suspicion that I haven't made the mathematical flaw in the Dodge rule clear to you, which is why I've been repeating myself. If my suspicion was wrong, I'm sorry. > Without magic combat is pretty bloody brutal - if you want to simulate "Tool > Shed of The Flying Choppers" then it's not the game for you. What I want to simulate is beside the point - as it happens, I haven't had a group to GM for for years. You seem to be basing your position on realism, and in my own odd experience of real-world combat (consisting of getting beaten up several times per day from grades 3 - 12), dodging IS effective and valuable. I just wasn't any GOOD at it. I have a DEX of 9. :D Perhaps you're a hardened combat veteran; I don't know. But even if you were, that wouldn't make your experience applicable to ancient modes of combat. If you're an SCA knight, I would actually consider that that experience to be *more* applicable. And of course it was SCAdians who originally designed RuneQuest, I believe. Speaking of which, are there any experienced SCA fighters here who'd like to address the question of the combat effectiveness of dodging? Steve, weren't you in the SCA? -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm From slposey at concentric.net Sat Apr 30 02:56:40 2005 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:56:40 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Re: Gloranthan Classics In-Reply-To: <427260B3.60808@talmeta.net> References: <20050428184556.7FFD32226D1@boomstick.screwheads.net> <8C71AECEBB79EAC-C60-1E632@mblk-r42.sysops.aol.com> <427260B3.60808@talmeta.net> Message-ID: <42726748.70202@concentric.net> Tal Meta wrote: > rjmeints at aol.com wrote: > >> After that, who knows. Some people have asked me about various >> things like Judges Guild RQ stuff, which is probably not going >> to get reprinted by me, and Questworld, which I won't say is >> impossible. Nothing definite planned beyond Volume 5. > > I, personally, loved the idea behind Questworld. Ditto. And I reiterate my fervent wish to know what ever became of Games Workshop's materials they supposedly prepared for RQ-Gateway/QuestWorld (mentioned in various places in issues of White Dwarf) that never saw the light of publication. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From aelarsen at mac.com Sat Apr 30 02:57:07 2005 From: aelarsen at mac.com (Andrew Larsen) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:57:07 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Armor and dodging In-Reply-To: <20050429155642.A72812226C5@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: > From: Leon Kirshtein > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Message-ID: <20050429132908.53606.qmail at web41108.mail.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > I am not saying that armor that armor is useless, just > not as usefull as the RQ3 imply vs. Dodge. > > Historically the heaviest armor, did not stick around > for very long and was mostly used for decorative > purposes in Europe. Chain armor was around for longer > period, but because it offered greater flexiability. > > In Japan armor was worn mostly to protect against > arrows and over missle weapons. And, according to > things I saw and read about recently, at the Battle of > Agincourt, the French armor was good enough vs the > English longbows, but prooved the Frenchs undoing do > to its weight, forcing the French to become bogged > down in mud and in some cases even drown in it. The details of what actually happened at Agincourt are open to considerable debate; the muddiness of the field does not seem to have been so severe that anyone could have drowned there. It may have helped break the French charge, but that seems to be its only contribution to the battle. Nor was battlefield plate armor ever so heavy that its wearer could not stand up or move around in it. This is essentially a Victorian myth, like chastity belts and the "right of the first night", that has no historical validity. I know one re-enactor who is extremely concerned with accurate armor (he's authored several academic monographs on the subject and publishes translations of medieval fighting manuals) who swears that he can do handstands and cartwheels in 14th and 15th century plate armor. On a different matter, the question that I've always had about Dodge is how to apply it to multiple attacks. If a single dodge roll applies to all incoming attacks in a round, what's the point of parrying at all? On the other hand, if you have to dodge each attack separately, the dodger is effectively getting multiple defensive actions, whereas someone who is using a shield only gets to parry one attack each round. Again, why parry? Am I missing something about the dodge rules? Andrew E. Larsen From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Apr 30 03:09:09 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:09:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Armor and dodging Message-ID: <20050429170910.70605.qmail@web41124.mail.yahoo.com> >The details of what actually happened at Agincourt are open to considerable debate; the muddiness of the field does not seem to have been so severe that anyone could have drowned there. It may have helped break the French charge, but that seems to be its only contribution to the battle. My knowledge comes primarily from several Discovery Channel shows I have seen on the subject. Based on that they showed the English longbow could not penetrate the French armor, and the muddiness of the field along with the channeling effect of the terrain was the major cause of the French defeat. The English bowman, who wore practically no armor were able to move in and amongst the heavily muddied French and dispatch them with ease. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > > > > > From: Leon Kirshtein > > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules > > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > Message-ID: <20050429132908.53606.qmail at web41108.mail.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > I am not saying that armor that armor is useless, just > > not as usefull as the RQ3 imply vs. Dodge. > > > > Historically the heaviest armor, did not stick around > > for very long and was mostly used for decorative > > purposes in Europe. Chain armor was around for longer > > period, but because it offered greater flexiability. > > > > In Japan armor was worn mostly to protect against > > arrows and over missle weapons. And, according to > > things I saw and read about recently, at the Battle of > > Agincourt, the French armor was good enough vs the > > English longbows, but prooved the Frenchs undoing do > > to its weight, forcing the French to become bogged > > down in mud and in some cases even drown in it. > > The details of what actually happened at Agincourt are open to > considerable debate; the muddiness of the field does not seem to have been > so severe that anyone could have drowned there. It may have helped break > the French charge, but that seems to be its only contribution to the battle. > Nor was battlefield plate armor ever so heavy that its wearer could not > stand up or move around in it. This is essentially a Victorian myth, like > chastity belts and the "right of the first night", that has no historical > validity. I know one re-enactor who is extremely concerned with accurate > armor (he's authored several academic monographs on the subject and > publishes translations of medieval fighting manuals) who swears that he can > do handstands and cartwheels in 14th and 15th century plate armor. > On a different matter, the question that I've always had about Dodge is > how to apply it to multiple attacks. If a single dodge roll applies to all > incoming attacks in a round, what's the point of parrying at all? On the > other hand, if you have to dodge each attack separately, the dodger is > effectively getting multiple defensive actions, whereas someone who is using > a shield only gets to parry one attack each round. Again, why parry? Am I > missing something about the dodge rules? > > Andrew E. Larsen > > > _______________________________________________ > 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!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From leonbk at yahoo.com Sat Apr 30 03:23:22 2005 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:23:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Swashbucling RQ Message-ID: <20050429172322.31739.qmail@web41109.mail.yahoo.com> - Reduce the effectiveness of armour (otherwise characters would still wear it); No need, the encumbance penalties to Dodge would take care of that. - Remove impaling versus shields or make shields useless (otherwise Erols Rapier is going to get stuck in someones shield); Shields would not be acultural weapon, so the base Parry would start at 5%, or you could just use it to cover locations. - Change the movement rules to encourage moving in combat, including heroic jumps, climbing while fighting, sliding down sails using only a dagger to slow you down; Acrobatics and Roleplaying - Add rules to allow multiple parries of far greater effectiveness than splitting your parry / uber dodge skill would allow (maybe something like Stormbringers parry/riposte idea); No, just use shaft on shaft rules and attack and parry with the same one handed weapon like a rappier. - Add improvised weapon skills to allow someone to pick up that candelabra and use it with deadly effect; Already exists imporputue - Have a system of karma, script immunity, or hero points to allow re-rolls (Heroes dont fumble); No need. - Add bits for the girls - seduction, romance and having it off when both partners have one leg on the floor on opposite sides of the bed; There are already skills for this - Change the wounding rules to add some sort of fatigue or subdual damage to allow someone a chance to punch someone out and then wake up 10 minutes later unharmed; Already in the rules - Include rules for psychological effects, witty ripostes and pithy epithets. Fast Talk Most of what Erol does is because his skills are extrimely high. Other, normals, can not do it. And, lets not foget the Quest World cult of Panash, which does offer Rune spells like In Like Flin --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > I'm really only playing devil's advocate here but... > To make RQ a swashbuckling system, you'd have to: > > - Reduce the effectiveness of armour (otherwise > characters would still wear it); > > - Remove impaling versus shields or make shields > useless (otherwise Erol's Rapier is going to get stuck > in someone's shield); > > - Change the movement rules to encourage moving in > combat, including heroic jumps, climbing while > fighting, sliding down sails using only a dagger to > slow you down; > > - Add rules to allow multiple parries of far greater > effectiveness than splitting your parry / uber dodge > skill would allow (maybe something like Stormbringer's > parry/riposte idea); > > - Add "improvised weapon" skills to allow someone to > pick up that candelabra and use it with deadly effect; > > - Have a system of "karma," "script immunity," or > "hero points" to allow re-rolls (Heroes don't fumble); > > - Add bits for the girls - seduction, romance and > having it off when both partners have one leg on the > floor on opposite sides of the bed; > > - Change the wounding rules to add some sort of > fatigue or subdual damage to allow someone a chance to > punch someone out and then wake up 10 minutes later > unharmed; > > - Include rules for psychological effects, witty > ripostes and pithy epithets. > > I'm sure there are other's but my brain's melted. > > Cheers, > > Ash > > --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: [...] > > _______________________________________________ > 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!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bick10 at comcast.net Sat Apr 30 03:26:39 2005 From: bick10 at comcast.net (bick10 at comcast.net) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:26:39 +0000 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Armor and dodging Message-ID: <042920051726.27215.42726E4F0007FB7F00006A4F2200750744CFCE050C070D@comcast.net> > Andrew E. Larsen > On a different matter, the question that I've always had about Dodge is > how to apply it to multiple attacks. If a single dodge roll applies to all > incoming attacks in a round, what's the point of parrying at all? On the > other hand, if you have to dodge each attack separately, the dodger is > effectively getting multiple defensive actions, whereas someone who is using > a shield only gets to parry one attack each round. Again, why parry? Am I > missing something about the dodge rules? One thing that is not being considered, is that every point of ENC reduces the Dodge by the same amount. So, just carying a sword, dagger, water... will lower the dodge. I had some players that went without armor and paid dearly when struck. Then there were others that like the armor and shield combo to save them. In my games, it has been a matter of choice and style, not so much Power Gaming. From katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com Sat Apr 30 04:09:44 2005 From: katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com (John Raner) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:09:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Armor and dodging In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050429180944.37243.qmail@web53705.mail.yahoo.com> --- Andrew Larsen wrote: > Nor was battlefield plate armor ever so heavy > that its wearer could not > stand up or move around in it. This is essentially > a Victorian myth, like > chastity belts and the "right of the first night", > that has no historical > validity. I know one re-enactor who is extremely > concerned with accurate > armor (he's authored several academic monographs on > the subject and > publishes translations of medieval fighting manuals) > who swears that he can > do handstands and cartwheels in 14th and 15th > century plate armor. I saw a documentary on the History channel that agreed with this and showed a short film of a re-enactor in 14-15th Century armour *doing* cartwheels and handstands. Hmm, I didn't know the "Droit du Signeur" was a myth..... Cheers, John "Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right." --- Ani DiFranco "There is no such thing as an obsolete weapon or tool, merely obsolete thinking in its employ." ---- Mark D. (CapnCarp at yahoo.com) 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 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Apr 30 07:45:25 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:45:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Armor and dodging In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050429214525.30864.qmail@web21127.mail.yahoo.com> --- bick10 at comcast.net wrote: > > One thing that is not being considered, is that > every point of ENC reduces the Dodge by the same > amount. Which is sort of maddening when you're playing a Strength 19 character and you get the same effects as a Strength 8 character.... That's broken. Regards, Lev Lev Lafayette lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Sat Apr 30 10:06:05 2005 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 19:06:05 -0500 Subject: [RQ-Rules] Heroic Greek combat (was Re: Armor and dodging) In-Reply-To: <20050429180944.37243.qmail@web53705.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050429180944.37243.qmail@web53705.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4272CBED.20100@sbcglobal.net> If we were doing a Greek Myth campaign, with much less armor than a typical RQ campaign, how would the combat system have to be changed in order to preserve the feel of the Iliad (should there need anything to be changed at all)? I'm working on such a campaign, but haven't made up my mind what game system I want to use yet. Guy (Hoyle) From tcantine at incentre.net Sat Apr 30 15:39:20 2005 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 23:39:20 -0600 Subject: [RQ-Rules] On dodging and other broken bits In-Reply-To: <20050429170928.5B0E02226C4@boomstick.screwheads.net> References: <20050429170928.5B0E02226C4@boomstick.screwheads.net> Message-ID: <33A6C3F8-B93A-11D9-ADDF-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Well, not broken, but let's say, kludged. I also favour the subtracting levels of success model for dodging, rather than the all-or-nothing requirement of matching the success level of the attack. Incidentally, I also have adopted this same approach for parry vs. thrusting attacks. The reason for this is twofold. First, successfully parrying a thrust is not a matter of stopping it with the armour value of the parrying weapon, but rather of deflecting it so it doesn't hit you at all. (The exception is with a normal shield parry, where getting a weapon impaled in your shield is a distinct possibility. But a special or critical should still leave your shield usable.) Second, this gives guys with swords a reason to slash. If someone tries to stab you with a broadsword, a fist parry is actually a pretty viable tactic. But not if he tries to slash, when your measly 3 AP fist will likely end up on the floor... I have also found knockback to be kind of incoherent, and put together an integrated system I've posted a couple of times. It is an attempt at a more or less complete mechanic for mechanics, including falling damage. If there's interest, I'll dig it out again. Speaking of falling, I noted a very annoying omission in the rules for falling. A successful Jump roll allows you to select the hit location you land on, but that has no effect on the damage you take. A simple fix is to say that on a successful Jump, your legs can each absorb 3 points of falling damage (which is consistent with the fist parry rule). Fatigue and ENC, I feel a desperate need to defend, because they should be factors, but I am not entirely comfortable with the current system. I would also like to see something integrated better with the related problems of food, shelter, sleep, and water. I tried to come up with something better, but haven't worked on it for a while. I'm sure I'll think of some other things to fix later, but it's time for me to go to bed now... -Tom From gianni at basicrps.com Sat Apr 30 19:38:25 2005 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:38:25 +0200 Subject: [RQ-Rules] On dodging and other broken bits In-Reply-To: <33A6C3F8-B93A-11D9-ADDF-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> References: <20050429170928.5B0E02226C4@boomstick.screwheads.net> <33A6C3F8-B93A-11D9-ADDF-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: <1114853905.42735211c5440@imp.webhuset.no> Hi gang What was wrong with RQII? Why were the rules modified for RQIII? With defence, you had a means of taking dodging, feints, etc. into account whilst still allowing the character to wear armour and to parry. In RQIII the character'd EITHER dodge OR parry. I've never SCA'd myself, but I can't see why you couldn't BOTH dodge AND parry. Cheers, Gianni From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Apr 30 19:50:57 2005 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 02:50:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Armor and dodging In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050430095058.30665.qmail@web21122.mail.yahoo.com> As much as I appreciate the efforts of Discoveryt channel in popular education their comments on Agincourt should be tempered by criticism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt). This however that does not discredit your or other commentators on the subject about potential maneuverability in one wearing armour. Basically, both claims are true. One _can_ do cartwheels in armour, but armour is _also_ heavy. As common sense would dictate, armour is designed to weight not so much that you are reduced to complete immobility however it still affords the appropriate protection of the vitals. Agincourt was however special circumstances. In that particular case it was the equivalent of trying to fight in plate mail whilst in a swamp. Regards, Lev --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > >The details of what actually happened at Agincourt > are open to > considerable debate; the muddiness of the field does > not seem to have been > so severe that anyone could have drowned there. It > may > have helped break > the French charge, but that seems to be its only > contribution to the battle. > > My knowledge comes primarily from several Discovery > Channel shows I have seen on the subject. Based on > that they showed the English longbow could not > penetrate the French armor, and the muddiness of the > field along with the channeling effect of the > terrain > was the major cause of the French defeat. The > English > bowman, who wore practically no armor were able to > move in and amongst the heavily muddied French and > dispatch them with ease. > > Leon > > --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Leon Kirshtein > > > Subject: Re: [RQ-Rules] RQ3: Broken Rules > > > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > > > Message-ID: > <20050429132908.53606.qmail at web41108.mail.yahoo.com> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > > > I am not saying that armor that armor is > useless, > just > > > not as usefull as the RQ3 imply vs. Dodge. > > > > > > Historically the heaviest armor, did not stick > around > > > for very long and was mostly used for decorative > > > purposes in Europe. Chain armor was around for > longer > > > period, but because it offered greater > flexiability. > > > > > > In Japan armor was worn mostly to protect > against > > > arrows and over missle weapons. And, according > to > > > things I saw and read about recently, at the > Battle of > > > Agincourt, the French armor was good enough vs > the > > > English longbows, but prooved the Frenchs > undoing > do > > > to its weight, forcing the French to become > bogged > > > down in mud and in some cases even drown in it. > > > > The details of what actually happened at > Agincourt are open to > > considerable debate; the muddiness of the field > does > not seem to have been > > so severe that anyone could have drowned there. > It > may have helped break > > the French charge, but that seems to be its only > contribution to the battle. > > Nor was battlefield plate armor ever so heavy > that its wearer could not > > stand up or move around in it. This is > essentially > a Victorian myth, like > > chastity belts and the "right of the first night", > that has no historical > > validity. I know one re-enactor who is extremely > concerned with accurate > > armor (he's authored several academic monographs > on > the subject and > > publishes translations of medieval fighting > manuals) > who swears that he can > > do handstands and cartwheels in 14th and 15th > century plate armor. > > On a different matter, the question that I've > always had about Dodge is > > how to apply it to multiple attacks. If a single > dodge roll applies to all > > incoming attacks in a round, what's the point of > parrying at all? On the > > other hand, if you have to dodge each attack > separately, the dodger is > > effectively getting multiple defensive actions, > whereas someone who is using > > a shield only gets to parry one attack each round. > > Again, why parry? Am I > > missing something about the dodge rules? > > > > Andrew E. Larsen > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.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 > Lev Lafayette lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Sat Apr 30 20:08:36 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:08:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Swashbucling RQ In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050430100836.43105.qmail@web86102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> A couple of points back: - Acrobatics isn't in any version of RQ IV I've ever seen published; - Splitting parries is not going to work against 5 cardinals guards unless you've got ~ 250% parry or dodge; - There sure as hell aren't skils for seduction and romance - there are some that are close, but no cigar; - Where are the rules to knock someone out? Buggered if I've seen them in 26 years of playing the game. If you clonk someone hard enough to knock them out, quite realistically most people don't get up again; - Fast talk is making someone believe something you say is true, it doesn't mean you can come up with something witty or pithy. Oratory might be a better bet; I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it'd take some (quite a bit of) work. I'll hold the same position I did before, use something like FUDGE and work from there, rather than starting with RQ and twisting it. Cheers, Ash --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > - Reduce the effectiveness of armour (otherwise > characters would still wear it); > > No need, the encumbance penalties to Dodge would > take > care of that. > > - Remove impaling versus shields or make shields > useless (otherwise Erols Rapier is going to get > stuck > in someones shield); > > Shields would not be acultural weapon, so the base > Parry would start at 5%, or you could just use it to > cover locations. > > - Change the movement rules to encourage moving in > combat, including heroic jumps, climbing while > fighting, sliding down sails using only a dagger to > slow you down; > > Acrobatics and Roleplaying > > - Add rules to allow multiple parries of far greater > effectiveness than splitting your parry / uber dodge > skill would allow (maybe something like > Stormbringers > parry/riposte idea); > > No, just use shaft on shaft rules and attack and > parry > with the same one handed weapon like a rappier. > > - Add improvised weapon skills to allow someone to > pick up that candelabra and use it with deadly > effect; > > > Already exists imporputue > > - Have a system of karma, script immunity, or hero > points to allow re-rolls (Heroes dont fumble); > > No need. > > - Add bits for the girls - seduction, romance and > having it off when both partners have one leg on the > floor on opposite sides of the bed; > > There are already skills for this > > - Change the wounding rules to add some sort of > fatigue or subdual damage to allow someone a chance > to > punch someone out and then wake up 10 minutes later > unharmed; > > Already in the rules > > - Include rules for psychological effects, witty > ripostes and pithy epithets. > > Fast Talk > > Most of what Erol does is because his skills are > extrimely high. Other, normals, can not do it. And, > lets not foget the Quest World cult of Panash, which > does offer Rune spells like In Like Flin > --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > wrote: > > I'm really only playing devil's advocate here > but... > > To make RQ a swashbuckling system, you'd have to: > > > > - Reduce the effectiveness of armour (otherwise > > characters would still wear it); > > > > - Remove impaling versus shields or make shields > > useless (otherwise Erol's Rapier is going to get > stuck > > in someone's shield); > > > > - Change the movement rules to encourage moving > in > > combat, including heroic jumps, climbing while > > fighting, sliding down sails using only a dagger > to > > slow you down; > > > > - Add rules to allow multiple parries of far > greater > > effectiveness than splitting your parry / uber > dodge > > skill would allow (maybe something like > Stormbringer's > > parry/riposte idea); > > > > - Add "improvised weapon" skills to allow someone > to > > pick up that candelabra and use it with deadly > effect; > > > > - Have a system of "karma," "script immunity," or > > "hero points" to allow re-rolls (Heroes don't > fumble); > > > > - Add bits for the girls - seduction, romance and > > having it off when both partners have one leg on > the > > floor on opposite sides of the bed; > > > > - Change the wounding rules to add some sort of > > fatigue or subdual damage to allow someone a > chance > to > > punch someone out and then wake up 10 minutes > later > > unharmed; > > > > - Include rules for psychological effects, witty > > ripostes and pithy epithets. > > > > I'm sure there are other's but my brain's melted. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Ash > > > > --- Leon Kirshtein wrote: > [...] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.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 aescleal at btinternet.com Sat Apr 30 20:13:13 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:13:13 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Dodge In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050430101313.7970.qmail@web86104.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> >From what I've seen*, dodging only ever occurs when someone wants to break off and run. Most of the time, with two people facing off with sword and shield, the sort of dodging that occurs is usually in conjunction with blocking with a shield. Cheers, Ash *Never seen an SCA thing, but I've seen and participated in quite a few metal weapons groups. --- Peter Maranci wrote: > * Ashley Munday (aescleal at btinternet.com) wrote: > > I think you and I have got different ideas of what > dodging a critical means. > > To you, if a defender fails to critically dodge, > they just stand there. > > Actually that was a metaphor. But I think the 95% > vs. 5% effectiveness > really expresses my concern about the mechanic. And > that's my primary > concern here: the mathematics of RuneQuest. To be > honest, I've almost > never played a character who relied on Dodge. > > I've been forced to play D&D 3.5 for more than a > year now, and I've > had my face rubbed in what a badly-constructed > ruleset it is. If it > weren't for my experience with RQ I might not > realize just how BADLY > D&D sucks. So I take any flaw in the RQ rules a bit > more seriously > than I would otherwise. > > I have a sneaking suspicion that I haven't made the > mathematical flaw > in the Dodge rule clear to you, which is why I've > been repeating > myself. If my suspicion was wrong, I'm sorry. > > > Without magic combat is pretty bloody brutal - if > you want to simulate "Tool > > Shed of The Flying Choppers" then it's not the > game for you. > > What I want to simulate is beside the point - as it > happens, I haven't > had a group to GM for for years. You seem to be > basing your position > on realism, and in my own odd experience of > real-world combat > (consisting of getting beaten up several times per > day from grades 3 - > 12), dodging IS effective and valuable. > > I just wasn't any GOOD at it. I have a DEX of 9. :D > > Perhaps you're a hardened combat veteran; I don't > know. But even if > you were, that wouldn't make your experience > applicable to ancient > modes of combat. If you're an SCA knight, I would > actually consider > that that experience to be *more* applicable. > > And of course it was SCAdians who originally > designed RuneQuest, I > believe. Speaking of which, are there any > experienced SCA fighters > here who'd like to address the question of the > combat effectiveness of > dodging? Steve, weren't you in the SCA? > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! > http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules > From aescleal at btinternet.com Sat Apr 30 20:15:48 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:15:48 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Armor and dodging In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050430101548.802.qmail@web86105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> The whole idea of armour slowing you down is daft - if you're strong enough it doesn't affect you at all. They should have just applied fatigue penalties and had down with it. Cheers, Ash --- Lev Lafayette wrote: > > --- bick10 at comcast.net wrote: > > > > One thing that is not being considered, is that > > every point of ENC reduces the Dodge by the same > > amount. > > Which is sort of maddening when you're playing a > Strength 19 character and you get the same effects > as > a Strength 8 character.... > > That's broken. > > Regards, > > > Lev > > Lev Lafayette > lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au > http://au.geocities.com/lev_lafayette > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.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 aescleal at btinternet.com Sat Apr 30 20:23:34 2005 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:23:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: [RQ-Rules] Heroic Greek combat (was Re: Armor and dodging) In-Reply-To: 6667 Message-ID: <20050430102334.1283.qmail@web86105.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> You might not have to do that much. As most weapons are impaling, they're easier to defend against. Give a few combats a whirl and see what happens. It might be a job making combats last long enough and seem "epic" though. Cheers, Ash --- Guy Hoyle wrote: > If we were doing a Greek Myth campaign, with much > less armor than a > typical RQ campaign, how would the combat system > have to be changed in > order to preserve the feel of the Iliad (should > there need anything to > be changed at all)? I'm working on such a campaign, > but haven't made up > my mind what game system I want to use yet. > > Guy (Hoyle) > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://www.crashbox.com/rq-rules > http://www.crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rq-rules >