From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Aug 1 01:28:17 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:28:17 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060731090504.83224.qmail@web27714.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060731090504.83224.qmail@web27714.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 31 Jul 2006, at 10:05, Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > The most important problem for me was the character creation didn't > provide enough points to create a decent beginning adventurer. Yes, > Legendary Abilities are here, but their pre-requisite are > definitely not for beginners. And it's a part of the rule that can > be removed very easily. > The most common problem with rpgs I think. Creating more advanced characters at char gen is somewhere but I don't have the book to hand to check if it's in the core book or the Companion (which isn't out). > Thomas Zunder a ?crit : > Who here has read the final rules, or even playtest 1.5? > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > Nouveau : t?l?phonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! D?couvez > les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international. > T?l?chargez la version beta. > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060731/13d18c63/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Aug 1 01:29:59 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:29:59 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Not me, Read the playtest V1.4 and that's as far as I got. Will > have to > make a plan and get the new rules or download the web version soon. > Tony That's a good plan isn't it? Download/read the SRD.. Matt Sprange said under the licence you could publish/rewrite the SRD as a new game, just don't mention RuneQuest.. I agree with Nick here tho', I'd rewrite it to BRP so why bother? From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Aug 1 01:31:07 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:31:07 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ Minis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mongoose had some loose packs of their new minis at Continuum. Looked fine. Could be a nother nice side effect, a new line of RQ/Glorantha minis. On 31 Jul 2006, at 14:05, Den, Tony T wrote: > Some punter is flogging some still in package Ral Partha RQ minis > on eBay. Bit dear for my exchange rate tastes b ut maybe someone is > keen: > > http://cgi.ebay.com/RUNEQUEST-LOT-OF-46-MINIATURES-NEW-IN-PACKAGES- > MINT_W0QQitemZ220010874647QQihZ012QQcategoryZ16489QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem > > Tony > > ______________________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > ______________________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060731/567082d3/attachment.html From adam at charioteer.org Tue Aug 1 06:04:03 2006 From: adam at charioteer.org (Adam Canning) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:04:03 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060731153014.31E36A13F93@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <44CE7043.11911.F7DF33@adam.charioteer.org> > Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:28:17 +0100 > From: Thomas Zunder > > The most important problem for me was the character creation didn't > > provide enough points to create a decent beginning adventurer. Yes, > > Legendary Abilities are here, but their pre-requisite are > > definitely not for beginners. And it's a part of the rule that can > > be removed very easily. > > > > The most common problem with rpgs I think. Creating more advanced > characters at char gen is somewhere but I don't have the book to hand > to check if it's in the core book or the Companion (which isn't out). MRQ page 103-4. Sort of. THere not terribly impressive. -- Adam Canning From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Aug 1 06:50:07 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:50:07 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44CE7043.11911.F7DF33@adam.charioteer.org> References: <44CE7043.11911.F7DF33@adam.charioteer.org> Message-ID: Nope, sketchy like all of it. I resist the urge to form a company to write the definitive 'RuneQuest as it should have been written' books! On 31 Jul 2006, at 21:04, Adam Canning wrote: >> Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 16:28:17 +0100 >> From: Thomas Zunder >>> The most important problem for me was the character creation didn't >>> provide enough points to create a decent beginning adventurer. Yes, >>> Legendary Abilities are here, but their pre-requisite are >>> definitely not for beginners. And it's a part of the rule that can >>> be removed very easily. >>> >> >> The most common problem with rpgs I think. Creating more advanced >> characters at char gen is somewhere but I don't have the book to hand >> to check if it's in the core book or the Companion (which isn't out). > > MRQ page 103-4. Sort of. THere not terribly impressive. > > -- > Adam Canning > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Aug 1 19:28:50 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:28:50 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060727215030.000FF9EF91A@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060801092850.16559.qmail@web51001.mail.yahoo.com> Nick Middleton: [Guy Hoyle]: >>One of the key concepts of the original RQ was that everybody had access >>to some kind of magic for their daily lives. I wonder how they can call >>it RuneQuest if this isn't the case. > > Because Mongoose have paid Issaries Inc a tidy sum (with probably a per > book component) for the right to use the Trademark... To be fair, the product does look like RQ. I played it at Continuum and it was recognisably RQ and easy enough to use. It didn't have the depth of RQ that we are used to, but it is early days. There were some bits that felt very odd indeed - parrying involved the attacker making another attack roll, for instance, and having all your actions at once is very odd, but it was fast and fun enough. Everyone having access to magic is more of a Gloranthan issue than a RQ one - after all everyone in HeroQuest has access to magic and that isn't RQ. I prefer RQ3-style magic, but they do say there are many other magic systems that can be used, so perhaps we will see better ones. Frank Filz: >Simon Phipp wrote: >> These days, I like supplements for the background and scenario >> ideas rather than the rules themselves, so I'm not that bothered if >> the rules stink to high heaven, as long as they generate more >> information. > > This is sort of where I am at this point. Though, for purposes of being a > bit easier to recruit players, I wish the rules were more compatible. RQ3 is > definitely enough different from RQ2 that I really don't use but a few bits > from it, but at least it was similar enough that someone with only exposure > to it would at least have a lot of the general concepts down. I'll hold > final judgement on MRQ until I see it. RQ3 is definitely different to RQ2, but you can play RQ3 using RQ2 supplements. I used to want to convert everything, including HPs, SRs, APs and locations, but now I just assume that the opponents are a little bit odd. I convert locations on the fly - he hits the right leg, no matter what the number in the book is, and use the written SRs and APs for weapons. It makes things a lot easier. Using RQ2/3 in RQM is a bit different as the setting has changed comletely, so a lot of it no longer applies - no Lunars, for instance. However, ignore SRs, only think about APs when parrying, magic is problematic as the new system is very different from the old one, but overall you could probably use an RQ2/3 scenario in RQM on the fly without any written conversions. Having said that, I haven't had the chance to read the rules from cover to cover, yet, as I've been dipping in them. I'll probably find some rules I hate and won't use, but that's par for the course, I'm afraid. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060801/5ed3ef08/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Aug 1 19:49:27 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:49:27 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060728185053.1BEF29F9465@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060801094927.1743.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Peter Maranci: > You know what I find interesting? That apparently no one from Mongoose is > reading this list. They're certainly not commenting on it, anyway. To be fair, the only one of the RQ2/RQ3 team who comments on this list is Steve Perrin, so you could say the same about RQ2/3. I know Paul Cardwell is quite active, but that isn't exactly RQ, although probably very similar I hasten to add. If anyone from Mongoose commented now, or over the last few months, they would have been subjected to a Flame War and wouldn't have achieved anything. It's better to let things die down, let people actually read the rules and possibly play games using them, let people get the supplements and use them and then see what people think. > You'd think that if they were really interested in RuneQuest, they'd be > here. But they're not. Not particularly. This has always been a forum for gamers, people who play RQ or have played RQ, rather than developers or publishers. Why would they be interested in a forum that is designed to change the rules of their games? > On the DBRP side, Jason Durall (DBRP co-author, if anyone doesn't know) was > on this list, and even participated; I don't know if he's still here though. > Of course, he's not a Chaosium staffer. And Chaosium and Charlie have been > awfully uncommunicative, as far as I can tell. Well, he is developing a different game and it will probably have its own list. At the moment he is very active on the DBRP Playtest, as would be expected. When DBRP actually comes out, we will be able to look at it and see how it compares to RQ. After all, we don't have in-depth rules discussions on Stormbringer/Hawkmoon/CoC here as this isn't a generic BRP list, although BRP is, and always should be, connected at the hip to RQ. Anyway, what could he say? RQM is rubbish and DBRP is brilliant? Game designers are on to a loser when commenting on this kind of forum. By the way, I seem to be supporting Mongoose in this. Does that make me a lackey as well as Tom Zunder? It seems unfortunate that some of us have to make accusations about people's impartiality and write offensive emails. Everyone has a view and should be able to express it. I'm not a moderator so my opinions on this don't actually matter, but I don't particularly like seeing emails attacking people for making comments. Sure, attack the comments and say the person is talking absolutely rubbish, but please don't attack the person or question his impartiality. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060801/c90b0c79/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Tue Aug 1 20:51:26 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:51:26 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060801094927.1743.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060801094927.1743.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <99BCB413-E354-4DB8-8A51-7089E2F298C9@zunder.org.uk> On 1 Aug 2006, at 10:49, Simon Phipp wrote: > > By the way, I seem to be supporting Mongoose in this. Does that > make me a lackey as well as Tom Zunder? It seems Thanks Simon.. it's cool. Now I have the final rules I am in the odd position of being pleased that they are coherent, stand up, have very close stat blocks, but actually it goes the wrong way for me and I will play BRP. But I will evaluate their Arthur and lankhmar stuff when it's out. I may even write a few Open Licence pdfs and maybe put them up on rpgnow or somewhere just to test the water.. From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Aug 1 23:24:33 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:24:33 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060801094927.1743.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060728185053.1BEF29F9465@mini.thinbits.net> <20060801094927.1743.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 8/1/06, Simon Phipp wrote: > > Peter Maranci: > > On the DBRP side, Jason Durall (DBRP co-author, if anyone doesn't know) > was > > on this list, and even participated; I don't know if he's still here > though. > > Of course, he's not a Chaosium staffer. And Chaosium and Charlie have > been > > awfully uncommunicative, as far as I can tell. > > Well, he is developing a different game and it will probably have its own > list. > Its own list? I hadn't thought of that. Since everything I've seen of DBRP so far is closer to RQ than MRQ is, I assumed that the new BRP (apparently the "Deluxe" has been dropped?) would be discussed here as well. Of course Chaosium or Jason or whoever might start their own BRP list, but it seems to me that this would either be redundant or an unfortunate division of the fan base. > At the moment he is very active on the DBRP Playtest, as would be > expected. When DBRP actually comes out, we will be able to look at it and > see how it compares to RQ. > I suppose so, but the new BRP playtest rules (have you read them?) are exactly what RQ4 should have been - or at least, that's what I think. And given the modular rule approach that was used, the new BRP (we REALLY need a new acronym to distinguish it from "old" BRP - perhaps NBRP?) can exactly emulate RQ3. I suppose there could be massive changes for the worse between now and publication, but so far Jason has shown excellent judgement; I'd frankly be surprised if he screwed the new BRP up. Chaosium may not be able to SUPPORT it properly, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish. > By the way, I seem to be supporting Mongoose in this. Does that make me a > lackey as well as Tom Zunder? It seems unfortunate that some of us have to > make accusations about people's impartiality and write offensive emails. > Everyone has a view and should be able to express it. I'm not a moderator so > my opinions on this don't actually matter, but I don't particularly like > seeing emails attacking people for making comments. Sure, attack the > comments and say the person is talking absolutely rubbish, but please don't > attack the person or question his impartiality. > Um, is this is directed at me? If so, you seem to have confused me for someone else. I didn't criticise anyone recently, and certainly not Tom. I don't like MRQ or Greg - I've made no secret of that - but I haven't been attacking anybody. Hell, believe it or not I've actually HELD OFF talking about MRQ here, because I don't want to be accused of being too negative! ->Peter -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060801/fa28dff9/attachment.html From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Tue Aug 1 23:41:20 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 15:41:20 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest Message-ID: You will never get it right. Problem is that a larrge portion of role players all have their own ideas and needs and you will never be able to please all of them. Then again, this talk of a 1000 page + Advanced BRP book may be a ways to closing the gap..... -----Original Message----- Thomas Zunder Nope, sketchy like all of it. I resist the urge to form a company to write the definitive 'RuneQuest as it should have been written' books! > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 styopa1 at gmail.com Wed Aug 2 00:21:57 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:21:57 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56e64e7a0608010721r585d0450gc66aaa1a47216948@mail.gmail.com> The real problem being that while the market place for RPGs is becoming increasingly fractious (in 1978 there was only really 1 set of rules out there...then with each 'generation' of rules development it's at least tripling the options), it's simultaneously withering generally. Electronic gaming, for a whole host of reasons, has nearly swallowed the RPG market. I went to Gen Con in 1982, and it was a few middle-aged dudes but mostly college/high school kids. I went to Gen Con the last year it was in MECCA and (if you looked ONLY at the RPG rooms) the median age had crept up at least 8 years. Now look, even our beloved RQ (bifurcated along RQ2/RQ3 lines for decades), calved of the HQ/HW fans, now will subdivide again into "original" RQ (2 or 3), DBRP, and MRQ. Sigh. We're going to come to gaming conventions, have 10 people sit around a table to play "RuneQuest" and have each person expecting a different rules system. As much as I dislike it as a system, that alone was the value of the d20 concept, to re-unify the shrinking RPG community. But now we've all been spoiled by systems that cater to our individual gaming predilections and the genie has escaped from the bottle, I fear he shall never return. On 8/1/06, Den, Tony T wrote: > > You will never get it right. Problem is that a larrge portion of role > players all have their own ideas and needs and you will never be able to > please all of them. Then again, this talk of a 1000 page + Advanced BRP > book may be a ways to closing the gap..... > > -----Original Message----- > Thomas Zunder > > > Nope, sketchy like all of it. > I resist the urge to form a company to write the definitive 'RuneQuest > as it should have been written' books! > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060801/933886de/attachment.html From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Aug 2 01:55:32 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:55:32 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0608010721r585d0450gc66aaa1a47216948@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060801155532.12869.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Watcha all, This is a strange beast innit? I bought a copy over the weekend, read it saturday night at Continuum, watched the first half of a playtest game but I haven't had the chance to playtest it myself yet. Reading the rules... It steals loads of concepts from DnD*. It's more like a RuneQuesty combat system pasted over the top of D20 concepts (attributes being cock all use except at low levels for skills as direct skill bonuses, will, reflex and fortitude saving throws, feats, armour check penalties **). The magic system sucks. Gratuitous changes to things that didn't need changing - what's wrong with the word "variable"? Did Chaosium TM it or something? Integration of runes should be supplied by cults, not pieces of chuff lying around with runes stamped on them. Most runes get naff all spells - "I have integrated Orlanth, King of the God's Rune, feel the wrath of my extinguish spell!" Magic points come back a lot faster. I have no idea why as most characters won't be able to use so many of them. Variable spells have to be learnt at all the levels you want to use them - you just can't learn Bladesharp 4 and use Bladesharp 1, 2 and 3 anymore. The Gloranthan creatures section... Oh dear. Just read the descriptions of Elves and Dwarves. The creature piccies are a hoot - buy this book for the picture of the duck, it's a classic that Dobyski would be proud have been proud of. The adventuring section. Characters heal a lot faster than they did. I'm not surprised seeing as they've shafted magical healing. Fatigue is a bit nasty as they've added to the worst bits of RQIII (the extra bookeeping) while keeping the random element of RQIV. Other bits: Loads of irritating changes to weapon and armour values (I can imagine combat going on a lot longer as a critical won't necessarily end a fight against someone in heavy armour), some of the feats have crap names ("Born in the saddle??" You need to 90% ride to learn the damned feat, hardly something someone does from the womb) and others are just crap (decapitate foe), experience is way too slow at low levels (it's going to take an age to get the 5 skills at 80% to become a Runelord). Still, these changes will enable Mongoose to do automagic conversions of their existing D20 Conan line to RQ fairly easily (DC X saving throws will convert yo something like resisilience/persistence/dodge checks with a 100 - X x 5 penalty) so it's probably mission accomplished as far as they're concerned. The playtest game I watched reminded me of playing low level characters in RQII - fresh roll ups with training on credit. They failed about 2/3 of all skill checks they tried. However it had a distinct DnD feel - the characters were fairly unkillable while they had hero points and no one took a really nasty injury. Having said that DnD and RQ are so close in the spectrum of RPGs these days that's probably not surprising. The characters didn't have that "I'm good at something" feel that most starting RQIII characters had. I'd like to see a higher level game with something more than the "Rune Magic" *** from the book to see what that's like. I think I could probably sell this game to a bunch of hardened DnD players as it's got loads of things they're used to doing - optimising feat progressions, earning prerequisites all over the shop, digging around for spells, magic being the purview of a subset of characters. However, I doubt the real D20 junkies will like it as much. Advancement is way too slow for one thing. Whether hardened RQ players will like it, who knows? I can't see the point but then I'm one of the grumpy old buggers. Cheers, Ash * Which knicked loads of them from RQ in the first place, but they haven't been recycled that well in places. ** I love the idea that leather trews hinder you picking a lock - "Oooo, the leather's chaffing a bit, should have worn underpants." *** Lies I tell you, it's not Rune Magic, it's battle or spirit magic which cost you POW to learn. From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Wed Aug 2 02:44:59 2006 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:44:59 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: new BRP testing list (was Discussion of RuneQuest rules) References: <20060801155551.1EEA2A20547@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <008f01c6b589$d44cae60$6a259109@2373993GCH7> > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:24:33 -0400 > From: "Peter Maranci" > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >> >> Peter Maranci: >> > On the DBRP side, Jason Durall (DBRP co-author, if anyone doesn't >> know) >> was >> > on this list, and even participated; I don't know if he's still here >> though. >> > Of course, he's not a Chaosium staffer. And Chaosium and Charlie have >> been >> > awfully uncommunicative, as far as I can tell. >> >> Well, he is developing a different game and it will probably have its >> own >> list. >> > > Its own list? I hadn't thought of that. Since everything I've seen of DBRP > so far is closer to RQ than MRQ is, I assumed that the new BRP (apparently > the "Deluxe" has been dropped?) would be discussed here as well. > > Of course Chaosium or Jason or whoever might start their own BRP list, but > it seems to me that this would either be redundant or an unfortunate > division of the fan base. > > Yes - there is a separate list. From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Aug 2 03:22:18 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:22:18 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: new BRP testing list (was Discussion of RuneQuest rules) In-Reply-To: <008f01c6b589$d44cae60$6a259109@2373993GCH7> References: <20060801155551.1EEA2A20547@mini.thinbits.net> <008f01c6b589$d44cae60$6a259109@2373993GCH7> Message-ID: Care to elaborate on that? Do you mean the Yahoo playtest group, or something else? ->Peter On 8/1/06, David Gordon wrote: > > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:24:33 -0400 > > From: "Peter Maranci" > > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest > > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > >> > >> Peter Maranci: > >> > On the DBRP side, Jason Durall (DBRP co-author, if anyone doesn't > >> know) > >> was > >> > on this list, and even participated; I don't know if he's still here > >> though. > >> > Of course, he's not a Chaosium staffer. And Chaosium and Charlie have > >> been > >> > awfully uncommunicative, as far as I can tell. > >> > >> Well, he is developing a different game and it will probably have its > >> own > >> list. > >> > > > > Its own list? I hadn't thought of that. Since everything I've seen of > DBRP > > so far is closer to RQ than MRQ is, I assumed that the new BRP > (apparently > > the "Deluxe" has been dropped?) would be discussed here as well. > > > > Of course Chaosium or Jason or whoever might start their own BRP list, > but > > it seems to me that this would either be redundant or an unfortunate > > division of the fan base. > > > > > > Yes - there is a separate list. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060801/2026c2e3/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Aug 2 03:27:02 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Tom Zunder) Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:27:02 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0608010721r585d0450gc66aaa1a47216948@mail.gmail.com> References: Message-ID: <44CF9CF6.19685.5780C79@tom.zunder.org.uk> It's all BRP.. I say down and ran a game on Sunday with a hacked about Elric! sheet and half the players were playing RQ3 and half Elric! and we have RQ spells but no RQ3 rulebook so when we needed to know we borrowed a MRQ book from Mongoose and used that instead! Tom Zunder http://www.zunder.org.uk http://tzunder.livejournal.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tzunder/ ICQ: 1521799 MSN: tom at zunder.org.uk Y!: tzunder Google Talk: tom.zunder From dzappone at metamythos.net Wed Aug 2 04:31:38 2006 From: dzappone at metamythos.net (Dan Zappone) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:31:38 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: new BRP testing list Message-ID: <006d01c6b598$bac88e00$8fb51805@activepower.com> Actually there are two lists for BRP I know of not counting the playtest group. There's this one (which get's a fair amount of activity): http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/brpsystem/ And this one (third link from the end, much much less activity of late): http://www.basicrps.com/indexen.html I think both were started by Gianni Vacca (I think he's on this list so he can correct me if I'm wrong.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Maranci" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 12:22 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: new BRP testing list (was Discussion of RuneQuestrules) > Care to elaborate on that? Do you mean the Yahoo playtest group, or > something else? > > ->Peter From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Aug 2 04:46:02 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 19:46:02 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060801155532.12869.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <20060801155532.12869.qmail@web86106.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <86D1B82E-75D3-4EED-A8DC-C4D455BC7DC6@zunder.org.uk> On 1 Aug 2006, at 16:55, Ashley Munday wrote: > This is a strange beast innit? > Yup > I bought a copy over the weekend, read it saturday > night at Continuum, watched the first half of a > playtest game but I haven't had the chance to playtest > it myself yet. Ditto, stayed up late and then read MRQ! > > It steals loads of concepts from DnD*. It's more like > a RuneQuesty combat system pasted over the top of D20 > concepts (attributes being cock all use except at low > levels for skills as direct skill bonuses, will, > reflex and fortitude saving throws, feats, armour > check penalties **). > It certainly shows the writers mindset. However I'd say that it's combat actions and initiative as a d20 roll plus weapon and Dex modifier that is obviously d20 influenced. RQ attributes had little use in combat, legensary abilities are definitely like feats ( and I hate em), but haven't many BRP games had armour penalties? > The magic system sucks. Gratuitous changes to things > that didn't need changing - what's wrong with the word > "variable"? Did Chaosium TM it or something? > Integration of runes should be supplied by cults, not > pieces of chuff lying around with runes stamped on > them. Most runes get naff all spells - "I have > integrated Orlanth, King of the God's Rune, feel the > wrath of my extinguish spell!" Magic points come back > a lot faster. I have no idea why as most characters > won't be able to use so many of them. Variable spells > have to be learnt at all the levels you want to use > them - you just can't learn Bladesharp 4 and use > Bladesharp 1, 2 and 3 anymore. > 1: The basic system doesn't suck, it's actually quite a cute idea and make for a suitable system for low magic worlds. 2: Yup, there are almost no runes and some of the associations are very very weird. 3: They're design choices that make for a much lower magic game with specialist mages. Like many fantasy settings, which means they'll have to tweak it for Glorantha. > > The adventuring section. Characters heal a lot faster > than they did. I'm not surprised seeing as they've > shafted magical healing. Fatigue is a bit nasty as > they've added to the worst bits of RQIII (the extra > bookeeping) while keeping the random element of RQIV. > That sums up a lot of it, like RQ but more fiddly. Actually that is a classic Mongoose pattern when I think of it. > Other bits: Loads of irritating changes to weapon and > armour values (I can imagine combat going on a lot > longer as a critical won't necessarily end a fight > against someone in heavy armour), some of the feats > have crap names ("Born in the saddle??" You need to > 90% ride to learn the damned feat, hardly something > someone does from the womb) and others are just crap > (decapitate foe), experience is way too slow at low > levels (it's going to take an age to get the 5 skills > at 80% to become a Runelord). Leg abs, know my views. Not sure about experience, I certainly shan't drop the old way for it. > > Still, these changes will enable Mongoose to do > automagic conversions of their existing D20 Conan line > to RQ fairly easily (DC X saving throws will convert > yo something like resisilience/persistence/dodge > checks with a 100 - X x 5 penalty) so it's probably > mission accomplished as far as they're concerned. Bet that isn't what they thought. BUT conceptually it is how they think. > > The playtest game I watched reminded me of playing low > level characters in RQII - fresh roll ups with > training on credit. They failed about 2/3 of all skill > checks they tried. However it had a distinct DnD feel > - the characters were fairly unkillable while they had > hero points and no one took a really nasty injury. > Having said that DnD and RQ are so close in the > spectrum of RPGs these days that's probably not > surprising. The characters didn't have that "I'm good > at something" feel that most starting RQIII characters > had. I'd like to see a higher level game with > something more than the "Rune Magic" *** from the book > to see what that's like. The people I spoke to said it was cringingly slow despite the GMs being good and clued up. Then again they were Savage Worlds players like me. Remember that most PCs in RQ3 as writ are pathetic farmers. > > I think I could probably sell this game to a bunch of > hardened DnD players as it's got loads of things > they're used to doing - optimising feat progressions, > earning prerequisites all over the shop, digging > around for spells, magic being the purview of a subset > of characters. However, I doubt the real D20 junkies > will like it as much. Advancement is way too slow for > one thing. Whether hardened RQ players will like it, > who knows? I can't see the point but then I'm one of > the grumpy old buggers. > Actually I feel the same. It's different and I won't ever run it, but it'll bridge to the d20 crowd and pull them over to rolling d100. From ncford at gmail.com Wed Aug 2 05:26:57 2006 From: ncford at gmail.com (Neil Ford) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 20:26:57 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <001d01c6b23d$8bd3f1b0$de384d18@mesohordey> References: <44C96E28.2000801@gmail.com> <07FB9926-6495-44C0-B6FF-5E39C968F460@zunder.org.uk> <001d01c6b23d$8bd3f1b0$de384d18@mesohordey> Message-ID: <655db9e10608011226s706b7440qa56181e1a101c5b4@mail.gmail.com> On 7/28/06, Newton Philis wrote: > > Not only is it from a large gaming company (Mongoose) - which offers to keep suppliments > coming for some time, but there will be familiar (modern) game mechanics they all enjoy. > I wouldn't be so sure on that point. From discussions over the weekend at Continuum, if Second Age Glorantha doesn't sell really well, Mongoose will can it and concentrate on other settings. Sounds almost like they'll fulfil their contractual obligations and call it a day. Neil. From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Aug 2 05:51:27 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 20:51:27 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <655db9e10608011226s706b7440qa56181e1a101c5b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <44C96E28.2000801@gmail.com> <07FB9926-6495-44C0-B6FF-5E39C968F460@zunder.org.uk> <001d01c6b23d$8bd3f1b0$de384d18@mesohordey> <655db9e10608011226s706b7440qa56181e1a101c5b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9CCD1751-0659-46C4-A759-1A675FEA7075@zunder.org.uk> On 1 Aug 2006, at 20:26, Neil Ford wrote: >> > I wouldn't be so sure on that point. From discussions over the weekend > at Continuum, if Second Age Glorantha doesn't sell really well, > Mongoose will can it and concentrate on other settings. Sounds almost > like they'll fulfil their contractual obligations and call it a day. > Indeed, and which company wouldn't? Natch.. I think they want to see if it flies as a new house system to replace/ supplement d20. A Hyboria book for RQ was mentioned and we know of Arthur/Lhankmar. From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Wed Aug 2 06:01:14 2006 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:01:14 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: new BRP testing list (was Discussion of References: <20060801195145.2072EA22FA3@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <010001c6b5a5$3e63b170$6a259109@2373993GCH7> > Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:22:18 -0400 > From: "Peter Maranci" > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: new BRP testing list (was Discussion of > RuneQuest rules) > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > Care to elaborate on that? Do you mean the Yahoo playtest group, or > something else? > > ->Peter Actually - I misread your mail and the rest of the thread. Doh! You already know about the play test, Jason did recruit most of the playtesters from this group and the BRP list. I realise now that you meant that the rules would be discussed on this list after they are published. I would agree with you. Ignore my mail. :-) Tired after spending four days without much sleep at Continuum. David From katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com Wed Aug 2 10:50:13 2006 From: katkin_kalvin at yahoo.com (John Raner) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: new BRP testing list In-Reply-To: <006d01c6b598$bac88e00$8fb51805@activepower.com> Message-ID: <20060802005013.1702.qmail@web54212.mail.yahoo.com> --- Dan Zappone wrote: > Actually there are two lists for BRP I know of not > counting the playtest > group. > > There's this one (which get's a fair amount of > activity): > http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/brpsystem/ > > And this one (third link from the end, much much > less activity of late): > http://www.basicrps.com/indexen.html > > I think both were started by Gianni Vacca (I think > he's on this list so he > can correct me if I'm wrong.) The first list was started by me and grew out of Gianni's BaSIC RPS list. One can subscribe to Gianni's list by going here: http://www.basicrps.com/indexen.html and clicking on the third link from the bottom. Cheers, John Gypsy Punk Revolution: http://www.gogolbordello.com/ They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand out in the rain and say "Shit, it's raining!" ---- Ruby Thewes 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 sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 2 11:34:21 2006 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 18:34:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] HeroQuest Rules under RQ In-Reply-To: <20060801195145.2072EA22FA3@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060802013421.97424.qmail@web53905.mail.yahoo.com> At risk of taking us away from endless discussions of MRQ, I am getting ready to run my first HeroQuest under RQ. My players, normally an obstreperous bunch, have taken the not-so-subtle hints that they need to stop one of their longtime enemies from completing his long journey back from the land of the dead (where they sent him a year ago). Below is my framework for HeroQuests, with my design notes in square brackets. I am interested in what others have done, and any comments list members may have: Every HeroQuest has a power rating. THis one is Power Level 2. [This allows me to have some measure of the difficulty of the quest, and will give the players and characters a sense as well]. When embarking on the quest, anyone who wants to be a full participant must sacrifice POW equal to the Power Level of the Quest. On successfully completing the quest, those who sacrificed POW automatically get the same number of chances to increase POW (roll under 21-POWx5% for 1D3-1 increase) as the points of POW they sacrificed. [This matches my vision for most spirit quests: there is a sacrifice at the start and typically the quester must complete the mission despite some handicaps. The POW rolls on successful completion are a concession to my player's generally whinging whenever they have to sacrifice POW for 'nothing' and provide an ongoing incentive to complete the quest when things get tough. My players have displayed a tendency to bail out if they think they can avoid repercussions]. Characters can participate in the quest without sacrificing POW, but they do so as supporters. There are no encounters tailored to them, nor is there specific treasure for them. [In the current Quest, the hero found armor and a weapon along the way. Those who sacrificed got a piece of armor and a weapon when they completed each stage of the quest. Those who did not sacrifice POW got nothing. At one encounter, there is one monster per person who sacrificed POW, and in another place each full participant must fight a different disease spirit). All skills used during the course of the HeroQuest are divided by the Power Level of the HeroQuest. On returning, skill advancement rolls are easier and only need to beat the reduced skill level. [So a fighter with a Parry that is normally 100% will only Parry 50% of the time on this quest. On returning, assuming he successfully parried, he only needs to beat the 50% to get a skill increase.] The Quest itself will follow a standard pattern, starting from Human lands, have a recognizable starting point (ceremony or triggering event), involve a journey on the mythic plane and ultimately a return to normal time. The myth that they are following has well-defined events, and the encounters the heroes face will mirror the myth without being exactly the same. [The Myth has an encounter with a poisonous belligerent snake in whose belly the hero finds a sword, in the played version they encounter belligerent scorpions, one per active participant, each with an appropriate weapon in its nest. In the original, the hero has a rival whom he meets in the final battle. In our hero's version they will meet their old rival and have a chance to defeat him before he returns from the dead]. That's it -- no other special rules. Is anyone doing anything similar for rules and structure? Steve __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Aug 2 12:28:05 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:28:05 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: new BRP testing list In-Reply-To: <20060802005013.1702.qmail@web54212.mail.yahoo.com> References: <006d01c6b598$bac88e00$8fb51805@activepower.com> <20060802005013.1702.qmail@web54212.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This brings up an interesting issue. Those lists covered previous versions of BRP, which were closely related but not identical to RQ. The new BRP effectively IS RuneQuest, more so than the game that's now being published under that name. So...now what? At a guess, there's going to be a LOT of redunancy between the two lists. I don't see any way out of it; the new BRP is obviously an appropriate topic for the original BRP lists, and it's also an appropiate topic for RQ-Rules. Nor do I imagine that either listowner would be willing to allow their list to be merged into the other one. I suppose that as is usual in such situations, the status quo will prevail. I wonder how much overlap there has been between the two lists up to now? ->Peter On 8/1/06, John Raner wrote: > > --- Dan Zappone wrote: > > Actually there are two lists for BRP I know of not > > counting the playtest > > group. > > > > The first list was started by me and grew out of > Gianni's BaSIC RPS list. > > One can subscribe to Gianni's list by going here: > http://www.basicrps.com/indexen.html and clicking on > the third link from the bottom. > > Cheers, > John > > > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060801/600e2eac/attachment.html From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Wed Aug 2 18:06:07 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:06:07 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest Message-ID: You are lucky. What pass for Con's where I live are usually a small hall with a few stands from various shops, all selling the same gear. If one is really lucky, one may pick up a second hand gem or tow. In terms of games, its D&D, maybe a bit of White Wolf, Magic card game and some mage knight/battletech and warhammer. ________________________________ From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Styopa Sent: 01 August 2006 16:22 PM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: Re: RE : [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest The real problem being that while the market place for RPGs is becoming increasingly fractious (in 1978 there was only really 1 set of rules out there...then with each 'generation' of rules development it's at least tripling the options), it's simultaneously withering generally. Electronic gaming, for a whole host of reasons, has nearly swallowed the RPG market. I went to Gen Con in 1982, and it was a few middle-aged dudes but mostly college/high school kids. I went to Gen Con the last year it was in MECCA and (if you looked ONLY at the RPG rooms) the median age had crept up at least 8 years. Now look, even our beloved RQ (bifurcated along RQ2/RQ3 lines for decades), calved of the HQ/HW fans, now will subdivide again into "original" RQ (2 or 3), DBRP, and MRQ. Sigh. We're going to come to gaming conventions, have 10 people sit around a table to play "RuneQuest" and have each person expecting a different rules system. As much as I dislike it as a system, that alone was the value of the d20 concept, to re-unify the shrinking RPG community. But now we've all been spoiled by systems that cater to our individual gaming predilections and the genie has escaped from the bottle, I fear he shall never return. On 8/1/06, Den, Tony T wrote: You will never get it right. Problem is that a larrge portion of role players all have their own ideas and needs and you will never be able to please all of them. Then again, this talk of a 1000 page + Advanced BRP book may be a ways to closing the gap..... -----Original Message----- Thomas Zunder Nope, sketchy like all of it. I resist the urge to form a company to write the definitive 'RuneQuest as it should have been written' books! __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060802/c4482141/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Aug 2 20:09:36 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:09:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: new BRP testing list In-Reply-To: <20060802080628.9D7DFA290D9@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060802100936.396.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Peter Maranci: > This brings up an interesting issue. Those lists covered previous versions > of BRP, which were closely related but not identical to RQ. The new BRP > effectively IS RuneQuest, more so than the game that's now being published > under that name. Well, perhaps. I've seen the playtest rules and there's a lot that I don't particularly like about them. It's moved quite far from RQ and has a higher CoC emphasis, in my opinion. The Powers section is similar in some ways to RQM's Runemagic with spells/powers that you buy at higher levels, which I don't like very much. They are trying to distance themselves from RQ in general, which is a shame. However, having said that, rules discussions on DBRP could easily take place in the RQ-Rules List and I doubt whether anyone will shout at someone for discussing a DBRP rule. > I wonder how much overlap there has been between the two lists up to now? There hasn't been much discussion of BRP here, really, some Other Suns comments and odds and ends on Elric, I think. So, there isn't a great deal of overlap at the moment. By the way, my earlier comments on being a Mongoose Lackey were definitely not aimed at you, they were in response to another email that totally shafted Tom Zunder. I know that Tom is big and bad enough to defend himself, but that's not really the point. I don't like offensive emails, unless I am the one sending them :-) See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060802/d2d1a34d/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Aug 2 21:02:44 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 12:02:44 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Tom's Stats In-Reply-To: <20060802100936.396.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060802100936.396.qmail@web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > By the way, my earlier comments on being a Mongoose Lackey were > definitely not aimed at you, > they were in response to another email that totally shafted Tom > Zunder. > I know that Tom is big and bad enough to defend himself, but that's > not really the point. I don't like offensive emails, unless I am > the one sending them :-) Tom Zunder STR 12 CON 16 HP 16 SIZ 21 DB +1d4 (?) INT 15 POW 13 MP 13 DEX 7 APP 9 Email 95% 1d8+1d4 eShield 95% 1d6 AP 16 Thick Skin 6 points all over Being Big 88% Being Bad 72% Crying Inside 86% From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Wed Aug 2 21:10:50 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 12:10:50 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Tom's Stats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >> By the way, my earlier comments on being a Mongoose Lackey were >> definitely not aimed at you, > >> they were in response to another email that totally shafted Tom >> Zunder. > >> I know that Tom is big and bad enough to defend himself, but that's >> not really the point. I don't like offensive emails, unless I am >> the one sending them :-) > >Tom Zunder > >STR 12 >CON 16 HP 16 >SIZ 21 DB +1d4 (?) >INT 15 >POW 13 MP 13 >DEX 7 >APP 9 > >Email 95% 1d8+1d4 >eShield 95% 1d6 AP 16 > > >Thick Skin 6 points all over > >Being Big 88% >Being Bad 72% >Crying Inside 86% > DB's wrong, should be +1D6... :P Cheers, Nick Middleton From tom at zunder.org.uk Wed Aug 2 21:51:55 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 12:51:55 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Tom's Stats In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <073831DF-7D00-4764-B688-B77F64F62700@zunder.org.uk> Oh goodie, more damage On 2 Aug 2006, at 12:10, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > >>> By the way, my earlier comments on being a Mongoose Lackey were >>> definitely not aimed at you, >> >>> they were in response to another email that totally shafted Tom >>> Zunder. >> >>> I know that Tom is big and bad enough to defend himself, but that's >>> not really the point. I don't like offensive emails, unless I am >>> the one sending them :-) >> >> Tom Zunder >> >> STR 12 >> CON 16 HP 16 >> SIZ 21 DB +1d4 (?) >> INT 15 >> POW 13 MP 13 >> DEX 7 >> APP 9 >> >> Email 95% 1d8+1d4 >> eShield 95% 1d6 AP 16 >> >> >> Thick Skin 6 points all over >> >> Being Big 88% >> Being Bad 72% >> Crying Inside 86% >> > > DB's wrong, should be +1D6... :P > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From aescleal at btinternet.com Wed Aug 2 22:37:20 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 13:37:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <86D1B82E-75D3-4EED-A8DC-C4D455BC7DC6@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <20060802123720.50750.qmail@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Hi Tom, About the magic system and why I said it sucks: It explicitly says this these rules are the way Glorantha works - right on page 2. It wouldn't have been that hard to say "Animists get runes from integrating spirits or creating fetishes, Theists get runes from their cult memberships and Sorcerers get them from grimoires." The idea of picking up runes from someone's dead body hasn't really had a lot of precedence in previous versions of the rules has it? Someone would have noticed. However, we're used to nicking grimoires, bound spirits, matrices and the like. The runic powers are not well considered. They were just lobbed together without even looking at the RQII rulebook to see what they meant. Mastery and Magic should be gained at rune levels and Infinity not until you hit the superhero level. Still, integrating earth runes explains why Gloranthan woman are so butch. Instead of picking a couple of spells per rune from previous editions they cack handedly decidely to shoe horn the RQII battle magic spells into the new framework. It's a mess: It could have been so much better without a lot of effort. Cheers, Ash From aluban at yahoo.fr Wed Aug 2 23:01:13 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 15:01:13 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Tom's Stats In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060802130113.83290.qmail@web27711.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> And HP should be 19 Nick.Middleton at invensys.com a ?crit : >> By the way, my earlier comments on being a Mongoose Lackey were >> definitely not aimed at you, > >> they were in response to another email that totally shafted Tom >> Zunder. > >> I know that Tom is big and bad enough to defend himself, but that's >> not really the point. I don't like offensive emails, unless I am >> the one sending them :-) > >Tom Zunder > >STR 12 >CON 16 HP 16 >SIZ 21 DB +1d4 (?) >INT 15 >POW 13 MP 13 >DEX 7 >APP 9 > >Email 95% 1d8+1d4 >eShield 95% 1d6 AP 16 > > >Thick Skin 6 points all over > >Being Big 88% >Being Bad 72% >Crying Inside 86% > DB's wrong, should be +1D6... :P Cheers, Nick Middleton _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules --------------------------------- D?couvrez un nouveau moyen de poser toutes vos questions quelque soit le sujet ! Yahoo! Questions/R?ponses pour partager vos connaissances, vos opinions et vos exp?riences. Cliquez ici. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060802/1217da93/attachment.html From joemills at columbus.rr.com Thu Aug 3 00:27:50 2006 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:27:50 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Tom's Stats In-Reply-To: <073831DF-7D00-4764-B688-B77F64F62700@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <001501c6b63f$d5f0a2b0$0201a8c0@laptop2> I believe that "Email" is a missile attack, and so should not get the damage bonus. After all, "Email" is sent, not flung. -- Joe Tom Zunder STR 12 CON 16 HP 16 SIZ 21 DB +1d4 (?) INT 15 POW 13 MP 13 DEX 7 APP 9 Email 95% 1d8+1d4 eShield 95% 1d6 AP 16 Thick Skin 6 points all over Being Big 88% Being Bad 72% Crying Inside 86% From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Aug 3 00:30:55 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 09:30:55 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Tom's Stats In-Reply-To: <001501c6b63f$d5f0a2b0$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <073831DF-7D00-4764-B688-B77F64F62700@zunder.org.uk> <001501c6b63f$d5f0a2b0$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0608020730l5911d521g94332d14255b0e9a@mail.gmail.com> Dunno, with most of the email attacks I've seen, 'flinging' is a rather good word for what's happening. (shrug) On 8/2/06, Joe Mills wrote: > > I believe that "Email" is a missile attack, and so should not get the > damage > bonus. After all, "Email" is sent, not flung. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060802/a3be8b50/attachment.html From joemills at columbus.rr.com Thu Aug 3 00:32:27 2006 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:32:27 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] HeroQuest Rules under RQ In-Reply-To: <20060802013421.97424.qmail@web53905.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001601c6b640$7aff9450$0201a8c0@laptop2> Sounds like you've thought it through and come up with something workable. Have you thought about adding a "community" element such as is featured in King of Dragon Pass? -- Joe Steve Davies Subject: [Rq-rules] HeroQuest Rules under RQ At risk of taking us away from endless discussions of MRQ, I am getting ready to run my first HeroQuest under RQ. My players, normally an obstreperous bunch, have taken the not-so-subtle hints that they need to stop one of their longtime enemies from completing his long journey back from the land of the dead (where they sent him a year ago). Below is my framework for HeroQuests, with my design notes in square brackets. I am interested in what others have done, and any comments list members may have: Every HeroQuest has a power rating. THis one is Power Level 2. [This allows me to have some measure of the difficulty of the quest, and will give the players and characters a sense as well]. When embarking on the quest, anyone who wants to be a full participant must sacrifice POW equal to the Power Level of the Quest. On successfully completing the quest, those who sacrificed POW automatically get the same number of chances to increase POW (roll under 21-POWx5% for 1D3-1 increase) as the points of POW they sacrificed. [This matches my vision for most spirit quests: there is a sacrifice at the start and typically the quester must complete the mission despite some handicaps. The POW rolls on successful completion are a concession to my player's generally whinging whenever they have to sacrifice POW for 'nothing' and provide an ongoing incentive to complete the quest when things get tough. My players have displayed a tendency to bail out if they think they can avoid repercussions]. Characters can participate in the quest without sacrificing POW, but they do so as supporters. There are no encounters tailored to them, nor is there specific treasure for them. [In the current Quest, the hero found armor and a weapon along the way. Those who sacrificed got a piece of armor and a weapon when they completed each stage of the quest. Those who did not sacrifice POW got nothing. At one encounter, there is one monster per person who sacrificed POW, and in another place each full participant must fight a different disease spirit). All skills used during the course of the HeroQuest are divided by the Power Level of the HeroQuest. On returning, skill advancement rolls are easier and only need to beat the reduced skill level. [So a fighter with a Parry that is normally 100% will only Parry 50% of the time on this quest. On returning, assuming he successfully parried, he only needs to beat the 50% to get a skill increase.] The Quest itself will follow a standard pattern, starting from Human lands, have a recognizable starting point (ceremony or triggering event), involve a journey on the mythic plane and ultimately a return to normal time. The myth that they are following has well-defined events, and the encounters the heroes face will mirror the myth without being exactly the same. [The Myth has an encounter with a poisonous belligerent snake in whose belly the hero finds a sword, in the played version they encounter belligerent scorpions, one per active participant, each with an appropriate weapon in its nest. In the original, the hero has a rival whom he meets in the final battle. In our hero's version they will meet their old rival and have a chance to defeat him before he returns from the dead]. That's it -- no other special rules. Is anyone doing anything similar for rules and structure? Steve __________________________________________________ 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://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Aug 3 00:50:10 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 15:50:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Tom's Stats In-Reply-To: <20060802143116.BB932A2C1BB@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060802145010.67437.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Tom Zunder: > STR 12 > CON 16 HP 16 >SIZ 21 DB +1d4 (?) > INT 15 > POW 13 MP 13 > DEX 7 > APP 9 > > Email 95% 1d8+1d4 > eShield 95% 1d6 AP 16 > > > Thick Skin 6 points all over > > Being Big 88% > Being Bad 72% > Crying Inside 86% Now, are these RQ2, RQ3 or RQM stats? We need to know. They made me laugh in the middle of a system swap, so thanks. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060802/a90123b8/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Aug 3 01:13:26 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:13:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060802143116.BB932A2C1BB@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060802151328.42391.qmail@web51008.mail.yahoo.com> Ashley Munday: > About the magic system and why I said it sucks: > It explicitly says this these rules are the way > Glorantha works - right on page 2. It wouldn't have > been that hard to say "Animists get runes from > integrating spirits or creating fetishes, Theists get > runes from their cult memberships and Sorcerers get > them from grimoires." The idea of picking up runes > from someone's dead body hasn't really had a lot of > precedence in previous versions of the rules has it? I managed to make the Second Age Glorantha Seminar at Continuum and they said there would be many different magic systems in Glorantha. Someone even said that every town could have it's own system, which is going a bit far. But, it wouldn't have killed them to say that there are other magic systems that will be published as and when they are needed. > Someone would have noticed. However, we're used to > nicking grimoires, bound spirits, matrices and the > like. I never particularly liked the nikcing runes idea. In my current game, they can only steal runes if they have a runestealing ability. > The runic powers are not well considered. They were > just lobbed together without even looking at the RQII > rulebook to see what they meant. Mastery and Magic > should be gained at rune levels and Infinity not until > you hit the superhero level. I don't like the way that a rune is a rune is a rune. What I mean by that is that Joe Bloggs walks down the street and finds a Darkness Rune in a shadow, so he picks it up and looks it over for a bit thinking "this is nice", then he attunes it and gains the ability to see in the dark. Maman Uzmamma is born a Mistress Race Troll and attunes the darkness rune as part of her birth and gets the ability to see in the dark. Kazam follows Dark Arkat and reads a Grimoire and attunes a Darkness rune and gains the ability to see in the dark. As does a Black Fang cultists, a cultist of Bazko, a Gorakiki cultist and so on. Runic Powers no longer belong to the cults. > Still, integrating earth runes explains why Gloranthan > woman are so butch. Which is another reason the Runic Powers don't work. Why doesn't integrating an earth rune give fertility powers? It would in Ernalda or Aldrya, perhaps not in Babeester Gor or Maran Gor and would be different in Aurelion. I just don't like the reliance on Runes rather than cults. I've thought about it and the Cult should take precedence over the rune, in all cases. Perhaps integrating a rune at cult level should be different from just integrating a rune. Also, the power you get from the rune should depend to a certain extent on the level you are in the cult - Runemasters get more insight than lay members or non-members. > Instead of picking a couple of spells per rune from > previous editions they cack handedly decidely to shoe > horn the RQII battle magic spells into the new > framework. Well, that was better than in the playtest where they had virtually none of the basic spells. > It's a mess: It could have been so much better without > a lot of effort. Well, yes. And that sums up most of RQM, I think. If you thought that RQ3 Sorcery was bad, then RQM Magic is far, far worse. But in 20 years, we'll be wondering why we were complaining so much. By the way, I still haven't read the rules cover to cover, maybe I'll be able to at the weekend. I've started going through Mythic Russia having read the Lunar stuff earlier in the week. The Imperial Lunar Handbook is heavy going, you need a degree in contemporary religious studies to understand it. My plan is to get the HeroQuest stuff over with quickly then concentrate on RQ for a while. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060802/7ddc2fc3/attachment.html From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Thu Aug 3 01:28:48 2006 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:28:48 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] : new BRP testing list In-Reply-To: <20060802143116.BB932A2C1BB@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <000c01c6b648$5c09bb40$32039251@D47R652J> Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:09:36 +0100 (BST) From: Simon Phipp Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: new BRP testing list To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Message-ID: <20060802100936.396.qmail at web51013.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Peter Maranci: >> This brings up an interesting issue. Those lists covered previous versions >> of BRP, which were closely related but not identical to RQ. The new BRP >> effectively IS RuneQuest, more so than the game that's now being published >> under that name. > Well, perhaps. I've seen the playtest rules and there's a lot that I >don't particularly like about them. It's moved quite far from RQ and has a >higher CoC emphasis, in my opinion. The Powers section is similar in some >ways to RQM's Runemagic with spells/powers that you buy at higher levels, >which I don't like very much. They are trying to distance themselves from >RQ in general, which is a shame. But Simon - they aren't meant to be RQ - they are meant to be BRP - as in what was in Elric and Stormbringer, Ringworld, CoC and Superworld (plus others). I would prefer to have a more generic set of rules to be honest than the crunchy RQ. > However, having said that, rules discussions on DBRP could easily take >place in the RQ-Rules List and I doubt whether anyone will shout at someone >for discussing a DBRP rule. Well Jason is on the BRP system list - not sure if he is on this list. >> I wonder how much overlap there has been between the two lists up to now? > There hasn't been much discussion of BRP here, really, some Other Suns >comments and odds and ends on Elric, I think. So, there isn't a great deal >of overlap at the moment. I noticed that Shapero has joined the BRP system list so we may find out more about Other Suns yet. And Peter - I was correct in saying there was another list - BRP System list. I think it would be right to discuss RQ rules here and BRP stuff - more generic rules and other Chaosium systems using BRP on the BRPsystem yahoo group (and I don't mean the DBRP playtest group). I was forgetting this group - I was exhausted from Continuum yesterday so wasn't thinking straight. > By the way, my earlier comments on being a Mongoose Lackey were >definitely not aimed at you, they were in response to another email that >totally shafted Tom Zunder. I know that Tom is big and bad enough to defend >himself, but that's not really the point. I don't like offensive emails, >unless I am the one sending them :-) Yeah - Tom is the program manager for the Gwenthia world construction project. I'm one of the Design Mechanism on that. I've been nasty to him and he back but we are all friends in the end. ;-) I think we gamers are all a bit prone to arty primadona moments. > See Ya >Simon From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Thu Aug 3 01:45:49 2006 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 16:45:49 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] RE: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. In-Reply-To: <20060802080628.9D7DFA290D9@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <000d01c6b64a$ba83e900$32039251@D47R652J> ------------------------------ >Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:28:05 -0400 >From: "Peter Maranci" >Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: new BRP testing list >To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." >Message-ID: >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >This brings up an interesting issue. Those lists covered previous versions >of BRP, which were closely related but not identical to RQ. The new BRP >effectively IS RuneQuest, more so than the game that's now being published >under that name. I would disagree (on a friendly level you understand) - Ringworld is not SF Runequest - it's SF BRP which uses hit locations. Just because there isn't hit locations in Stormbringer's incarnations doesn't mean it isn't BRP. If I were to buy the new DBRP rules I would drop almost all the RQ stuff (I now despise hitlocations. The new rules are meant to be generic BRP. BRP is the use of the percentile skill system and the general game system such as drowning, potential system for magic, the resistance table, power for magic, etc. I find your comment rather polarized (says me sounding polarized myself :-) but I can see your point having once been a devotee of RQ). >So...now what? At a guess, there's going to be a LOT of redunancy between >the two lists. I don't see any way out of it; the new BRP is obviously an >appropriate topic for the original BRP lists, and it's also an appropiate >topic for RQ-Rules. Nor do I imagine that either listowner would be willing >to allow their list to be merged into the other one. Well BRPsystem is a yahoo group which I find a bit more user friendly thatn this rq-rules list - but that is my preference and I can see that others would prefer this list over yahoo. It depends on whether you are prepared to allow MRQ into the fold of RQ/BRP games or consider it to be a blacksheep. :-) I will still remain subscribed to both but will accept that this list will be mainly for RQ questions and BRP System for the generic aspects of BRP games (Ringworld, CoC, Elric, Stormbringer, etc) and the new DBRP. I've already been talking to Charlie and Lynn Willis about what genres they are willing to look at for DBRP. And don't forget that there is a separate list for Nephilim which some could see as a from of BRP, though some of that list hate the rules but love the game. There is a development group working on the new version of Nephilim, though Charlie has asked them not to use the name Nephilim on the cover because of the negative performance that game had and the long memory of the game distributors and sellers. And there are CoC lists and there is the Eternal Champion list for those who only want to talk about Morcock inspired material. Would you like them all to amalgamate? :-) >I suppose that as is usual in such situations, the status quo will prevail. >I wonder how much overlap there has been between the two lists up to now? >->Peter ************* David (Gordy) From degordon3000 at btconnect.com Thu Aug 3 03:23:12 2006 From: degordon3000 at btconnect.com (David Gordon) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 18:23:12 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Discussion of RuneQuest rules. In-Reply-To: <20060802154551.B35D3A2CFA7@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <001901c6b658$55396580$32039251@D47R652J> >I've already been talking to Charlie and Lynn Willis about >what genres they are willing to look at for DBRP. ************* >David (Gordy) Sheesh - what a name dropping swine I sound. :-) Forgive me folks. ------------------------------ From sdavies2720 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 3 04:52:35 2006 From: sdavies2720 at yahoo.com (Steve Davies) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:52:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: HeroQuest Rules under RQ In-Reply-To: <20060802154551.B35D3A2CFA7@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060802185235.96497.qmail@web53913.mail.yahoo.com> I don't think I'm familiar with "Community elements". Can you tell me a little about what they involve? Steve ---> From: "Joe Mills" > Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] HeroQuest Rules under RQ > > Sounds like you've thought it through and come up > with something workable. > Have you thought about adding a "community" element > such as is featured in > King of Dragon Pass? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Thu Aug 3 04:54:47 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank Filz) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:54:47 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Tom's Stats References: <20060802145010.67437.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004201c6b665$21eb78f0$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> Simon Phipp wrote: >> Tom Zunder: >> >>> STR 12 >>> CON 16 HP 16 >>> SIZ 21 DB +1d4 (?) >>> INT 15 >>> POW 13 MP 13 >>> DEX 7 >>> APP 9 >>> >>> Email 95% 1d8+1d4 >>> eShield 95% 1d6 AP 16 >>> >>> >>> Thick Skin 6 points all over >>> >>> Being Big 88% >>> Being Bad 72% >>> Crying Inside 86% >> >> Now, are these RQ2, RQ3 or RQM stats? We need to know. They made me >> laugh in the middle of a system swap, so thanks. Well, with APP and MP, they obviously aren't RQ2 stats... (not to mention skill percentages that aren't a multiple of 5). Frank From tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Aug 3 06:05:03 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 21:05:03 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060802123720.50750.qmail@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <20060802123720.50750.qmail@web86107.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 2 Aug 2006, at 13:37, Ashley Munday wrote: > Hi Tom, > > About the magic system and why I said it sucks: > > It explicitly says this these rules are the way > Glorantha works - right on page 2. It wouldn't have > been that hard to say "Animists get runes from > integrating spirits or creating fetishes, Theists get > runes from their cult memberships and Sorcerers get > them from grimoires." The idea of picking up runes > from someone's dead body hasn't really had a lot of > precedence in previous versions of the rules has it? > Someone would have noticed. However, we're used to > nicking grimoires, bound spirits, matrices and the > like. But that's a very "One True Way" way to look at it. Finding and integrating runes actuially seems far more Rune Quest, Quest for Runes. That why Steve Perrin suggested it. > > The runic powers are not well considered. They were > just lobbed together without even looking at the RQII > rulebook to see what they meant. Mastery and Magic > should be gained at rune levels and Infinity not until > you hit the superhero level. Maybe. I do tend to agree. I also think the fact that a Storm Bull's favourite spirit magic spell (Fanaticism) is linked to the Rune of Chaos only (or have they changed that in the final rules?) > Instead of picking a couple of spells per rune from > previous editions they cack handedly decidely to shoe > horn the RQII battle magic spells into the new > framework. I think they could have easily shoehorned the lot in, but it needs a less direct spell-rune link. More runes should be linked to the same rune. > It's a mess: It could have been so much better without > a lot of effort. > No, it's not as much as a mess as you say, it's different. BUT yes, it could have much better with little effort. From tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Aug 3 06:07:15 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 21:07:15 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Tom's Stats In-Reply-To: <20060802145010.67437.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060802145010.67437.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <776C6D9A-0ACB-4523-A716-D25FFA1640AE@zunder.org.uk> > > Now, are these RQ2, RQ3 or RQM stats? We need to know. They made me > laugh in the middle of a system swap, so thanks. > Actually to make a serious point: they could be any of them. Any of you with any ruleset could use them. They're all basically BRP and as such we maybe should worry less about the differences and celebrate the similarities. Am I right? (Well, I got the HP wrong) From tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Aug 3 06:11:48 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 21:11:48 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] : new BRP testing list In-Reply-To: <000c01c6b648$5c09bb40$32039251@D47R652J> References: <000c01c6b648$5c09bb40$32039251@D47R652J> Message-ID: <92712A93-C5A4-45B0-9D7C-639DADC2266B@zunder.org.uk> > But Simon - they aren't meant to be RQ - they are meant to be BRP - > as in > what was in Elric and Stormbringer, Ringworld, CoC and Superworld > (plus > others). I would prefer to have a more generic set of rules to be > honest > than the crunchy RQ. > Same here. Plus they are quite modular aren't they, choose your own crunch level? > > Yeah - Tom is the program manager for the Gwenthia world construction > project. I'm one of the Design Mechanism on that. I've been nasty > to him > and he back but we are all friends in the end. ;-) I think we > gamers are all > a bit prone to arty primadona moments. > I have never been nasty to you, you %$?!ING &*^&^%$!!!! OF A ?&^%@?! Now Gwenthia, that is a game for all you who have grown out of Glorantha but want a world of religion, aliens, cults, interesting cultures and power politics. Oooops, pimping our stuff.. Tom Zunder www.gwenthia.org From joemills at columbus.rr.com Thu Aug 3 16:53:00 2006 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 02:53:00 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: HeroQuest Rules under RQ In-Reply-To: <20060802185235.96497.qmail@web53913.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001201c6b6c9$7618b410$0201a8c0@laptop2> Well, in KoDP heroquests were basically clan events. If the clan needed rain, the clan held some great ceremonies, prayed a lot, and a clan member undertook the heroquest to slay the Rain Dragon. Having the magic of the clan aided the quester, and made the heroquest gains greater. As another example, if a Humakti undertook a personal heroquest, he might gain a magic sword. If the whole clan supported him, however, the whole clan might gain access to sword magic instead. If you don't have KoDP, drop just about everything and get it and start playing. Heroquests are an integral part of the game, and presented in wonderful detail. Besides RQ, it's probably my favorite Gloranthan pasttime. Well, sometimes the Dragon Pass and Nomad Gods games are up there, too. -- Joe -----Original Message----- From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Steve Davies Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 2:53 PM To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: HeroQuest Rules under RQ I don't think I'm familiar with "Community elements". Can you tell me a little about what they involve? Steve ---> From: "Joe Mills" > Subject: RE: [Rq-rules] HeroQuest Rules under RQ > > Sounds like you've thought it through and come up > with something workable. > Have you thought about adding a "community" element > such as is featured in > King of Dragon Pass? __________________________________________________ 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://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Aug 4 06:11:03 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:11:03 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] anyone? Message-ID: <56e64e7a0608031311s4046ec5q8ba2d9283146bb3e@mail.gmail.com> Does anyone have a resource that lists a whole host of Runequest stats for creatures, of any species? Populating my RQ-roller program, and I simply can't find my bloody Gloranthan Bestiary (argh!), looking for any online or other sources for the creature listings. (Already have the whole Creatures book and Glorantha Book). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060803/473240c0/attachment.html From devinc at aol.com Fri Aug 4 07:12:40 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:12:40 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] anyone? In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0608031311s4046ec5q8ba2d9283146bb3e@mail.gmail.com> References: <56e64e7a0608031311s4046ec5q8ba2d9283146bb3e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8C88558B01D4529-42C-B7@mblk-d21.sysops.aol.com> Bookwise, Foes is essentially nothing but stats for RQ. I used to use it all the time. -----Original Message----- From: styopa1 at gmail.com To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 1:11 PM Subject: [Rq-rules] anyone? Does anyone have a resource that lists a whole host of Runequest stats for creatures, of any species? Populating my RQ-roller program, and I simply can't find my bloody Gloranthan Bestiary (argh!), looking for any online or other sources for the creature listings. (Already have the whole Creatures book and Glorantha Book). _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules ________________________________________________________________________ Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060803/e10fdb2a/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Aug 4 19:33:56 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:33:56 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: new BRP testing list In-Reply-To: <20060802154551.B35D3A2CFA7@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060804093357.97190.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> David Gordon: [Me]: >> Well, perhaps. I've seen the playtest rules and there's a lot that I >>don't particularly like about them. It's moved quite far from RQ and has a >>higher CoC emphasis, in my opinion. The Powers section is similar in some >>ways to RQM's Runemagic with spells/powers that you buy at higher levels, >>which I don't like very much. They are trying to distance themselves from >>RQ in general, which is a shame. > > But Simon - they aren't meant to be RQ - they are meant to be BRP - as in > what was in Elric and Stormbringer, Ringworld, CoC and Superworld (plus > others). I would prefer to have a more generic set of rules to be honest > than the crunchy RQ. Yes, I know that, which is why I was responding to Peter's earlier point that DBRP is going to be more RQ than RQM. I was just saying that I didn't think it would be. > I would disagree (on a friendly level you understand) - Ringworld is not SF > Runequest - it's SF BRP which uses hit locations. Just because there isn't > hit locations in Stormbringer's incarnations doesn't mean it isn't BRP. If > I were to buy the new DBRP rules I would drop almost all the RQ stuff (I now > despise hitlocations. The new rules are meant to be generic BRP. BRP is > the use of the percentile skill system and the general game system such as > drowning, potential system for magic, the resistance table, power for magic, > etc. I find your comment rather polarized (says me sounding polarized > myself :-) but I can see your point having once been a devotee of RQ). As a player, I found that Ringworld seemed to be SciFi RQ3, having a lot of the RQ3 changes. Perhaps it wasn't meant to be that, but that's how it turned out. How can you despise Hit Locations? They're one of the best things about RQ! > And there are CoC lists and there is the Eternal Champion list for those who > only want to talk about Morcock inspired material. Would you like them all > to amalgamate? :-) That's the problem. There is, and should be, a split between Rules and Background. So, the CoC and Eternal Champion lists would be suitable for discussions on the respective backgrounds with perhaps new rulesy things that are background-specific, but the RQ-Rules and BRP-System lists are rules-heavey and relatively background-independant, so can discuss general rules changes/additions that could apply across all the games. By the way, has everyone seen the publiciation schedule at http://www.rpg.net/columns/interviews/interviews13.phtml? Quite a lot is due to come out over the next few months and damage my wallet. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060804/a103c053/attachment.html From gianni at basicrps.com Fri Aug 4 19:49:00 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:49:00 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest Message-ID: <20060804094916.DF040A40566@mini.thinbits.net> Hi all, Mongoose's web-site mentions a 'RuneQuest Developer's Kit'. Does anybody know what this is going to be, exactly? Is it just the SRD+the licence form, or is it going to be something more advanced than that? Cheers, Gianni From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Aug 4 20:04:00 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:04:00 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: new BRP testing list In-Reply-To: <20060804093357.97190.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: >.David Gordon: > >[Me]: >>> Well, perhaps. I've seen the playtest rules and there's a lot that I >>>don't particularly like about them. It's moved quite far from RQ and has a >>>higher CoC emphasis, in my opinion. The Powers section is similar in some >>>ways to RQM's Runemagic with spells/powers that you buy at higher levels, >>>which I don't like very much. They are trying to distance themselves from >>>RQ in general, which is a shame. >> >> But Simon - they aren't meant to be RQ - they are meant to be BRP - as in >> what was in Elric and Stormbringer, Ringworld, CoC and Superworld (plus >> others). I would prefer to have a more generic set of rules to be honest >> than the crunchy RQ. >Yes, I know that, which is why I was responding to Peter's earlier point that DBRP is going to be more RQ than RQM. I was just saying that I didn't >think it would be. On contrary, barring Magic, the rules in BRP are such that one could run a game virtually mechanically indistinguishable from RQIII - some details of particular skills, skill categories and modifiers etc are subtly different but use of the relevant optional rules (skill categories, plus hit locations, strike ranks in combat and DON'T use EDU or SAN) and you have something virtually identical to RQIII; and certainly more like RQIII than the last version of MRQ I saw (or that is apparent in the previews). Magic is trickier but Jason's original Powers chapter COULD produce RQIII style magic - it would just require a lot of effort on the GM's part, as that version of the Power's chapter was far more a toolkit for building systems rather than a system for playing directly, if you see what I mean. And that Chapter is being revised. But either way, I really can't agree with the suggestion that BRP has " moved quite far from RQ" - it's baseline is Elric!/SB5 with options from RQIII (or arguably Elfquest, since that had some strong similarities to RQIII), CoC and Ringworld (that I've noticed), but all the key features of RQIII are there as either core systems or options. Regards, Nick Middleton From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Fri Aug 4 23:10:17 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:10:17 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] anyone? Message-ID: You can try http://www.freewebz.com/runequestmasters/RPG%20Resources/Creature%20Arch ive.html but I think their stats don't have much from the glorantha bestiary ________________________________ From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of Styopa Sent: 03 August 2006 22:11 PM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: [Rq-rules] anyone? Does anyone have a resource that lists a whole host of Runequest stats for creatures, of any species? Populating my RQ-roller program, and I simply can't find my bloody Gloranthan Bestiary (argh!), looking for any online or other sources for the creature listings. (Already have the whole Creatures book and Glorantha Book). __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060804/c1265daa/attachment.html From julian.lord at gmail.com Fri Aug 4 23:15:12 2006 From: julian.lord at gmail.com (Julian Lord) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:15:12 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose RuneQuest Message-ID: <1e842f7f0608040615leff11e7xb81741aea219cf0e@mail.gmail.com> Don't have it yet, but I have ordered it. I'm thinking of GMing again (actually, I had decided that the only event that could possibly get me out of RPG retirement would be a new edition of RQ --- lol) --- if I do, I will probably take some ideas from the MRQ, and plug them into my house rules LOL Magic will be based on HQ concepts (powers and abilities, not the game mechanics though) adapted to a version of the classic RQ rules, but what little I've seen of MRQ magic tells me that I'm not going to like it... The litteralist spin on the name "RuneQuest" as a basic magic system seems a bit silly to this grumpy old man, although it's possibly a nice idea from the HeroQuesting POV... I'm going to **instantly** dump the simplistic approach of Rune X => Magic Power Y, as being too boring / limiting for words... I will also use some concepts from the last-published version of BRP, the French one from about 5 years back, and from Greg Stafford --- ie the idea that starting characters should have really low skill values is unrealistic, in fact a starting level professional carpenter should have 90% carpentry, a professional baker 90% bakery et cetera, I mean, that's why they get paid for their work, because they perform their tasks at a 90% + success rate... so skills will either start really low, at around 50%, and profession-related skills at 75% or 90%, with some local adjustments for hard/medium/easy skills et cetera... Won't know about combat, hit points rules, and other stuff until I've read the new books, but I already know that my game will be pretty much SuperRuneQuesty, or Heroic or whatever... The Legendary Abilities sound silly, unnecessary, and computer-game-like. But there might be some ideas there... Hero Points in my game will be more like in HQ, as it sounds like the MRQ version might be clunkier to use than in HQ. (?) Anyway, maybe some of the above is possibly based on wrong impressions of MRQ, but I should get the main book within the next couple of weeks, so we'll see... The new BRP book sounds daunting, and there's no way I'll be buying it --- whatever else, I like the fact that MRQ is a **new** approach to the game, so will be much better as a mine for new ideas than the new BRP sounds like it's going to be... Julian Lord -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060804/62d0d634/attachment.html From julian.lord at gmail.com Fri Aug 4 23:20:34 2006 From: julian.lord at gmail.com (Julian Lord) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:20:34 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose RuneQuest Message-ID: <1e842f7f0608040620x7029dadegbb1c9ef19b80ba3e@mail.gmail.com> Don't have it yet, but I have ordered it. I'm thinking of GMing again (actually, I had decided that the only event that could possibly get me out of RPG retirement would be a new edition of RQ --- lol) --- if I do, I will probably take some ideas from the MRQ, and plug them into my house rules LOL Magic will be based on HQ concepts (powers and abilities, not the game mechanics though) adapted to a version of the classic RQ rules, but what little I've seen of MRQ magic tells me that I'm not going to like it... The litteralist spin on the name "RuneQuest" as a basic magic system seems a bit silly to this grumpy old man, although it's possibly a nice idea from the HeroQuesting POV... I'm going to **instantly** dump the simplistic approach of Rune X => Magic Power Y, as being too boring / limiting for words... I will also use some concepts from the last-published version of BRP, the French one from about 5 years back, and from Greg Stafford --- ie the idea that starting characters should have really low skill values is unrealistic, in fact a starting level professional carpenter should have 90% carpentry, a professional baker 90% bakery et cetera, I mean, that's why they get paid for their work, because they perform their tasks at a 90% + success rate... so skills will either start really low, at around 50%, and profession-related skills at 75% or 90%, with some local adjustments for hard/medium/easy skills et cetera... Won't know about combat, hit points rules, and other stuff until I've read the new books, but I already know that my game will be pretty much SuperRuneQuesty, or Heroic or whatever... The Legendary Abilities sound silly, unnecessary, and computer-game-like. But there might be some ideas there... Hero Points in my game will be more like in HQ, as it sounds like the MRQ version might be clunkier to use than in HQ. (?) Anyway, maybe some of the above is possibly based on wrong impressions of MRQ, but I should get the main book within the next couple of weeks, so we'll see... The new BRP book sounds daunting, and there's no way I'll be buying it --- whatever else, I like the fact that MRQ is a **new** approach to the game, so will be much better as a mine for new ideas than the new BRP sounds like it's going to be... Julian Lord -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060804/d1b9a9e8/attachment.html From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Fri Aug 4 23:28:33 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:28:33 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Insanity? Message-ID: Either this lad is insane or I am sitting on a goldmine as I have this module (Troll Realms) http://cgi.ebay.com/Troll-Realms-RuneQuest-Glorantha-AH-Avalon-Hill_W0QQ itemZ150007262464QQihZ005QQcategoryZ1183QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZVie wItem Tony __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060804/57a36fc4/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Aug 5 00:27:28 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 07:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose RuneQuest In-Reply-To: <1e842f7f0608040615leff11e7xb81741aea219cf0e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060804142728.38335.qmail@web31804.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Julian Lord wrote: > I will also use some > concepts from the last-published version of BRP, the > French one from about 5 > years back, and from Greg Stafford > --- ie the idea that starting characters should have > really low skill > values is unrealistic, in fact a starting > level > professional carpenter should have 90% carpentry, a > professional baker > 90% bakery et cetera, I mean, that's why they get > paid for their work, > because they perform their tasks at a 90% > + success rate... so skills will either start really > low, at around 50%, and > profession-related skills at 75% or 90%, with some > local adjustments for > hard/medium/easy skills et cetera... Mythworld does something similar. Everyone has a trade and intial character-generating rolls include a roll of D50+30+applicable bonus for each trade skill. For each failure to get at least 60%, the character is assumed to have had an additional year of apprenticeship and thus not permitted to adventure until apprenticeship is up. In Julian's example, a carpenter would have several trade skills: Carpentry, Use Hand Tools, Cure Wood, Join, Carve Wood, etc. Thus the beginning adventurer would be at least at 60% in all trade skills, and probably a master (90%) at some. They would be a bit weak in such survival skills as Camp, Cook, and Pack Cargo, as well as weaponry, but that is what makes the character's advancement interesting. We first discovered the advantage of trades when the band was exploring a cave and the passage was cut by a rather fast flowing stream. Having a carpenter in the group, they simply went back outside, had him direct the construction of a ladder bridge from saplings in the area, stretchered it back in across the stream, and kept going. After a few other instances of trades being valuable in an adventure, we decided that should be a major part of the rules. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Aug 5 00:43:59 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:43:59 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Insanity? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c92296e0608040743rb9a05f2m155f4d6dfeb67dea@mail.gmail.com> "Ah'm thinkin' thae lad's been tipplin' a wee bit." I've two of the supplement myself (one for game use, one for archiving) and, good as it is, ain't no way it's worth that much. But then I'm the schmuck who paid $100US for some rare 15mm Traveller minis a few years back. I still kick myself every time I pull them out (which isn't that often). A fool and his money... David On 8/4/06, Den, Tony T wrote: > > Either this lad is insane or I am sitting on a goldmine as I have this > module (Troll Realms) > > * > http://cgi.ebay.com/Troll-Realms-RuneQuest-Glorantha-AH-Avalon-Hill_W0QQitemZ150007262464QQihZ005QQcategoryZ1183QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem > * > > *Tony* > > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > *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 > > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060804/13c6c23f/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Aug 5 00:47:10 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:47:10 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060804094916.DF040A40566@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060804094916.DF040A40566@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <1c92296e0608040747v570184f2pcdd0ab3f85375b4e@mail.gmail.com> Heh. For a moment, I thought you were referring to a software application. It'll be interesting to see if Mongoose tries to retroactive license enforcement action on existing fan websites using the RQ name. Not that I think they would such a T$R-like stunt; it'd never stick. David On 8/4/06, Gianni wrote: > > > Hi all, > > Mongoose's web-site mentions a 'RuneQuest Developer's Kit'. Does anybody > know > what this is going to be, exactly? Is it just the SRD+the licence form, or > is > it going to be something more advanced than that? > > Cheers, > > Gianni_______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060804/86fa3472/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Aug 5 00:54:21 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:54:21 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] anyone? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c92296e0608040754v16359978sd50a5c43a68db912@mail.gmail.com> Ah HA! THAT's where it is! Bless you, Tony. I'd lost the hyperlink last year when my Dell minitower's power supply fried itself (along with the hard drive, motherboard, etc.) and I couldn't get Google to find the thing (my failure, not Google's). Thank you, thank you, thank you! David On 8/4/06, Den, Tony T wrote: > > You can try > http://www.freewebz.com/runequestmasters/RPG%20Resources/Creature%20Archive.html but > I think their stats don't have much from the glorantha bestiary > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060804/9e2ff119/attachment.html From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Sat Aug 5 01:09:56 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:09:56 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0608040747v570184f2pcdd0ab3f85375b4e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060804094916.DF040A40566@mini.thinbits.net> <1c92296e0608040747v570184f2pcdd0ab3f85375b4e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44D36344.8070004@brinkdata.se> David Smart skrev: > Heh. For a moment, I thought you were referring to a software application. > > It'll be interesting to see if Mongoose tries to retroactive license > enforcement action on existing fan websites using the RQ name. Not that I > think they would such a T$R-like stunt; it'd never stick. > They don't have to - Issaries is already doing that... See: http://www.issaries.com/fan_policy.html and the formal policy document (at http://www.issaries.com/inc/FanMaterialPolicy.pdf). Since Issaries owns the trademark "RuneQuest" these policies apply to RuneQuest sites as well. Whether all parts of the policy are legally enforceable is debatable. A website owner is certainly not bound by the policy just because he mentions "Glorantha" or "RuneQuest" on his website. /Peter Brink From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Aug 5 01:40:25 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:40:25 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44D36344.8070004@brinkdata.se> References: <20060804094916.DF040A40566@mini.thinbits.net> <1c92296e0608040747v570184f2pcdd0ab3f85375b4e@mail.gmail.com> <44D36344.8070004@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <1c92296e0608040840k21412fbeh36710f42b0f9ab9b@mail.gmail.com> And as with T$R's actions, I find those of Issaries personally disgusting. I won't be buying anything from them until their policies change. LOL. I'm sure it'll have a big impact (NOT). David On 8/4/06, Peter Brink wrote: > > David Smart skrev: > > > > It'll be interesting to see if Mongoose tries to retroactive license > > enforcement action on existing fan websites using the RQ name. Not that > I > > think they would such a T$R-like stunt; it'd never stick. > > > > They don't have to - Issaries is already doing that... See: > http://www.issaries.com/fan_policy.html and the formal policy document > (at http://www.issaries.com/inc/FanMaterialPolicy.pdf). Since Issaries > owns the trademark "RuneQuest" these policies apply to RuneQuest sites > as well. > > Whether all parts of the policy are legally enforceable is debatable. A > website owner is certainly not bound by the policy just because he > mentions "Glorantha" or "RuneQuest" on his website. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060804/19636cbf/attachment.html From devinc at aol.com Sat Aug 5 03:45:09 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:45:09 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0608040840k21412fbeh36710f42b0f9ab9b@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060804094916.DF040A40566@mini.thinbits.net> <1c92296e0608040747v570184f2pcdd0ab3f85375b4e@mail.gmail.com> <44D36344.8070004@brinkdata.se> <1c92296e0608040840k21412fbeh36710f42b0f9ab9b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8C88604DD5EBDB1-B94-17C1@FWM-M27.sysops.aol.com> Geez, someone's still hung up on the whole TSR thing and still using the T$R moniker? Let it go my son.... -----Original Message----- From: jurrubin at gmail.com To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 8:40 AM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest And as with T$R's actions, I find those of Issaries personally disgusting. I won't be buying anything from them until their policies change. LOL. I'm sure it'll have a big impact (NOT). David On 8/4/06, Peter Brink wrote: David Smart skrev: > > It'll be interesting to see if Mongoose tries to retroactive license > enforcement action on existing fan websites using the RQ name. Not that I > think they would such a T$R-like stunt; it'd never stick. > They don't have to - Issaries is already doing that... See: http://www.issaries.com/fan_policy.html and the formal policy document (at http://www.issaries.com/inc/FanMaterialPolicy.pdf). Since Issaries owns the trademark "RuneQuest" these policies apply to RuneQuest sites as well. Whether all parts of the policy are legally enforceable is debatable. A website owner is certainly not bound by the policy just because he mentions "Glorantha" or "RuneQuest" on his website. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules ________________________________________________________________________ Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060804/c1c4d0d1/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Aug 5 04:53:35 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 13:53:35 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <8C88604DD5EBDB1-B94-17C1@FWM-M27.sysops.aol.com> References: <20060804094916.DF040A40566@mini.thinbits.net> <1c92296e0608040747v570184f2pcdd0ab3f85375b4e@mail.gmail.com> <44D36344.8070004@brinkdata.se> <1c92296e0608040840k21412fbeh36710f42b0f9ab9b@mail.gmail.com> <8C88604DD5EBDB1-B94-17C1@FWM-M27.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0608041153p3762dc0eh412088f0a4bbe99e@mail.gmail.com> LOL. *dropped like a hot potato* On 8/4/06, devinc at aol.com wrote: > > Geez, someone's still hung up on the whole TSR thing and still using the > T$R moniker? > > Let it go my son.... > > > -----Original Message----- > From: jurrubin at gmail.com > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Sent: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 8:40 AM > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest > > And as with T$R's actions, I find those of Issaries personally disgusting. > I won't be buying anything from them until their policies change. > > LOL. I'm sure it'll have a big impact (NOT). > > David > > On 8/4/06, Peter Brink wrote: > > > > David Smart skrev: > > > > > > It'll be interesting to see if Mongoose tries to retroactive license > > > enforcement action on existing fan websites using the RQ name. Not > > that I > > > think they would such a T$R-like stunt; it'd never stick. > > > > > > > They don't have to - Issaries is already doing that... See: > > http://www.issaries.com/fan_policy.html and the formal policy document > > (at http://www.issaries.com/inc/FanMaterialPolicy.pdf). Since Issaries > > owns the trademark "RuneQuest" these policies apply to RuneQuest sites > > as well. > > > > Whether all parts of the policy are legally enforceable is debatable. A > > website owner is certainly not bound by the policy just because he > > mentions "Glorantha" or "RuneQuest" on his website. > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > ------------------------------ > *Check out AOL.com today*. > Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always > Free. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060804/4729f4ce/attachment.html From nphillis at shaw.ca Sat Aug 5 05:16:25 2006 From: nphillis at shaw.ca (Newton Philis) Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:16:25 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ affected by news about D&D? In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0608041153p3762dc0eh412088f0a4bbe99e@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060804094916.DF040A40566@mini.thinbits.net> <1c92296e0608040747v570184f2pcdd0ab3f85375b4e@mail.gmail.com> <44D36344.8070004@brinkdata.se> <1c92296e0608040840k21412fbeh36710f42b0f9ab9b@mail.gmail.com> <8C88604DD5EBDB1-B94-17C1@FWM-M27.sysops.aol.com> <1c92296e0608041153p3762dc0eh412088f0a4bbe99e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Some news from the d20 front, that may/may not affect other RPGs (including RQ). From: http://www.enworld.org "...even yesterday [Aug 2nd] I got some major scoops about the future of D&D. It is sounding like some of our most paranoid fears are in fact in the works. -4E already in the works? Check. -Even more miniatures-centric? Check. -Much smaller bundles of game info, packaged and sold separately? Check. -A plan to possibly sell off RPGs entirely? Check. (Apparently only miniatures and Magic are making any money for WotC)..." So, after the quick ca$h grab from WotC for 4E, does this mean the timely release of MRQ and/or "D"BRP will be poised for a major comeback (due to dwindling competition)? -------------- next part -------------- LOL. *dropped like a hot potato* On 8/4/06, devinc at aol.com wrote: > > Geez, someone's still hung up on the whole TSR thing and still using the > T$R moniker? > > Let it go my son.... > > > -----Original Message----- > From: jurrubin at gmail.com > To: rq-rules at crashbox.com > Sent: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 8:40 AM > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest > > And as with T$R's actions, I find those of Issaries personally disgusting. > I won't be buying anything from them until their policies change. > > LOL. I'm sure it'll have a big impact (NOT). > > David > > On 8/4/06, Peter Brink wrote: > > > > David Smart skrev: > > > > > > It'll be interesting to see if Mongoose tries to retroactive license > > > enforcement action on existing fan websites using the RQ name. Not > > that I > > > think they would such a T$R-like stunt; it'd never stick. > > > > > > > They don't have to - Issaries is already doing that... See: > > http://www.issaries.com/fan_policy.html and the formal policy document > > (at http://www.issaries.com/inc/FanMaterialPolicy.pdf). Since Issaries > > owns the trademark "RuneQuest" these policies apply to RuneQuest sites > > as well. > > > > Whether all parts of the policy are legally enforceable is debatable. A > > website owner is certainly not bound by the policy just because he > > mentions "Glorantha" or "RuneQuest" on his website. > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > ------------------------------ > *Check out AOL.com today*. > Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always > Free. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060804/b9f2a01b/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Aug 5 12:45:30 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 19:45:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Insanity? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060805024530.42763.qmail@web33509.mail.mud.yahoo.com> AFIAK Doug's running a "Dutch auction". --- "Den, Tony T" wrote: > Either this lad is insane or I am sitting on a > goldmine as I have this > module (Troll Realms) > > http://cgi.ebay.com/Troll-Realms-RuneQuest-Glorantha-AH-Avalon-Hill_W0QQ > itemZ150007262464QQihZ005QQcategoryZ1183QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZVie > wItem > > Tony > > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > 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 > ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From gianni at basicrps.com Mon Aug 7 07:20:27 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 23:20:27 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest Message-ID: <20060806212059.93E30A57C99@mini.thinbits.net> Hi all I found the following description of the RQ Companion on Leisure Games' web-site: [quote] The lives of adventurers are not put on hold when they return from the wilderness and the RuneQuest Companion explores this as well. The Between Adventures chapter provides rules for making a living while inside a city - legitimately or not - as well as covering a wide variety of topics important to the adventurer who finds himself between adventures. This includes such things as item creation time, item quality and how much things might cost in different areas of the world. Of particular interest are the discussions of item quality - the products of master craftsmen and the benefits these masterpieces of the craft can bring to the characters that use them. A huge part of the life of a hero is spent travelling. After all, no character can expect to spend his days in the comfortable environs of a city?s finest hostel, waiting for all the adventures and challenges of the world to trudge their way across the globe to his door. Indeed, as most adventurers know, the greater the challenge and the greater the reward, the more remote and forbidding the locale. The Travel chapter offers simple and streamlined rules governing journeys made by land and by sea, allowing a Games Master to easily determine the time required and the troubles encountered along the way. Sea travel in particular is discussed in detail, from travel times, to storms, to fires, to combating enemy ships. The Games Master will find simple and straightforward rules that allow him to add flavour and peril to a sea journey without consulting a score of tables or making dozens of die rolls. Lastly, the Travel chapter introduces a variety of ships to RuneQuest, delineating their statistics and prices. Finally, the RuneQuest Companion closes with a chapter on Temples, replete with details on these permanent and semi-permanent religious structures. From humble woodland sites to the majesty of a great temple, what separates one from the other is fully discussed and delineated, and a selection of example temples is included for ease of reference. [/quote] Hardly exciting.... Has anybody had a chance to have a look at this product? Cheers Gianni From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Mon Aug 7 07:59:35 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 23:59:35 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060806212059.93E30A57C99@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060806212059.93E30A57C99@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <44D66647.2070900@brinkdata.se> Gianni skrev: [ snip ] > > Hardly exciting.... Has anybody had a chance to have a look at this product? > It's not available yet. The following is from Mongooses site: "Mongoose at Gen Con! ... In addition, the first few people will be able to pick up the RuneQuest Companion; we have liberated only 5 from the UK office to take to the show! As well as these Mongoose books we will have a limited number of the first two third-party Runequest books to be produced under the RuneQuest open licence. There will also be some exciting news about a new RuneQuest service which will be launching next year. More information will be available at the show. ..." From jurrubin at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 09:08:51 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 18:08:51 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44D66647.2070900@brinkdata.se> References: <20060806212059.93E30A57C99@mini.thinbits.net> <44D66647.2070900@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <1c92296e0608061608x2fe71912uaad6aed11fec7d96@mail.gmail.com> The Between Adventures and Travel sections would be of interest to me. I've worked with a hack for years (thanks to Columbia Games' "Harn" rules) but it would be nice if the rules were effective yet more streamlined than my hack. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060806/92c3914e/attachment.html From tcantine at incentre.net Mon Aug 7 11:12:42 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 19:12:42 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0608061608x2fe71912uaad6aed11fec7d96@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060806212059.93E30A57C99@mini.thinbits.net> <44D66647.2070900@brinkdata.se> <1c92296e0608061608x2fe71912uaad6aed11fec7d96@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree. That sort of stuff is very useful to me, as well. On 6-Aug-06, at 5:08 PM, David Smart wrote: > The Between Adventures and Travel sections would be of interest to me. > I've worked with a hack for years (thanks to Columbia Games' "Harn" > rules) but it would be nice if the rules were effective yet more > streamlined than my hack. > > David > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From tom at zunder.org.uk Mon Aug 7 19:35:53 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:35:53 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ Companion In-Reply-To: <20060806212059.93E30A57C99@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060806212059.93E30A57C99@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <15EBB9C9-BFDD-4699-91BC-02CA7B4DF2A4@zunder.org.uk> On 6 Aug 2006, at 22:20, Gianni wrote: > Hi all > > I found the following description of the RQ Companion on Leisure > Games' > web-site: > > [quote] > The lives of adventurers are not put on hold when they return from the > wilderness and the RuneQuest Companion explores Sounds like a rewrite of the RQ3 World Book (was it called the World Book?) From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Aug 7 20:38:20 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:38:20 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060804185353.368F4A45386@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060807103820.14055.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Peter Brink: >David Smart skrev: >> Heh. For a moment, I thought you were referring to a software application. >> >> It'll be interesting to see if Mongoose tries to retroactive license >> enforcement action on existing fan websites using the RQ name. Not that I >> think they would such a T$R-like stunt; it'd never stick. > > > They don't have to - Issaries is already doing that... See: > http://www.issaries.com/fan_policy.html and the formal policy document > (at http://www.issaries.com/inc/FanMaterialPolicy.pdf). Since Issaries > owns the trademark "RuneQuest" these policies apply to RuneQuest sites > as well. The Fan Policy is not as bad as it first appears. Having said that, I certainly do not support it. From my very rough interpretation of it: 1. If you use maps or pictures from their works then you need a special licence. 2. You can use short quotes from publications, but not whole chunks. 3. General concepts, names, places etc seem to be fair game and other people can use them at will. 4. If you invent a name, place, cult or whatever then other people can use this at will, they become fair game. 5. No Gloranthaporn, and probably no runequestporn, nothing to bring Issaries into disrepute, nothing illegal. Since Mongoose are publishing RQ under and open licence, whatever that means, then people should be able to use the RQM rules, or parts of it, on their websites without a problem. They can refer to places, people, events etc without a problem. Redrawn mapd are a problem, but Second Age Glorantha should have maps of its own. Other game worlds may have different rules, as Issaries would not own them. So, all in all, it is a storm in a teacup. > Whether all parts of the policy are legally enforceable is debatable. A > website owner is certainly not bound by the policy just because he > mentions "Glorantha" or "RuneQuest" on his website. I doubt whether it matters that much. Issaries hasn't the funds to go through the courts anyway. Having said that, people who sign up to it agree to arbitration in California, though, so enforcing agreement might be fairly easy. David Smart: > And as with T$R's actions, I find those of Issaries personally disgusting. I > won't be buying anything from them until their policies change. Fair enough. I don't agree with them but still buy their stuff. > LOL. I'm sure it'll have a big impact (NOT). You never know - if they go bankrupt because of you not spending $9.99 then you'll feel eternally guilty, I'm sure :-) See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060807/660bd196/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Aug 7 21:04:21 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 12:04:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060807093609.1F714A5BE09@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060807110421.40373.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Gianni: > I found the following description of the RQ Companion on Leisure Games' > web-site: [Snip] > Hardly exciting.... Has anybody had a chance to have a look at this product? Hmmm, Item creation time, Travel (land and sea), Temples are all thngs that should have appeared in the core rulebook, in my opinion. So, we are going to get the rules spread around a number of books, which is what I feared might happen. Ah well, it just means my wife can't buy as many shoes this year as she would have liked. David Smart: > The Between Adventures and Travel sections would be of interest to me. I've > worked with a hack for years (thanks to Columbia Games' "Harn" rules) but it > would be nice if the rules were effective yet more streamlined than my hack. Tom Cantine: > I agree. That sort of stuff is very useful to me, as well. My first thought was "Oh no, not a Between Adventures Section" - it seems I am once again out of touch with common thought. The ones in RQ Cities (?) had the possibilty of being killed in downtime, without a chance to react. Personally, I have treated downtime as "Is there anything in particular you want to do? No? Well, this happens and this and this and this ..." just to tidy things up. Downtime is for training, for catching up with day-to-day activities and can be covered in a five minute summary/recap of what has happened. Thomas Zunder: > Sounds like a rewrite of the RQ3 World Book (was it called the World > Book?) Probably, it sounds familiar. It had economics, travel and terrain information. Hopefully it will have detailed chariot rules as well. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060807/f1193ea7/attachment.html From gianni at basicrps.com Mon Aug 7 21:43:27 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:43:27 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest Message-ID: <20060807114344.C0856A5CAE4@mini.thinbits.net> Hi all, > As well as these Mongoose books we will have a limited number of the > first two third-party Runequest books to be produced under the RuneQuest > open licence. Now, this sounds interesting! Has anybody seen those? Cheers, Gianni From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Mon Aug 7 23:13:31 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:13:31 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060807103820.14055.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060807103820.14055.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200608071513.31213.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> m?ndagen den 7 augusti 2006 12.38 skrev Simon Phipp: > The Fan Policy is not as bad as it first appears. Having said that, I > certainly do not support it. The problem is that the policy gives permission to a site owner to do thing that most fan-sites does not need any permission to do in any case. And since it does incudes a choice of law clause people might be fooled into an agreement that is governed by laws that are less favourable than those at home. To be fair, many RPG companies has online-policies with similar terms - but that does not make their behaviour agreeable. Games (and game-settings) aren't particularly easy to protect using IPR laws. There are good reasons for that. It's highly arguable whether society has any real need for extensive IPR protection of games. Beyond trademark protection of the names of games and copyright protection of the boards of games, society has little use for creating monopolys for things that the general public could easily, given an investment in time and money, produce by their own. Copyright in particularly is not primearly meant to protect investments - its purpose is to grant creators a possibility to make some money out of their creative work. > From my very rough interpretation of it: > 1. If you use maps or pictures from their works then you need a special > licence. A fairly redundant rule since maps and pictures are copyright protected anyway... > 2. You can use short quotes from publications, but not whole > chunks. Again - this follows from standard copyright law, no one needs a special permission to quote. > 3. General concepts, names, places etc seem to be fair game and > other people can use them at will. Concepts, names, placenames etc. are not copyrightable works. A given selection of names might be copyrightable but a subset of such a selection wouldn't be. Ergo - no permission needed. > 4. If you invent a name, place, cult or > whatever then other people can use this at will, they become fair game. See above... > 5. No Gloranthaporn, and probably no runequestporn, nothing to bring > Issaries into disrepute, nothing illegal. This relates to Issaries's trademark claims. Trademarks _can_ be legally used, provided that certain rules (found in the trademark legislation) are followed. In the U.S. there are trademark fair-use rules (similar but less extensive than the copyright fair-use rules). In Europe a trademark is only a trademark when used in a business context. Private use of trademarks, such as on a fan-site falls _outside_ the trademark legislation. Companies may also under certain circumstances use other companies trademarks. If a company produces an accessory or any other product that is designed to be used with another company's products, and consumers needs to be informed about this, then the company may use the other company's trademark. Also do note that a trademark must symbolise a connection between a _product_ and a producer. Glorantha is not a product - it's a concept. I would argue that Issaries does not use "Glorantha" as an identifier of a specific product. Glorantha is only indirectly used by Issaries. As a side note, Issaries has in fact only registered it's trademarks in the US. As far as the trademark RuneQuest goes Chaosium probably has a better claim to "RuneQuest" outside the U.S than either Issaries or Mongoose... The question is then - could Issaries for example prevent a site devoted to collecting cocktail recipes from publishing the recipe for a "Gloranthan Screwdriver"? IMO - in Europe the answer is no, in the U.S. the answer is "it's possible". Could Issaries prevent a site from publishing Gloranthan pinups? IMO - the same answer as above. > > Since Mongoose are publishing RQ under and open licence, whatever that > means, then people should be able to use the RQM rules, or parts of it, on > their websites without a problem. They can refer to places, people, events > etc without a problem. Redrawn mapd are a problem, but Second Age Glorantha > should have maps of its own. Other game worlds may have different rules, as > Issaries would not own them. The only thing that you probably would need a license to do, is to publish verbatim copies of the rules of RQM. Redrawing maps are a bit of a grey-zone but if only a subset of the information of any given map is used then one ought to, IMO, be safe. > > > Whether all parts of the policy are legally enforceable is debatable. A > > website owner is certainly not bound by the policy just because he > > mentions "Glorantha" or "RuneQuest" on his website. > > I doubt whether it matters that much. Issaries hasn't the funds to go > through the courts anyway. Having said that, people who sign up to it agree > to arbitration in California, though, so enforcing agreement might be > fairly easy. That alone is reason enough to tell people to avoid Issaries's "offer" as the plague... ;) /Peter Brink From styopa1 at gmail.com Mon Aug 7 23:53:54 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 08:53:54 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <200608071513.31213.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> References: <20060807103820.14055.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> <200608071513.31213.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0608070653w300d7437ua2378c46ea6ccafe@mail.gmail.com> Peter's cogent analysis covers very well the disagreeability of the whole 'rules lawyerlyness' of the trademark/copyright issues. On the one hand, I can see the companies' concern: with the simplicity and quality of DTP software (and recognizing that most of the gaming-publishing entities out there either are now, or started from, little more than 'a guy with a computer') I can very well see that the ease with which someone could copy wholesale work that was the product of another person, would make them decidedly nervous. However, there's a meta-issue about re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as it were. Our is not (AFAIK) a vibrant and flourishing hobby. It's hanging on by fingertips and every time that someone who wants to make some fan modules or information, pauses to wonder if their publication (on the web, not for profit) is going to get them sued - that's a problem. Everytime those fears actually make them say "screw it, I don't dare put it on a website for my campaign" the hobby LOSES that opportunity to grow. Put it this way: where would RQ be today if, during the Interregunum 1987-2002 there had been a draconian legalistic pursuit of people using the materials to keep the game alive? I'm not saying that's what these companies are going to do now, but the legalese makes it SEEM like that might be possible...enough to scare people a bit. (That's the whole point of legalese, isn't it?) I'm also not saying that tolerange of plaigarism is required for gaming to succeed; well, perhaps I am, to some small degree. More accurately, these small publishers HAVE to accept a reasonable interpretation of 'fair use' or they simply going to rules-lawyer themselves out of business. On 8/7/06, Peter Brink wrote: > > m?ndagen den 7 augusti 2006 12.38 skrev Simon Phipp: > > > The Fan Policy is not as bad as it first appears. Having said that, I > > certainly do not support it. > > The problem is that the policy gives permission to a site owner to do > thing > that most fan-sites does not need any permission to do in any case. And > since > it does incudes a choice of law clause people might be fooled into an > agreement that is governed by laws that are less favourable than those at > home. To be fair, many RPG companies has online-policies with similar > terms - > but that does not make their behaviour agreeable. > > Games (and game-settings) aren't particularly easy to protect using IPR > laws. > There are good reasons for that. It's highly arguable whether society has > any > real need for extensive IPR protection of games. Beyond trademark > protection > of the names of games and copyright protection of the boards of games, > society has little use for creating monopolys for things that the general > public could easily, given an investment in time and money, produce by > their > own. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060807/f622324b/attachment.html From tcantine at incentre.net Tue Aug 8 02:02:26 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:02:26 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060807110421.40373.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060807110421.40373.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1F0012EE-262E-11DB-8FD9-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> On 7-Aug-06, at 5:04 AM, Simon Phipp wrote: > > My first thought was "Oh no, not a Between Adventures Section" - it > seems I am once again out of touch with common thought. The ones in RQ > Cities (?) had the possibilty of being killed in downtime, without a > chance to react. Personally, I have treated downtime as "Is there > anything in particular you want to do? No? Well, this happens and this > and this and this ..." just to tidy things up. Downtime is for > training, for catching up with day-to-day activities and can be > covered in a five minute summary/recap of what has happened. That is one way of using downtime. However, that assumes that adventurers are adventurers through and through, and that nothing of any importance happens that isn't an adventure. While perfectly valid, that's not the only way to game. Some excellent adventures happen to people who get drawn into them against their will, and want nothing better than to settle down in the Shire and eat two breakfasts a day. Admittedly, I generally would not use the parts of RQ Cities that can lead to character death, except perhaps as a trigger for an actual adventure. Or, if I had a large ongoing campaign with many characters, and the player was developing a new character, I would consider allowing the old character to die in a senseless accident or of a mundane illness, just to make the game world more real. I mean, imaging a new player joining the group, and in character hearing all the marvellous stories of old Jenarik and his exploits, and asking, "So, is Jenarik coming with us?" and hearing, "No. Last winter, he was coming back from visiting the temple, when he slipped on the ice and hit his head on a cobblestone. Died instantly. Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?" How often do PCs go that way? And it DOES make you think, doesn't it? From kpmcdona at mindspring.com Tue Aug 8 02:51:43 2006 From: kpmcdona at mindspring.com (Kevin McDonald) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 12:51:43 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <1F0012EE-262E-11DB-8FD9-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> References: <20060807110421.40373.qmail@web51007.mail.yahoo.com> <1F0012EE-262E-11DB-8FD9-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: <44D76F9F.1090501@mindspring.com> Tom Cantine wrote: > However, that assumes that adventurers are adventurers through and > through, and that nothing of any importance happens that isn't an > adventure. From my point of view, the statement that "...nothing of any importance happens that isn't an adventure" should be a truism for role-playing! The keys to good adventure stories are high stakes and risk, IMHO. When something important is at stake and the outcome uncertain, then you have the fodder for a ripping yarn. As for the MRQ Companion, I would find a tool that helps make the character's off-camera daily life more colorful to be helpful. A tool that gets the characters into trouble is a random adventure generator, and I am not sure I need one of those. Your mileage may vary... ~Kevin McD From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Tue Aug 8 04:48:03 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:48:03 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0608070653w300d7437ua2378c46ea6ccafe@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060807103820.14055.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> <200608071513.31213.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> <56e64e7a0608070653w300d7437ua2378c46ea6ccafe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44D78AE3.3080805@brinkdata.se> Styopa skrev: > Peter's cogent analysis covers very well the disagreeability of > the whole 'rules lawyerlyness' of the trademark/copyright > issues. On the one hand, I can see the companies' concern: with > the simplicity and quality of DTP software (and recognizing > that most of the gaming-publishing entities out there either > are now, or started from, little more than 'a guy with a > computer') I can very well see that the ease with which someone > could copy wholesale work that was the product of another > person, would make them decidedly nervous. One part of the problem is, IMO, that game manufacturers see themselves as producers of products when in fact they produce services. Any reasonably experienced role-player could, given time, equipment and the right motivation, write his own role-playing game. I know that I could. I'm however willing to pay Chaosium (for example) to do it for me - I simply don't have the time to write a full fledged RPG. The industry is really only doing the work that we, the fans, could do for ourselves - if we wanted to. > However, there's a meta-issue about re-arranging the deck > chairs on the Titanic, as it were. Our is not (AFAIK) a > vibrant and flourishing hobby. It's hanging on by fingertips > and every time that someone who wants to make some fan modules > or information, pauses to wonder if their publication (on the > web, not for profit) is going to get them sued - that's a > problem. Every time those fears actually make them say "screw > it, I don't dare put it on a website for my campaign" the hobby > LOSES that opportunity to grow. Putting out those fears and allowing people to create game material without having to worry about the legal issues are some of the selling points of the Open Game License. Unfortunately that license also contains other, not so pleasant features, which ? in the end ? makes it a poor choice for the RPG community. If the goal is to create the best possible environment for producing games an gentleman's agreement that descriptions of game mechanics are non-copyrightable is in fact a far better (and fairer) solution. It's fairer because it's actually very close to the truth. Descriptions of individual rules of how to play a game are very rarely copyrightable. A selection of such descriptions might be copyrightable, but I wouldn't bet on it... It should be pointed out that, again, the situation in the US is different from that of Europe. My personal assessment is that games, as a type of product, are far less well protected in Europe than in the US and this is, IMO, a good thing for us Europeans... Not because copyright system as such is a bad thing, it isn't, but not everything is meant to be copyright protected, some products simply creates a far too great burden on society if they would be allowed copyright protection. So yes ? I agree that the industry would do better if it dropped their "rules-lawyering" and accepted that it provides its customers with a service ? the RPG industry are doing the job their customers could have done by themselves. /Peter Brink From devinc at aol.com Tue Aug 8 05:40:25 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:40:25 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0608070653w300d7437ua2378c46ea6ccafe@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060807103820.14055.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> <200608071513.31213.peter.brink@brinkdata.se> <56e64e7a0608070653w300d7437ua2378c46ea6ccafe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8C8887076980DC8-E98-1ADC@mblk-r33.sysops.aol.com> Tis better to have a draconian policy and decide not to exercise it than to not have one and need it. Devin -----Original Message----- From: styopa1 at gmail.com To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 6:53 AM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest Peter's cogent analysis covers very well the disagreeability of the whole 'rules lawyerlyness' of the trademark/copyright issues. On the one hand, I can see the companies' concern: with the simplicity and quality of DTP software (and recognizing that most of the gaming-publishing entities out there either are now, or started from, little more than 'a guy with a computer') I can very well see that the ease with which someone could copy wholesale work that was the product of another person, would make them decidedly nervous. However, there's a meta-issue about re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as it were. Our is not (AFAIK) a vibrant and flourishing hobby. It's hanging on by fingertips and every time that someone who wants to make some fan modules or information, pauses to wonder if their publication (on the web, not for profit) is going to get them sued - that's a problem. Everytime those fears actually make them say "screw it, I don't dare put it on a website for my campaign" the hobby LOSES that opportunity to grow. Put it this way: where would RQ be today if, during the Interregunum 1987-2002 there had been a draconian legalistic pursuit of people using the materials to keep the game alive? I'm not saying that's what these companies are going to do now, but the legalese makes it SEEM like that might be possible...enough to scare people a bit. (That's the whole point of legalese, isn't it?) I'm also not saying that tolerange of plaigarism is required for gaming to succeed; well, perhaps I am, to some small degree. More accurately, these small publishers HAVE to accept a reasonable interpretation of 'fair use' or they simply going to rules-lawyer themselves out of business. On 8/7/06, Peter Brink wrote: m?ndagen den 7 augusti 2006 12.38 skrev Simon Phipp: > The Fan Policy is not as bad as it first appears. Having said that, I > certainly do not support it. The problem is that the policy gives permission to a site owner to do thing that most fan-sites does not need any permission to do in any case. And since it does incudes a choice of law clause people might be fooled into an agreement that is governed by laws that are less favourable than those at home. To be fair, many RPG companies has online-policies with similar terms - but that does not make their behaviour agreeable. Games (and game-settings) aren't particularly easy to protect using IPR laws. There are good reasons for that. It's highly arguable whether society has any real need for extensive IPR protection of games. Beyond trademark protection of the names of games and copyright protection of the boards of games, society has little use for creating monopolys for things that the general public could easily, given an investment in time and money, produce by their own. _______________________________________________ RQ-Rules mailing list RQ-Rules at crashbox.com http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules ________________________________________________________________________ Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060807/02bb50e1/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue Aug 8 11:55:19 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 18:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Glorantha slash In-Reply-To: <20060807103820.14055.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060808015519.58230.qmail@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Simon Phipp wrote: > The Fan Policy is not as bad as it first appears. > Having said that, I certainly do not support it. > ... > 5. No Gloranthaporn, and probably no > runequestporn, nothing to bring Issaries into > disrepute, nothing illegal. "Gata, the first goddess, conceived and bore a son without a husband. This son, Genert, fathered upon Gata many daughters.... One daughter, Pela, gave her name to Peloria. This most-beautiful and generous of all land goddesses was taken to Genert to wife. One child of this union was a goddess named Dorasta, namesake and local earth goddess of Dorastor." (Dorastor: Land of Doom, p5) Clearly perverse polymorphous promiscuity is only the domain of the gods ;-) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From styopa1 at gmail.com Wed Aug 9 08:52:29 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 17:52:29 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Glorantha slash In-Reply-To: <20060808015519.58230.qmail@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060807103820.14055.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> <20060808015519.58230.qmail@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0608081552g12098af9qf3bf2f0fbe44c467@mail.gmail.com> Simon, you'd know....Uleria's Itch? ;) enough said? On 8/7/06, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > > > > 5. No Gloranthaporn, and probably no > > runequestporn, nothing to bring Issaries into > > disrepute, nothing illegal. (snip Simon's response) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060808/b2365ce2/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Aug 9 19:57:01 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 10:57:01 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest/Glorantha slash In-Reply-To: <20060808225243.9CDBEA6C221@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060809095701.66857.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Tom Cantine: >> My first thought was "Oh no, not a Between Adventures Section" - it >> seems I am once again out of touch with common thought. The ones in RQ >> Cities (?) had the possibilty of being killed in downtime, without a >> chance to react. Personally, I have treated downtime as "Is there >> anything in particular you want to do? No? Well, this happens and this >> and this and this ..." just to tidy things up. Downtime is for >> training, for catching up with day-to-day activities and can be >> covered in a five minute summary/recap of what has happened. > > That is one way of using downtime. However, that assumes that > adventurers are adventurers through and through, and that nothing of > any importance happens that isn't an adventure. While perfectly valid, > that's not the only way to game. Some excellent adventures happen to > people who get drawn into them against their will, and want nothing > better than to settle down in the Shire and eat two breakfasts a day. You see, that's something I don't understand. It's not downtime if something happens. That's part of an adventure, part of a scenario, part of the campaign. Downtime is when nothing of importance happens. As a GM, if something happens between "scenarios" then I use that to bring out more scenarios, to develop the characters and the plotlines, so it becomes part of the campaign. That's why I don't really understand the idea of downtime events. Styopa: > Simon, you'd know....Uleria's Itch? ;) > > enough said? Whaddya mean? A harmless little morality play, surely? Warning innocent young men of the perils of experienced older women. It's a public service ..... See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060809/738487ce/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Thu Aug 10 04:31:25 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 13:31:25 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest/Glorantha slash In-Reply-To: <20060809095701.66857.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060808225243.9CDBEA6C221@mini.thinbits.net> <20060809095701.66857.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0608091131m24bbe968w40cda83fd360999@mail.gmail.com> On 8/9/06, Simon Phipp wrote: > Tom Cantine: > >Whaddya mean? A harmless little morality play, surely? Warning innocent > young men of the perils of experienced older women. It's a public service ..... "Look, I'm a knight, I'm supposed to get as much peril as I can." - Sir Galahad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060809/522d3db8/attachment.html From Meirion at ukgateway.net Thu Aug 10 05:59:19 2006 From: Meirion at ukgateway.net (Meirion) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 20:59:19 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest third-party products In-Reply-To: <20060807114344.C0856A5CAE4@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <001501c6bbee$4df41450$0202a8c0@youryhh2ctjdnk> > Gianni >> As well as these Mongoose books we will have a limited number of the >> first two third-party Runequest books to be produced under the RuneQuest >> open licence. > Now, this sounds interesting! Has anybody seen those? You may have already seen this, but there are some details on the Mongoose RQ forum here: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18837 There's also a MRQ scenario in the latest issue of Signs and Portents, available free from: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/series.php?qsSeries=13 All I'll say about it is that I'm glad I didn't pay for it! Cheers, Meirion From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Thu Aug 10 06:59:30 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 22:59:30 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest third-party products In-Reply-To: <001501c6bbee$4df41450$0202a8c0@youryhh2ctjdnk> References: <001501c6bbee$4df41450$0202a8c0@youryhh2ctjdnk> Message-ID: <44DA4CB2.3080207@brinkdata.se> Meirion skrev: > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/series.php?qsSeries=13 > Out of interest, I read the adventure mentioned above, mainly to have a look at a MRQ stat block. I was confused to find weapon skills described as "Shortsword +28, 60%". I don't have any copy of MRQ, I'll download the SRD and base my purchase decision on that, so don't have any clue about how to interpret the "+28" mentioned above. Anyone knows what it means? Is it the attack skill bonus? /Peter Brink From Meirion at ukgateway.net Thu Aug 10 07:14:13 2006 From: Meirion at ukgateway.net (Meirion) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 22:14:13 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest third-party products In-Reply-To: <44DA4CB2.3080207@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <001601c6bbf8$c4d673b0$0202a8c0@youryhh2ctjdnk> > /Peter Brink Out of interest, I read the adventure mentioned above, mainly to have a look at a MRQ stat block. I was confused to find weapon skills described as "Shortsword +28, 60%". I don't have any copy of MRQ, I'll download the SRD and base my purchase decision on that, so don't have any clue about how to interpret the "+28" mentioned above. Anyone knows what it means? Is it the attack skill bonus? ____________________________________________ Oops, forgot about that, they're SR modifiers calculated from an older version of the rules. It's explained in this thread: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=259307&highligh t=#259307 [Mongoose Steele, third post on the second page and again at the end of the thread]. I'm also waiting for the SDR before making a decision, but have been spending FAR too much time reading the MRQ forum. It's amazing how much energy people expend arguing about extrapolations based on a set of previews ;o) Meirion From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Thu Aug 10 07:40:21 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 23:40:21 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest third-party products In-Reply-To: <001601c6bbf8$c4d673b0$0202a8c0@youryhh2ctjdnk> References: <001601c6bbf8$c4d673b0$0202a8c0@youryhh2ctjdnk> Message-ID: <44DA5645.3020808@brinkdata.se> Meirion skrev: > Oops, forgot about that, they're SR modifiers calculated from an older > version of the rules. Aha, thanks! But... why in h** do they _add_ one more die roll to the combat resolution... The SR system of RQ does not need any improvement! If you want to change the RQ combat rules you would want to _remove_ die rolls or calculations rather that adding new ones! I'm not impressed with what I've seen so far of MRQ... /Peter Brink From tcantine at incentre.net Thu Aug 10 08:46:47 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 16:46:47 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest/Glorantha slash In-Reply-To: <20060809095701.66857.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060809095701.66857.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Well, I suppose it comes down to how much table time you want to spend on these things, if they don't necessarily involve a whole party of adventurers. Sometimes there are events that don't really call for a great deal of decision-making or tactics. They just happen, creating a change in the factual landscape for the game universe but don't need to be played as adventures. You don't necessarily want to roleplay standing there with a grin on your face as your sister gets married, or toiling in the fields to bring in a better-than-average harvest. What's significant in plot terms is simply that your character has in-laws (and maybe some seemingly unimportant facts were learned at the wedding), or that the harvest was good (with potentially important but as yet unknown implications). On the other hand, it might be worthwhile for the GM to call for these events to be roleplayed regularly, just so the players become accustomed to more-or-less routine events happening without a bunch of ninjas jumping out of the corners and attacking. Then, they can truly be surprised when something like that DOES happen. But that argument applies for ALL routine activities, and obviously we don't want to play for the purpose of making things routine. On 9-Aug-06, at 3:57 AM, Simon Phipp wrote: > Tom Cantine: > > >> My first thought was "Oh no, not a Between Adventures Section" - it > >> seems I am once again out of touch with common thought. The ones in > RQ > >> Cities (?) had the possibilty of being killed in downtime, without a > >> chance to react. Personally, I have treated downtime as "Is there > >> anything in particular you want to do? No? Well, this happens and > this > >> and this and this ..." just to tidy things up. Downtime is for > >> training, for catching up with day-to-day activities and can be > >> covered in a five minute summary/recap of what has happened. > > > > That is one way of using downtime. However, that assumes that > > adventurers are adventurers through and through, and that nothing of > > any importance happens that isn't an adventure. While perfectly > valid, > > that's not the only way to game. Some excellent adventures happen to > > people who get drawn into them against their will, and want nothing > > better than to settle down in the Shire and eat two breakfasts a day. > You see, that's something I don't understand. It's not downtime if > something happens. That's part of an adventure, part of a scenario, > part of the campaign. Downtime is when nothing of importance happens. > As a GM, if something happens between "scenarios" then I use that to > bring out more scenarios, to develop the characters and the plotlines, > so it becomes part of the campaign. That's why I don't really > understand the idea of downtime events. > > Styopa: > > > Simon, you'd know....Uleria's Itch? ;) > > > > enough said? > ? > Whaddya mean? A harmless little morality play, surely? Warning > innocent young men of the perils of?experienced older women. It's a > public service ..... > > See Ya > ? > Simon > ? > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 00:18:31 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:18:31 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest third-party products In-Reply-To: <44DA5645.3020808@brinkdata.se> References: <001601c6bbf8$c4d673b0$0202a8c0@youryhh2ctjdnk> <44DA5645.3020808@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0608100718mf01cdb6t1f6341c210d43a24@mail.gmail.com> I'd disagree with you there. One of the first house rules I applied to RQ was the SR/initiative system, which I felt was entirely too mechanistic and predictable. Too many instances of "I'm going to swing later than him anyway, so I might as well do this...." or "I know I have 5 SR before he gets to swing, so I'll....". No, thanks, (slightly) randomized initiative for the win. (Now, this is entirely without commenting on the perhaps excessive complexity of what my originally-simple house rule eventually evolved into...) Yeah, it's another dice roll, but in pursuit of uncertainty and MGF I'm ok with that. IMO there are a non-trivial number of times when the whole party is waiting with bated breath on the critical results of someones/everyones initiative roll.... I *like* suspense in my games. On 8/9/06, Peter Brink wrote: > > Meirion skrev: > > Oops, forgot about that, they're SR modifiers calculated from an older > > version of the rules. > > Aha, thanks! But... why in h** do they _add_ one more die roll to the > combat resolution... The SR system of RQ does not need any improvement! > If you want to change the RQ combat rules you would want to _remove_ die > rolls or calculations rather that adding new ones! I'm not impressed > with what I've seen so far of MRQ... > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060810/cb0b5a80/attachment.html From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Aug 11 01:02:41 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:02:41 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest/Glorantha slash In-Reply-To: References: <20060809095701.66857.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0608100802s48fd1625gde5d8ce88e264135@mail.gmail.com> Who here HASN'T stumbled going up the steps, or tripped on a level sidewalk and had the thought "Hm, that's something I'd have assumed was an automatic success, yet I failed, how can I simulate that possibility in-game?" for at least a moment? I actually DID come up with something like that....I'm almost sad to admit. Well sort of. I'd dump around a dozen d10s behind the screen for the party when they began a day of adventuring or a week of off-time to give me a sense of how 'lucky' they were for that period. For "0"s something fortunate would happen to them, for "1"s something unfortunate would happen. Mostly just little stuff, you stepped in some dung or perhaps found a candle in the bottom of your pack when you thought you hadn't any left, etc. If there was a big wave of "0"s or "1"s, then that might signal something more substantial - that guard happens to know your brother, or be seeing your ex, so he's either strongly disinclined to believe your FastTalk attempt. More luck events (good or bad) tended to happen to people with high POWs, fewer to low POWs. Dunno if the players ever noticed. I do recall rolling almost all 0s once, with only 2 or 3 not 0s (and they were 1s and 2s)...in that case I actually let a character "luckily" tangle in vines rather than fall to his (certain) death, but the sticky sap from these particular vines while he clambered up coated him with cloyingly fragrant itchy oil that was a particularly strong aphrodesiac to just about everything nonhuman they encountered that day (which was hilarious ... especially the gorp. They couldn't figure out why it didn't attack, but kept furiously dividing ...) They showed me though, they later sold the location of those vines to an Etyries merchant for a goodly sum and an even more hefty commission when it proved as ... efficacious ... as they'd reported. Entirely arbitrary and subjective, but added quite a bit of 'color' to the players' world. On 8/9/06, Tom Cantine wrote: > > On the other hand, it might be worthwhile for the GM to call for these > events to be roleplayed regularly, just so the players become > accustomed to more-or-less routine events happening without a bunch of > ninjas jumping out of the corners and attacking. Then, they can truly > be surprised when something like that DOES happen. But that argument > applies for ALL routine activities, and obviously we don't want to play > for the purpose of making things routine. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060810/07e850ed/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Aug 11 02:11:29 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:11:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest third-party products/Glorantha slash In-Reply-To: <20060810141854.E5414A7C25B@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060810161129.88389.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Meirion: > You may have already seen this, but there are some details on the > Mongoose RQ forum here: > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=18837 No, I hadn't. Thanks. > There's also a MRQ scenario in the latest issue of Signs and Portents, > available free from: > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/series.php?qsSeries=13 > > All I'll say about it is that I'm glad I didn't pay for it! I've never even heard of Signs and Portents. Is it any good? I'm downloading the free version as I write, so I'll know soon enough. It's the slowest connection possible - I've downloaded the previews of 2nd Age Glorantha as well and they took ages. Talking of being glad you didn't pay for it, did anyone else buy Rune Of Chaos? It's a generic RQM scenario that isn't that good at all. I also bought the GM's Screen as they were bundeld together at Continuum, but then I realised why I don't like GM's Screens - they create a wall between players and GM, make you roll in secret and are cumbersome. It looks nice though and is well laid out. Maybe I'll give it out as a prize, or something. Peter Brink: >Meirion skrev: >> Oops, forgot about that, they're SR modifiers calculated from an older >> version of the rules. > > Aha, thanks! But... why in h** do they _add_ one more die roll to the > combat resolution... The SR system of RQ does not need any improvement! > If you want to change the RQ combat rules you would want to _remove_ die > rolls or calculations rather that adding new ones! I'm not impressed > with what I've seen so far of MRQ... It gets worse. Parrying is resolved by an opposed roll and then looking at a table. In the game I played at Continuum, with a Mongoose-trained GM, you make an attack roll and if they parry and succeed, you make _another_ attack roll to compare on the table! Why you don't use the original attack roll and oppose that with the Parry is beyond me. And, yes, it is in the rules exactly as they played it. They also played a rules variant that meant you had all your rolls at once in a round, which is fast enough but highly unsatisfying. Styopa: > I'd disagree with you there. One of the first house rules I applied to RQ > was the SR/initiative system, which I felt was entirely too mechanistic and > predictable. Too many instances of "I'm going to swing later than him > anyway, so I might as well do this...." or "I know I have 5 SR before he > gets to swing, so I'll....". > No, thanks, (slightly) randomized initiative for the win. > (Now, this is entirely without commenting on the perhaps excessive > complexity of what my originally-simple house rule eventually evolved > into...) In the Continuum game I played, we rolled Initiative at the start of any fight and used the same roll throughout. It took hardly any time at all and meant that the GM could keep track of our attacks etc quite easily. > Yeah, it's another dice roll, but in pursuit of uncertainty and MGF I'm ok > with that. IMO there are a non-trivial number of times when the whole party > is waiting with bated breath on the critical results of someones/everyones > initiative roll.... I *like* suspense in my games. Yes, it can happen - a giant rolls a very high Initiative and only one person could possibly act before him and he rolls a 10, just beating it in. Hurrah! Tom Cantine: > Well, I suppose it comes down to how much table time you want to spend > on these things, if they don't necessarily involve a whole party of > adventurers. Normally about five minutes, but that can extend to a whole session and spawn a scenario. > Sometimes there are events that don't really call for a > great deal of decision-making or tactics. They just happen, creating a > change in the factual landscape for the game universe but don't need to > be played as adventures. In which case I mention them in passing, taking about a minute, wait for any reaction and move on. > You don't necessarily want to roleplay > standing there with a grin on your face as your sister gets married, or > toiling in the fields to bring in a better-than-average harvest. What's > significant in plot terms is simply that your character has in-laws > (and maybe some seemingly unimportant facts were learned at the > wedding), or that the harvest was good (with potentially important but > as yet unknown implications). Having a family wedding is probably something that should be important in the game and should be prepared for or introduced as a plot point. If not, then it's a case of "Your sister gets married, do you go?" "Yes." "Ok, you spend a week travelling there and back." and that's your lot. What I don't want is to sit down at the start of a session and say "Ok, you've had a couple of weeks resting and", rolls dice, "your sister gets married, you go and", rolls more dice, "the wheel of your cart falls off and you break a leg" or "a troll attacks you on the journey and you are maimed" which can happen with random between-play events. > On the other hand, it might be worthwhile for the GM to call for these > events to be roleplayed regularly, just so the players become > accustomed to more-or-less routine events happening without a bunch of > ninjas jumping out of the corners and attacking. Then, they can truly > be surprised when something like that DOES happen. But that argument > applies for ALL routine activities, and obviously we don't want to play > for the purpose of making things routine. Sometimes I'll say that something has happened and the player will want an input or try to change it. That's when things become scenario hooks. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060810/e8341880/attachment.html From aluban at yahoo.fr Fri Aug 11 21:51:18 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:51:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest third-party products/Glorantha slash In-Reply-To: <20060810161129.88389.qmail@web51005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060811115118.12443.qmail@web27715.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Simon Phipp a ?crit : It gets worse. Parrying is resolved by an opposed roll and then looking at a table. In the game I played at Continuum, with a Mongoose-trained GM, you make an attack roll and if they parry and succeed, you make _another_ attack roll to compare on the table! Why you don't use the original attack roll and oppose that with the Parry is beyond me. And, yes, it is in the rules exactly as they played it. Matthew Sprange made an official post on mongoose forums about this : http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19714 So, no double roll is necessary, despite what may be written in the book. --------------------------------- Nouveau : t?l?phonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! D?couvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.T?l?chargez la version beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060811/22b0a620/attachment.html From tcantine at incentre.net Sun Aug 13 09:26:54 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:26:54 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Another thought on Character Catchup In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0608100802s48fd1625gde5d8ce88e264135@mail.gmail.com> References: <20060809095701.66857.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0608100802s48fd1625gde5d8ce88e264135@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0A625DC2-2A5A-11DB-A253-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> While meditating on inspirations for my own campaign, another use for those downtime rules suddenly struck me, and a little embarrassingly since it now seems so obvious. In my campaign, at least, there are a number of fairly important recurring NPCs. Some of them are tied to the plot in strong ways, while others may just show up from time to time, living their own separate adventurer careers. Since these are NPCs, their own adventures are not usually roleplayed out, but it IS useful for them to have their own history to relate when the PC's meet up with them again. Thus, having the character-catchup tables, like those in the old RQ Cities book, can be very useful in generating background detail as well. From jurrubin at gmail.com Mon Aug 14 10:01:02 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:01:02 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Another thought on Character Catchup In-Reply-To: <0A625DC2-2A5A-11DB-A253-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> References: <20060809095701.66857.qmail@web51010.mail.yahoo.com> <56e64e7a0608100802s48fd1625gde5d8ce88e264135@mail.gmail.com> <0A625DC2-2A5A-11DB-A253-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: <1c92296e0608131701l7c0a9692s7164fe3ed5eb774f@mail.gmail.com> Bingo. I spend quite a bit of time expanding my campaign with NPC-affecting events that the players may never know about. They're very handy for building campaign background and adding a layer of detail that helps me avoid consistency errors. From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Aug 14 21:47:07 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:47:07 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest third-party/Another thought on Character Catchup In-Reply-To: <20060813030314.74842A9429D@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060814114707.51313.qmail@web51012.mail.yahoo.com> Alban de ROSTOLAN: > Simon Phipp a ?crit : It gets worse. Parrying is resolved by an opposed roll and then looking at a table. In the > game I played at Continuum, with a Mongoose-trained GM, you make an attack roll and if they parry and > succeed, you make _another_ attack roll to compare on the table! Why you don't use the original attack roll > and oppose that with the Parry is beyond me. And, yes, it is in the rules exactly as they played it. > Matthew Sprange made an official post on mongoose forums about this : > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19714 > > So, no double roll is necessary, despite what may be written in the book. Well that makes sense, if only I could find the link - it doesn't like that particular topic, for some reason. --------------------------------- Nouveau : t?l?phonez moins cher avec Yahoo! Messenger ! D?couvez les tarifs exceptionnels pour appeler la France et l'international.T?l?chargez la version beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.thinbits.net/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060811/22b0a620/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Tom Cantine: > While meditating on inspirations for my own campaign, another use for > those downtime rules suddenly struck me, and a little embarrassingly > since it now seems so obvious. Normally, these things happen to me in the shower, on the train or when watching a prticularly boring film ... > In my campaign, at least, there are a number of fairly important > recurring NPCs. Some of them are tied to the plot in strong ways, while > others may just show up from time to time, living their own separate > adventurer careers. Since these are NPCs, their own adventures are not > usually roleplayed out, but it IS useful for them to have their own > history to relate when the PC's meet up with them again. Thus, having > the character-catchup tables, like those in the old RQ Cities book, can > be very useful in generating background detail as well. Yes, certainly, these are fine for character catchup, but not for rolling randomly on tables, in my opinion. I've no problem with downtime or relating/narrating off-session events. What I have a problem with is the "Oh, I've rolled a 95, that means that my caravan was attacked by bandits, I was captured, sold into slavery and am now a barrelman on the Red Valedi" rolling of events from a series of tables. Of course, we'll have to wait until it comes out in case they don't have that kind of thing. I'm kind-of pre-judging the idea at the moment. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060814/e4b17703/attachment.html From gianni at basicrps.com Tue Aug 15 00:22:03 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:22:03 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest third-party/Another thought on Character Catchup Message-ID: <20060814142220.8D8CBAA115A@mini.thinbits.net> Hi all-- > > Matthew Sprange made an official post on mongoose forums about this : > > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19714 > > > > So, no double roll is necessary, despite what may be written in the book. > > Well that makes sense, if only I could find the link - it doesn't like that > particular topic, for some reason. Weird, it was still available last night, and now I cannot find it :-( Did anybody save it? cheers, Gianni From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Tue Aug 15 00:28:18 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:28:18 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest third-party/Another thought on Character Catchup In-Reply-To: <20060814142220.8D8CBAA115A@mini.thinbits.net> References: <20060814142220.8D8CBAA115A@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <44E08882.6020709@brinkdata.se> Gianni skrev: > Hi all-- > >>> Matthew Sprange made an official post on mongoose forums about this : >>> http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19714 >>> >>> So, no double roll is necessary, despite what may be written in the book. > >> >> Well that makes sense, if only I could find the link - it doesn't like > that >> particular topic, for some reason. > > Weird, it was still available last night, and now I cannot find it :-( > > Did anybody save it? > An explanation can be found here: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19908 /Peter From gianni at basicrps.com Tue Aug 15 01:06:22 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:06:22 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest third-party/Another thought on Character Catchup Message-ID: <20060814150625.0BBBCAA1704@mini.thinbits.net> Hej Peter > An explanation can be found here: > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=19908 Thanks for the explanation. -- But did anybody save the original post? cheers /Gianni From gianni at basicrps.com Sat Aug 19 19:13:55 2006 From: gianni at basicrps.com (Gianni) Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 11:13:55 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Tradetalk Issue No.5 Message-ID: <20060819091412.94622ADC0EA@mini.thinbits.net> Hi all-- Is there anything special with Issue No.5 of Tradetalk? It never appears on eBay, it's not available on tradetalk.de, and I never see it in gaming shops. Gianni From andrew at crashbox.com Mon Aug 28 21:21:26 2006 From: andrew at crashbox.com (Andrew O. Mellinger) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:21:26 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] TEST Message-ID: Just testing an admin tweak. -Andrew From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Aug 29 00:21:09 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic Message-ID: <20060828142109.74562.qmail@web31201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Has anyone tried using RoleMaster Magic system with RQ? I thinking of starting a new Earth based campaign with those rules? If you did, how did you resolve Bolt and Ball attacks? Healing? Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > Just testing an admin tweak. > > -Andrew > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Tue Aug 29 00:36:13 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:36:13 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic In-Reply-To: <20060828142109.74562.qmail@web31201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060828142109.74562.qmail@web31201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44F2FF5D.5070708@brinkdata.se> Leon Kirshtein skrev: > Has anyone tried using RoleMaster Magic system with > RQ? > > I thinking of starting a new Earth based campaign with > those rules? If you did, how did you resolve Bolt and > Ball attacks? Healing? > I would suggest using GURPS magic instead. I found GURPS's spells much easier to convert to BRP than e.g. D&D's spells. The latest edition can be bought as a PDF download and the conversion is quite easy to do. /Peter From pmaranci at gmail.com Tue Aug 29 01:43:02 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:43:02 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic In-Reply-To: <20060828142109.74562.qmail@web31201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060828142109.74562.qmail@web31201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I've done it, but it was a long time ago. I remember being highly impressed at how easy it was to incorporate the RoleMaster rules into RQ - a tribute to RQ's flexibility, of course, rather than RoleMaster's. :D Unfortunately I can't remember at all how I resolved the issues you asked about. If you can post some specific questions, though, maybe it will come back to me... ->Peter On 8/28/06, Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > Has anyone tried using RoleMaster Magic system with > RQ? > > I thinking of starting a new Earth based campaign with > those rules? If you did, how did you resolve Bolt and > Ball attacks? Healing? > > Leon > --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > wrote: > > Just testing an admin tweak. > > > > -Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/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://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060828/2d432e44/attachment.html From leonbk at yahoo.com Tue Aug 29 01:56:20 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:56:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic Message-ID: <20060828155621.21078.qmail@web31201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks Peter. Well, the first issue is with the damage done by directed spells like Bolts. RM goes through a complicated process and a number of charts to resolve it. I am looking for something less complicated, but progessive to figurre out damage. The issue with healing spells, is that RM has healing for diffferent types of damage, thus you would need a different spell for healing slashing and crushing damage. Did you combine these lists or use them as is (and the let the players suffer) Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > I've done it, but it was a long time ago. I remember being highly impressed > at how easy it was to incorporate the RoleMaster rules into RQ - a tribute > to RQ's flexibility, of course, rather than RoleMaster's. :D > > Unfortunately I can't remember at all how I resolved the issues you asked > about. If you can post some specific questions, though, maybe it will come > back to me... > > ->Peter > > On 8/28/06, Leon Kirshtein wrote: > > > > Has anyone tried using RoleMaster Magic system with > > RQ? > > > > I thinking of starting a new Earth based campaign with > > those rules? If you did, how did you resolve Bolt and > > Ball attacks? Healing? > > > > Leon > > --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com > > wrote: > > > Just testing an admin tweak. > > > > > > -Andrew > > > _______________________________________________ > > > RQ-Rules mailing list > > > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > > > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/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://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > > -- > Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com > Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm > The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ > ------------ > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Tue Aug 29 02:25:58 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:25:58 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic In-Reply-To: <20060828155621.21078.qmail@web31201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060828155621.21078.qmail@web31201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44F31916.4060002@brinkdata.se> Leon Kirshtein skrev: > The issue with healing spells, is that RM has healing > for diffferent types of damage, thus you would need a > different spell for healing slashing and crushing > damage. Did you combine these lists or use them as is > (and the let the players suffer) > Wasn't the magic system of MERP somewhat simplified (as compared to RM)? I think MERP just had a Healing list with spells for all kinds of damage. If you happen to have a copy of MERP lying around that might be worth investigating. /Peter From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Aug 29 03:28:32 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:28:32 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic In-Reply-To: <44F31916.4060002@brinkdata.se> References: <20060828155621.21078.qmail@web31201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <44F31916.4060002@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <1c92296e0608281028s50a97300jd1454a0273fbe782@mail.gmail.com> Why not use the spells from the Tekumel/BRP conversion that's available on the web? It has spell descriptions for fireball and healing equivalents as well as all the Wall spells. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060828/5be930c6/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Tue Aug 29 09:48:57 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic In-Reply-To: <44F31916.4060002@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <20060828234857.44804.qmail@web33503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Peter Brink wrote: > Leon Kirshtein skrev: > > The issue with healing spells, is that RM has > healing > > for diffferent types of damage, thus you would > need a > > different spell for healing slashing and crushing > > damage. Did you combine these lists or use them as > is > > (and the let the players suffer) > > > > Wasn't the magic system of MERP somewhat simplified > (as compared to RM)? > I think MERP just had a Healing list with spells for > all kinds of > damage. If you happen to have a copy of MERP lying > around that might be > worth investigating. > > /Peter Caveat: I am referring to Spell Law original RM and MERP 1st edition. In RM damage was either concussion hits (standard hit points of damage) plus criticals (broken bones, destroyed organs, torn muscles etc). There is basic Chanelling spell lists for repairing concussion damage (Concussion's Ways) and a specialist healer list (Surface Ways) for the same. There are also specialist spell lists from repairing damaged muscles, organs, bones etc. Further, in the realm of mentalism, there is the basic Self Healing spell list which is orientated towards clotting, repairs of fractured/broken bones and organs and the specialist Lay Healer lists (Muscle Mastery, Concussion Mastery, Bone Mastery, Blood Mastery, Nerve and Organ Mastery and ... Prosthetics). So in RM you do not so much heal the cause of damage (Slash, Crush, Puncture etc) but rather, as one would expect, the effect (concussion, broken bones, damaged organs). The same applies in MERP, but in a simplified form. In MERP there is an Open Channelling list for basic conscussion damage (Surface Ways) and specialist Animist lists for Blood, Organ and Muscle/Tendon damage. __________________________________________________ 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 Tue Aug 29 10:21:00 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:21:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060829002100.66676.qmail@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Peter Maranci wrote: > I've done it, but it was a long time ago. I remember > being highly impressed > at how easy it was to incorporate the RoleMaster > rules into RQ - a tribute > to RQ's flexibility, of course, rather than > RoleMaster's. :D Damn cheek ;-) Seriously, if there was one thing that Rolemaster did *very* well was flexibility. I can't think of a setting or style that couldn't be incorporated with ease. 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 clive.wickens at btopenworld.com Tue Aug 29 16:45:47 2006 From: clive.wickens at btopenworld.com (Clive Wickens) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:45:47 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] MERP for Runequest Message-ID: <000601c6cb36$c28caeb0$c4628456@sickboy> Frederic Moulin adapted some MERP stuff to RQ over on his Stabbing Cat website, nor sure if this is what folks want, but it's a nice site anyway so give it a look..... http://www.msu.edu/user/moulinfr/RuneQuest.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060829/8f56c285/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Tue Aug 29 19:31:51 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:31:51 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] MERP for Runequest In-Reply-To: <000601c6cb36$c28caeb0$c4628456@sickboy> Message-ID: > >Frederic Moulin adapted some MERP stuff to RQ over on his Stabbing Cat website, nor sure if this is what folks want, but it's a nice site anyway so give it a look..... > >http://www.msu.edu/user/moulinfr/RuneQuest.html We really ought to do something about making sure that web site survives - I have no idea if Frederic Moulin is still around and I get nervous every time I pop back there and see the "last Updated April 1997" bit - that's over nine years ago! Mind, IIRC he didn't adapt much in the way of RM/MERP rules as such - it was the setting stuff about orcs and some of the (as he says, stunning) Angus McBride artwork. But it's been a while since I read through what's on the site so I may be misremembering. Either way, as Clive says it's definitely worth a look though. Still want to run the "off map" non-canon Southern MERP stuff (Far Harad, Greater Harad) stuff with RQIII some time... Cheers, Nick Middleton From slposey at concentric.net Wed Aug 30 00:48:28 2006 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:48:28 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic In-Reply-To: <20060829002100.66676.qmail@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060829002100.66676.qmail@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44F453BC.7000401@concentric.net> Lev Lafayette wrote: > > --- Peter Maranci wrote: > >> I've done it, but it was a long time ago. I remember >> being highly impressed >> at how easy it was to incorporate the RoleMaster >> rules into RQ - a tribute >> to RQ's flexibility, of course, rather than >> RoleMaster's. :D > > > Damn cheek ;-) > > Seriously, if there was one thing that Rolemaster did > *very* well was flexibility. I can't think of a > setting or style that couldn't be incorporated with ease. Hmmm, IMO "ease" in this context would have to be a relative term. My experience of RM is it's a LOT of variant and optional rules tacked on to a somewhat clunky and inconsistent post-D&D level/class core system (all IMO & YMMV, et al). I certainly CAN do a variety of settings and styles, but so does the Palladium system, which is arguably even worse. Don't get me wrong: I love ICE's MERP and Shadow World background and modules, I just never found their house game system to be particularly appealing. Didn't stop me from buying most of it ;-) Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From pmaranci at gmail.com Wed Aug 30 01:05:03 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:05:03 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic In-Reply-To: <44F453BC.7000401@concentric.net> References: <20060829002100.66676.qmail@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <44F453BC.7000401@concentric.net> Message-ID: There are a lot of RPGs that I haven't played, I suppose (I'd love to see a copy of K.A.B.A.L. some day), but back in the day, RoleMaster impressed me as the second-most-complex system I'd ever seen, right after Chivalry & Sorcery. My criticism of RM was that it required an incredible amount of reference to the rulebooks to run and play. That's why I fell in love with RQ; you can usually play it with just a single reference sheet, and often you don't even need that. As long as you understand the core mechanics, you're good to go. Although it sounds as if MRQ has discarded some of that clean design? ->Peter On 8/29/06, Stephen Posey wrote: > > Lev Lafayette wrote: > > > > --- Peter Maranci wrote: > > > >> I've done it, but it was a long time ago. I remember > >> being highly impressed > >> at how easy it was to incorporate the RoleMaster > >> rules into RQ - a tribute > >> to RQ's flexibility, of course, rather than > >> RoleMaster's. :D > > > > > > Damn cheek ;-) > > > > Seriously, if there was one thing that Rolemaster did > > *very* well was flexibility. I can't think of a > > setting or style that couldn't be incorporated with ease. > > Hmmm, IMO "ease" in this context would have to be a relative term. > > My experience of RM is it's a LOT of variant and optional rules > tacked on to a somewhat clunky and inconsistent post-D&D > level/class core system (all IMO & YMMV, et al). > > I certainly CAN do a variety of settings and styles, but so does > the Palladium system, which is arguably even worse. > > Don't get me wrong: I love ICE's MERP and Shadow World background > and modules, I just never found their house game system to be > particularly appealing. Didn't stop me from buying most of it ;-) > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > -- Peter Maranci - pmaranci at gmail.com Pete's RuneQuest & Roleplaying! http://www.runequest.org/rq.htm The Diary of An Invisible Man: http://bobquasit.livejournal.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060829/58d86ad3/attachment.html From peter.brink at brinkdata.se Wed Aug 30 06:21:48 2006 From: peter.brink at brinkdata.se (Peter Brink) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:21:48 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose RQ SRD available for download Message-ID: <44F4A1DC.6040301@brinkdata.se> See: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/rpg/series.php?qsSeries=39 (scroll down to the bottom of the page). From kruch7 at cox.net Thu Aug 31 08:14:40 2006 From: kruch7 at cox.net (Joseph Elric Smith) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:14:40 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Fw: [tekumel] Mongoose SRD released (Ducks for Free!) Message-ID: <003201c6cc81$b23f53e0$6601a8c0@Arioch> Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you Slice N Dice: Game and Pizza Parlour WWBYD What would Brigham Young do ? http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Clement" To: Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:38 AM Subject: [tekumel] Mongoose SRD released (Ducks for Free!) > This may be of interest to some on the list. Apologies otherwise. The > core of the new Runequest rules by Mongoose / Greg Stafford et al is > now available for free. Now open content and very tweakable, a good > complete to RQ Tekumel. And yes, it has ducks in it. QVACK! ^__^ > > MRQ homepage: > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/series.php?qsSeries=39 > > Files: (original link then mirrored link) > .DOC: > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/rqsrd.zip > http://www.myfilehut.com/userfiles/21374/rqsrd.zip > PDF: > http://myweb.cableone.net/JJVargas/Runequest%20SRD%20Complete.pdf > http://www.myfilehut.com/userfiles/21374/Runequest%20SRD%20Complete.pdf > HTML: > http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/srd/srd_runic/ > Zipped HTML: > http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/srd/srd_runic/runic_srd.zip > http://www.myfilehut.com/userfiles/21374/runic_srd.zip > > Signs & Portents 35 has a free adventure for MRQ, A Raven in the Roost. > http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/detail.php?qsID=1318&qsSeries=13 > > first spotted here: > http://www.rpgblog.org/rpg_blog/2006/08/runequest_srd_n.html > > From a skim it looks like the SRD is complete enough to use by > itself, esp. if combined with any BRP core book or the free Call of > Cthulhu quickstart rules. > > - Kevin > > For the Love of Golden Sapphire campaign website at: > http://www.guildportal.com/Guild.aspx?GuildID=43297 > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tekumel/ > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > tekumel-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > From kruch7 at cox.net Thu Aug 31 08:14:46 2006 From: kruch7 at cox.net (Joseph Elric Smith) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:14:46 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose RQ SRD available for download References: <44F4A1DC.6040301@brinkdata.se> Message-ID: <003501c6cc81$b5fb7180$6601a8c0@Arioch> Gygax is to Gaming what Kirby was to comics Alas poor Elric I was a thousand times more evil than you Slice N Dice: Game and Pizza Parlour WWBYD What would Brigham Young do ? http://www.geocities.com/J_Elric_Smith/Index.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Brink" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:21 PM Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose RQ SRD available for download > See: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/rpg/series.php?qsSeries=39 > (scroll down to the bottom of the page). > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Aug 31 13:31:55 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <003201c6cc81$b23f53e0$6601a8c0@Arioch> Message-ID: <20060831033155.27748.qmail@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Seven characteristics (STR, CON, DEX, SIZ, INT, POW, CHA). OK, very RuneQuest. How are these generated? 3d6? We read: "All characters and creatures have seven Characteristics." Really? Like Spirits? Forsooth, the empty set! Attributes, derived from characteristics. Combat Actions, Damage Modifier, Hit Points, Magic Points and Strike Rank. These are broken. Combat Actions max out at 19 DEX for four combat actions (so DEX 19 and DEX 190 give the same number of combat actions). Damage modifer (STR + SIZ) max out at 200. But Hit Points (SIZ + CON) keep on going and going and going.... A simple editorial change (like the word "etc") would have fixed this. Not as if someone (e.g, me) hadn't pointed this out to them in EVERY VERSION OF THE PLAYTEST. Strike Rank is based on the average of DEX and ... INT?!? Umm... WTF? Where did *that* come from? .... I'm going to persist but I think this is going to be painful. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tcantine at incentre.net Thu Aug 31 13:38:10 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:38:10 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060831033155.27748.qmail@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060831033155.27748.qmail@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1FB9A0BF-38A2-11DB-89A6-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> On 30-Aug-06, at 9:31 PM, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > Strike Rank is based on the average of DEX and ... > INT?!? Umm... WTF? Where did *that* come from? I don't know where it came from, but I do think I can see some sense to it. A higher INT will be able to process tactical situations and anticipate opportunities. It seems to me that giving a SR bonus to high INT is a decent way to model this. I would have to see MRQ in its entirety (which I haven't yet), but I think I prefer the mechanism of declaring statement of intent in ascending order of INT, as it allows a more distinct reflection of the benefits of high INT, independent of the benefits or drawbacks of high or low DEX. From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Aug 31 16:58:36 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <1FB9A0BF-38A2-11DB-89A6-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: <20060831065836.92403.qmail@web33512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Tom Cantine wrote: > > On 30-Aug-06, at 9:31 PM, Lev Lafayette wrote: > > > > Strike Rank is based on the average of DEX and ... > > INT?!? Umm... WTF? Where did *that* come from? > > > I don't know where it came from, but I do think I > can see some sense to > it. A higher INT will be able to process tactical > situations and > anticipate opportunities. It seems to me that giving > a SR bonus to high > INT is a decent way to model this. I would have to > see MRQ in its > entirety (which I haven't yet), but I think I prefer > the mechanism of > declaring statement of intent in ascending order of > INT, as it allows a > more distinct reflection of the benefits of high > INT, independent of > the benefits or drawbacks of high or low DEX. > Sure, for Statements of Intent. That's how I've always done it as well. Here's what MRQ had in version 5 (and iirc in earlier version) of their playtest rules. Much better imo.. Strike Rank/Close (SR/c): Take the character?s DEX, add his SIZ and divide the total by two. The result is the character?s Strike Rank ? Close modifier. Strike Rank/Ranged (SR/r): Strike Rank ? Ranged is equal to the character?s DEX. Strike Rank/Magic (SR/m): Take the character?s INT, add his POW and divide the total by two. The result is the character?s Strike Rank ? Magic modifier. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From aescleal at btinternet.com Thu Aug 31 18:22:39 2006 From: aescleal at btinternet.com (Ashley Munday) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:22:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060831033155.27748.qmail@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20060831082239.34573.qmail@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I think you're being overly cynical - it's a well known fact that Steven Hawking can act before Jackie Chan in a fist fight by virtue of his superior intellect. Cheers, Ash --- Lev Lafayette wrote: > > Seven characteristics (STR, CON, DEX, SIZ, INT, POW, > CHA). OK, very RuneQuest. How are these generated? > 3d6? > > We read: "All characters and creatures have seven > Characteristics." Really? Like Spirits? Forsooth, > the > empty set! > > Attributes, derived from characteristics. Combat > Actions, Damage Modifier, Hit Points, Magic Points > and > Strike Rank. > > These are broken. Combat Actions max out at 19 DEX > for > four combat actions (so DEX 19 and DEX 190 give the > same number of combat actions). Damage modifer (STR > + > SIZ) max out at 200. But Hit Points (SIZ + CON) keep > on going and going and going.... A simple editorial > change (like the word "etc") would have fixed this. > Not as if someone (e.g, me) hadn't pointed this out > to > them in EVERY VERSION OF THE PLAYTEST. > > Strike Rank is based on the average of DEX and ... > INT?!? Umm... WTF? Where did *that* come from? > > .... I'm going to persist but I think this is going > to > be painful. > > > __________________________________________________ > 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://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Thu Aug 31 18:02:48 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:02:48 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060831033155.27748.qmail@web33506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Lev (and list), > >Seven characteristics (STR, CON, DEX, SIZ, INT, POW, >CHA). OK, very RuneQuest. How are these generated? >3d6? > >We read: "All characters and creatures have seven >Characteristics." Really? Like Spirits? Forsooth, the >empty set! > It's a system reference document, and is directly modelled on the d20 system reference document, which also does NOT contain any explanation of how to generate a character's initial characteristics. After all, if they released the entire rule system as open content, what reason would people have to buy the MRQ core book? >Attributes, derived from characteristics. Combat >Actions, Damage Modifier, Hit Points, Magic Points and >Strike Rank. > >These are broken. Combat Actions max out at 19 DEX for >four combat actions (so DEX 19 and DEX 190 give the >same number of combat actions). Damage modifer (STR + >SIZ) max out at 200. But Hit Points (SIZ + CON) keep >on going and going and going.... A simple editorial >change (like the word "etc") would have fixed this. >Not as if someone (e.g, me) hadn't pointed this out to >them in EVERY VERSION OF THE PLAYTEST. > Yes, but as Matt Sprange pointed out at RPG net, they _read_ and _collated_ every comment made in the playtest - but by any definitions I'm aware of, neither "read" nor "collated" has any necessary connotation of "actioned"... >Strike Rank is based on the average of DEX and ... >INT?!? Umm... WTF? Where did *that* come from? 21st century streamlined game design mate - presumably the same reasoning behind having initiative, sorry, "strike rank" rolled BY EVERY PARTICIPANT EVERY ROUND - because all those extra dice rolls OBVIOUSLY make combat more streamlined... >.... I'm going to persist but I think this is going to >be painful. It got a bit painful a while back - at this point I can't decide whether it's descended in to black farce or is just an total disaster... And can anyone think WHY any publishers are willing to use the MRQ STL/OGL combination, when most of the major players (including Mongoose!) seem to be distancing themselves from the d20 STL/OGL model as it's too controlled by WotC and they are expecting to get burnt when D&D 4 is released? Especially given Mongooses MRQ STL has brutal terms that basically allow them to cancel a publisher's MRQ license product on a whim, with no notice or "cure" period? Even the WotC d20STL wasn't THAT brutal (at least to begin with). Anyone know of any substantial publishers doing anything for MRQ? Cheers, Nick Middleton From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Thu Aug 31 21:30:10 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060831113010.50411.qmail@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > After all, if they released the entire rule system > as open content, what > reason would people have to buy the MRQ core book? I'll leave that question hanging ;-) > >on going and going and going.... A simple editorial > >change (like the word "etc") would have fixed this. > >Not as if someone (e.g, me) hadn't pointed this out > to > >them in EVERY VERSION OF THE PLAYTEST. > > > > Yes, but as Matt Sprange pointed out at RPG net, > they _read_ and _collated_ > every comment made in the playtest - but by any > definitions I'm aware of, > neither "read" nor "collated" has any necessary > connotation of > "actioned"... Yeah, but the really weird thing was in the final playtest version - with the exception of DEX and CAs - they'd actually included the "etc". for damage bonus etc. > > >Strike Rank is based on the average of DEX and ... > >INT?!? Umm... WTF? Where did *that* come from? > > 21st century streamlined game design mate - > presumably the same reasoning > behind having initiative, sorry, "strike rank" > rolled BY EVERY PARTICIPANT > EVERY ROUND - because all those extra dice rolls > OBVIOUSLY make combat more > streamlined... Indeed. Actually another great broken part of the combat is dodges and parries. Now in the normal world, if you swing your sword at someone and you miss, that's it - you've missed. But in MRQ, if your target fails their dodge or parry - you hit! Now that's new! So the best thing to do if you have a low dodge and parry and someone is trying to thwack you... Don't react! You are *more* likely to be hit if you try to get out of the way. Oh, I've also noticed that a charge bonus is +1d4 if you move over 5m. This is regardless of STR, SIZ or speed. So whether you are a elderly sylph or an enraged bison, or even the Crimson Bat, you're charge bonus will still be the same... a massive 1d4. > It got a bit painful a while back - at this point I > can't decide whether > it's descended in to black farce or is just an total > disaster... I tend to think just total disaster. Although we may laugh at it in a few years time, rather like the worst supplements of Avalon Hill.. >From what I've read this is by far the worst edition of RuneQuest published. All the best, Lev __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From styopa1 at gmail.com Thu Aug 31 23:40:53 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:40:53 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060831113010.50411.qmail@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20060831113010.50411.qmail@web33511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0608310640w1c8e8de0mb94e1ff08ccc343d@mail.gmail.com> > > > Indeed. Actually another great broken part of the > combat is dodges and parries. > > Now in the normal world, if you swing your sword at > someone and you miss, that's it - you've missed. But > in MRQ, if your target fails their dodge or parry - > you hit! > It's worse than that. If I swing a 2H sword, miss my attack, and you do *nothing* = I simply miss. If I swing the same sword, miss my attack, and you SUCCEED with parry with a dagger = I may damage you if my damage is high enough and your AP low enough (failed attack vs. successful parry = parry with 2x the APs). With 2APs vs 2d8 damage, one might even say it's likely. Now, I *can* understand the logic of punishing someone trying to parry a giant's tree-trunk club with a dagger. I do. It's the turning a MISS into a HIT that is broken, no? For a SUCCESS by the defenderf? And the APs for weapons....2AP for a GLAIVE? (same as a dagger).....? (JarJar Binks voice) Wha...!?!? Not to mention the damage bonus for high STR goes from 1d12 to 2d6...I'm always jarred by a callous disregard for probability curves. I'll say it again: I very much liked their sample adventure in S&P35. I thought it was neatly written, just skewed enough to be interesting (not a Sherlockian puzzler, by any means, but that's fine), very simply presented with a reasonable amount of backstory. That ALONE will make me at least read through and give their products a look. But I have to admit that the MRQ rules look a little rushed-out-the-door. Let's recognize that not *everyone* on Earth has spent the amount of cumulative hours cogitating on the nuances of the RQ/2/3 rules systems as even the lowliest n00b on this list. And *no* rule set (none!) is perfect or anywhere near it...let's not subject MRQ to the harsh sterile light of the pathology table, while RQ2/3 rests sanctimoniously in our rose-colored memory. I think it's a good effort at producing an RQ that is somewhat simpler. Am I going to play it? Nah, I like my house rules as they are. Do I think it may draw people to the RQ system? Yes, I do - I believe that it doesn't take long for d20 to get frightfully stale, and that any simulationist player will soon look for something with more internal consistency. That's overall a good thing. So I wish 'em luck. I'll be looking very much forward to the adventure materials and supplements they publish. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060831/ea4ca3a5/attachment.html From slposey at concentric.net Thu Aug 31 23:53:36 2006 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:53:36 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose SRD In-Reply-To: <20060831082239.34573.qmail@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <20060831082239.34573.qmail@web86109.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44F6E9E0.4050909@concentric.net> Ashley Munday wrote: > I think you're being overly cynical - it's a well > known fact that Steven Hawking can act before Jackie > Chan in a fist fight by virtue of his superior > intellect. Or, at least, he can DECIDE what to do faster. Actually DOING it is a somewhat different matter. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net