From soltakss at yahoo.com Mon Jul 3 22:52:19 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 13:52:19 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Cooking In-Reply-To: <20060628115733.4C9698D84EA@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060703125219.64459.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> Jim(bick10 at comcast.net): >From: "Roger Benham" >> I suppose as a baseline, cooked food has a low chance of passing on food poisoning which lessens if its prepared by a masterchef or even a competent one, say 30% or more. Otherwise, everyone can enjoy their tapeworm souffle in complete ignorance with a higher base chance of contracting a delightful parasite or disease. Handy tip for anyone concerned with tapeworms or food poisoning - boil it into a mush for over an hour cancele pretty much any food poisoning risk. Traditional British Cuisine at its finest. > For just general everyday cooking, no skill check. I treated it like the language skill. The higher the skill, the > better the character is at it. After all, you don?t roll language every time you talk to someone, why roll cooking > every time you cook. > Examples: > If someone has a Cooking skill of 5% then they know how to boil water. Adding food might be a little tough. > At 25% you can do all the basics and manage not to burn the rabbit over the camp fire. > Skill of 50% and free form cooking is in play. (Don?t need no stinking recipe cards). > 75% you can be expected to make walktipi meat pie and you dinner guest can expect to survive the meal. > 90% skill? Four words. True Dragon Egg Soup. Well, I'd give the Cooking skill a modifier for each task attempted and then look at the result. If the resulting chance was over 90% then I'd not bother rolling, unless the task was important enough to justify a roll. If it was over 75% then I wouldn't normally bother rolling either, otherwise I'd roll. So, various tasks and their penalties: Feast -20 Banquet -30 Food Fit for a King -40 WalktaPie -50 True Dragon Egg Soup -90 (or no penalty, but you must first find a True Dragon Egg.....) > The RuneQuest main rulebook has an On Sale Date of > July 28th, and will > be quickly followed by supporting releases, > including some which will > also expand the Open Content SRD, such as the > RuneQuest Companion." July 28th? Continuum? That's handy. Almost as if they planned it. Alban de ROSTOLAN: > Note that it might be a guideline for an entire skill system, but it is off-topic. New skill systems off-topic? That'd be a first. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060703/a4593f74/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Jul 4 00:59:22 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:59:22 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Coinage Exchange and Encumbrance Message-ID: <1c92296e0607030759x9fd8c0fr59d18807977e64f3@mail.gmail.com> Greetings everyone, I've been trying to find details on the exchange rate of coinage (copper to silver to gold) in Glorantha as well as the encumbrance of coins and for the life of me I can't find it! Could some kind soul point me to where the above info is published? I have all the RQIII publications and a bit of the RQII ones as well. David (Keep on RQing!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060703/daa1047c/attachment.html From joemills at columbus.rr.com Tue Jul 4 01:27:30 2006 From: joemills at columbus.rr.com (Joe Mills) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 11:27:30 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Coinage Exchange and Encumbrance In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0607030759x9fd8c0fr59d18807977e64f3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001801c69eb5$34427e80$0201a8c0@laptop2> Heya, In the old RQ 2nd ed. Copy I have, 10C = 1L and 20L = 1W. 100 coppers or silvers = 1 ENC, and 50 W = 1 ENC. -- Joe _____ From: rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto:rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] On Behalf Of David Smart Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:59 AM To: Discussion of RuneQuest rules. Subject: [Rq-rules] Coinage Exchange and Encumbrance Greetings everyone, I've been trying to find details on the exchange rate of coinage (copper to silver to gold) in Glorantha as well as the encumbrance of coins and for the life of me I can't find it! Could some kind soul point me to where the above info is published? I have all the RQIII publications and a bit of the RQII ones as well. David (Keep on RQing!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060703/f7b9392a/attachment.html From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Tue Jul 4 01:46:23 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank L Filz) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 08:46:23 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Coinage Exchange and Encumbrance In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0607030759x9fd8c0fr59d18807977e64f3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > I've been trying to find details on the exchange rate of > coinage (copper to silver to gold) in Glorantha as well as > the encumbrance of coins and for the life of me I can't find it! > > Could some kind soul point me to where the above info is > published? I have all the RQIII publications and a bit of the > RQII ones as well. According to RQ2 p.15, 100 silver coins (lunars) equals 1 ENC. Wheels are twice as big. Clacks are the same size. Who cares about bolgs. Gems are half as large as a silver coin. Rings are three times as large. Necklaces range from three to ten times as large. (I see Joe Mills beat me to that while I was searching the RQ3 rules... And of course as he mentioned, the exchange is 200 clacks, 20 lunars, 1 wheel). For RQ3: Per page 44 of the Players Book, 1 ENC is approximately 1kg. Per page 18 of the Gamemaster Book, gems range from 5 pennies per gram (turqoise) to 50 pennies per gram (diamond). For the life of me, I can't find the weight of coins... It's probably ok to use the same 100 pennies to the kg/ENC. All prices in RQ3 are in silver pennies. The Glorantha book in the boxed set mentions lunars in the Ernalda writeup, but unless I'm missing something somewhere, it doesn't mention that a lunar is a silver penny. Personally, I generally don't worry about it. To be honest, it should be pretty rare to actually find enough cash to have to worry about encumbrance (and a good dragon horde, that's big enough for a dragon to sleep on, represents an absurd amount of coinage). Frank From jurrubin at gmail.com Tue Jul 4 01:50:43 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:50:43 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Coinage Exchange and Encumbrance In-Reply-To: <001801c69eb5$34427e80$0201a8c0@laptop2> References: <1c92296e0607030759x9fd8c0fr59d18807977e64f3@mail.gmail.com> <001801c69eb5$34427e80$0201a8c0@laptop2> Message-ID: <1c92296e0607030850q61ef5f13rd9f6f8fdd8530d19@mail.gmail.com> Bless you! That's exactly what I was looking for. David On 7/3/06, Joe Mills wrote: > > Heya, > > In the old RQ 2nd ed. Copy I have, 10C = 1L and 20L = 1W. 100 coppers or > silvers = 1 ENC, and 50 W = 1 ENC. > > > > -- Joe > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com [mailto: > rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com] *On Behalf Of *David Smart > *Sent:* Monday, July 03, 2006 10:59 AM > *To:* Discussion of RuneQuest rules. > *Subject:* [Rq-rules] Coinage Exchange and Encumbrance > > > > Greetings everyone, > > I've been trying to find details on the exchange rate of coinage (copper > to silver to gold) in Glorantha as well as the encumbrance of coins and for > the life of me I can't find it! > > Could some kind soul point me to where the above info is published? I have > all the RQIII publications and a bit of the RQII ones as well. > > David > > (Keep on RQing!) > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060703/b117b657/attachment.html From tcantine at incentre.net Tue Jul 4 03:13:39 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 11:13:39 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Cooking In-Reply-To: <20060703125219.64459.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060703125219.64459.qmail@web51011.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45277748-0AB7-11DB-90D8-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> I appreciate the inclination not to require a roll for everything, and by and large, I'm in agreement that there should not be a Cooking roll every meal or even every day. However, it seems to me that in the interests of keeping the game system integrity, it makes sense to speak of preparation of a meal as calling for a Cooking roll, and then acknowledge that most of the time the GM will waive this requirement. I've been thinking about a way to integrate Cooking rolls (in principle, whether or not they are waived) into my house fatigue rules (which are also subject to being waived, of course), and I think I have found a way that works out to my satisfaction. I posted a description of this fatigue system some time ago to this list, but to recap, there are two basic variables: Daily Fatigue Maximum and Current Fatigue Level. The Current Fatigue Level varies up and down through activity and rest (and being awake too long, etc.), limited by the Daily Fatigue Maximum, which is recalculated whenever the character wakes up from sleep. The recalculation of DFM is pretty simple; it's usually the previous day's DFM, -1 if a certain threshhold of negative factors is exceeded (too little sleep, food, water, shelter, etc.), +1 if all necessary positive factors are satisfied (lots of food, rest, water, comfort, etc.), to a maximum of CON/5 rounded down. Now, the solution to the cooking issue that I've come up with is in these factors for recalculating the DFM. One of the necessary factors for DFM to go up by one was getting more than the subsistence level of food. I'm amending this to also require that food to be the result of a simple success on a Cooking roll. As well, a special success counts as one more requirement, so (for example) one can increase one's DFM even if getting up after less than 8 hours sleep, if breakfast is good enough. And a critical counts as two additional requirements. From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Tue Jul 4 03:35:30 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank L Filz) Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:35:30 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Cooking In-Reply-To: <45277748-0AB7-11DB-90D8-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: > I appreciate the inclination not to require a roll for > everything, and by and large, I'm in agreement that there > should not be a Cooking roll every meal or even every day. > However, it seems to me that in the interests of keeping the > game system integrity, it makes sense to speak of preparation > of a meal as calling for a Cooking roll, and then acknowledge > that most of the time the GM will waive this requirement. This type of thing is always an interesting dilemma. First, I would say that if you will NEVER (or almost never) roll the skill, or use it's rating in some way (the skill being at 90% to qualify the character for rune lord or priest would be one example of use of the rating), then the skill doesn't belong in the game. Second, assuming the rating is relevant, but rolls are rarely made, then something has to be done to allow experience rolls. I allow players to make language experience rolls if they are using a language other than their native language on a daily basis every couple weeks or so. I allow players to make a riding experience roll after a couple week or so ride. If someone is the camp cook, I'd allow the same. > I've been thinking about a way to integrate Cooking rolls (in > principle, whether or not they are waived) into my house > fatigue rules (which are also subject to being waived, of > course), and I think I have found a way that works out to my > satisfaction. Fatigue rules are a bit more detail than I want for my game, but one could still potentially make some use of cooking rolls during an expedition. Have the player make one cooking roll for a reasonable length expedition (or perhaps every few days or so, I wouldn't do it daily). If supplies are important, I'd consider making a failure mean they waste supplies. A fumble might result in exposure to a disease. But overall, I'd have to say cooking is a skill I'm not rushing to add to my game. Frank From soltakss at yahoo.com Tue Jul 4 21:46:30 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 12:46:30 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQ Rules/Coinage Exchange and Encumbrance In-Reply-To: <20060703155056.CBCFB905B70@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060704114630.40096.qmail@web51003.mail.yahoo.com> Lance Dyas: > D&D is Heroic out of the box and playing your character like a hero is > pretty much encourage systemically... Well, I played a Magic User in AD&D 2nd Edition, for about a year, playing in university holidays and I reached the dizzy heights of Level 3. I had one spell for most of that time and had 4 or 5 hit points, I think, but they went up slightly and I finished up with just over 10 HPs, I couldn't wear armour and I couldn't use any useful weapons, I think I had a staff and a dagger, but I can't remember. It didn't feel particularly heroic to me as I had to skulk around at the back, using my spiderlimbs to climb up things. > RQ is non-heroic out of the box and playing your character like a hero > means you usually die early...which interestingly I have heard as a > definition of a real hero but is certainly not of a fantasy one. My AD&D Magic User was definitely non-heroic as a good whack from anything would have killed him. I generally play RQ with a bit of oomph and I noticed the difference immediately. Joe Mills: In the old RQ 2nd ed. Copy I have, 10C = 1L and 20L = 1W. 100 coppers or silvers = 1 ENC, and 50 W = 1 ENC. Also, 10 Bolgs=1Clack in non-troll areas, but trolls treat Bolgs as Clacks in troll areas. 1Bolg has the same ENC as a Clack/Lunar. Yelornans have Stars which are silver coins, but I can't remember off-hand how much they are worth. 1 Silver Coin = 1 Guilder = 1 Lunar RQ3 used Pennies with 1 Penny being the equivalent of a Silver Coin/Lunar/Guilder. Treat all RQ3 prices as Lunars. There's also a Daran which is a stupidly large number of wheels, but that's only mentioned in HeroQuest, so it probably doesn't count. Frank L Filz: > According to RQ2 p.15, 100 silver coins (lunars) equals 1 ENC. Wheels are > twice as big. Clacks are the same size. Who cares about bolgs. Gems are half > as large as a silver coin. Rings are three times as large. Necklaces range > from three to ten times as large. > (I see Joe Mills beat me to that while I was searching the RQ3 rules... And > of course as he mentioned, the exchange is 200 clacks, 20 lunars, 1 wheel). > Per page 18 of the Gamemaster Book, gems range from 5 pennies per gram > (turqoise) to 50 pennies per gram (diamond). Yes, I never worked that one out, I don't normally value gems by the gram but by individual value. So I'd have a diamond worth 1000L, not a 20gram (everyone uses carats anyway) diamond. > All prices in RQ3 are in silver pennies. The Glorantha book in the boxed set > mentions lunars in the Ernalda writeup, but unless I'm missing something > somewhere, it doesn't mention that a lunar is a silver penny. That's just a convention - Gloranthan prices are in Lunars, RQ3 called them pennies to be able to use it in Alternate Earth, but they didn't think about the massively confusing and different real world currencies of even the medieval era. > Personally, I generally don't worry about it. To be honest, it should be > pretty rare to actually find enough cash to have to worry about encumbrance > (and a good dragon horde, that's big enough for a dragon to sleep on, > represents an absurd amount of coinage). Oh, 50L per guardsman or bandit soon adds up. If you find a sword and sell it then you get quite a lot of money. To be fair, we didn't bother counting gems or crystals, as they each had 200 to the ENC and even at my worst, I didn't have 200 POW crystals and gems to carry around. I never bothered counting how many rings I had, either. For portability, we used to take gems, if we didn't mind losing something when we cashed them in, or Wheels (50W=1ENC=1000L) so, we had our saddlebags full of gold coin when paying for Resurrections. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060704/ddf927d2/attachment.html From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Wed Jul 5 02:21:16 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank L Filz) Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 09:21:16 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQRules/Coinage Exchange and Encumbrance In-Reply-To: <20060704114630.40096.qmail@web51003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > In the old RQ 2nd ed. Copy I have, 10C = 1L and 20L = 1W. 100 > coppers or silvers = 1 ENC, and 50 W = 1 ENC. > > Also, 10 Bolgs=1Clack in non-troll areas, but trolls treat > Bolgs as Clacks in troll areas. 1Bolg has the same ENC as a > Clack/Lunar. Hmm, according to both editions of Trollpak, at least in the Argan Argar description, a bold is worth 1/10 of a clack to trolls, and worthless to non-trolls. > > Per page 18 of the Gamemaster Book, gems range from 5 > pennies per gram > > (turqoise) to 50 pennies per gram (diamond). > > Yes, I never worked that one out, I don't normally value gems > by the gram but by individual value. So I'd have a diamond > worth 1000L, not a 20gram (everyone uses carats anyway) diamond. It does give carats also. Personally, I never bother with the weight like you. It's just a 1000L gem. I usually don't even specify the type. There was a period in my life where I was all into super detail with rules and had booklets of prices and values of gems by the carat and all. But to be honest, such detail rarely ever saw play. One of the few things I can remember where I did actually translate my penchant for detail and research into play was when a party (not in an RQ campaign) was going into the desert. I've also tried to use animal data from books and other research (to set movement allowances and size - again not in RQ though). > > All prices in RQ3 are in silver pennies. The Glorantha book in the > > boxed set mentions lunars in the Ernalda writeup, but unless I'm > > missing something somewhere, it doesn't mention that a > lunar is a silver penny. > > That's just a convention - Gloranthan prices are in Lunars, > RQ3 called them pennies to be able to use it in Alternate > Earth, but they didn't think about the massively confusing > and different real world currencies of even the medieval era. My observation was that for the life of me, I could not find the 1 Lunar = 1 penny conversion. And from what I could tell, the only reference to Lunars in the RQ3 boxed set was prices in the Ernalda writeup saying 500L for example. For those of us who came up through RQ2, we knew what they were talking about and automatically would have made the connection 1L = 1 Lunar = 1 penny, but I could see some poor newbie wondering what the heck a L was, perhaps eventually deciding since it sounded like a cost, it must be a penny. > Oh, 50L per guardsman or bandit soon adds up. If you find a > sword and sell it then you get quite a lot of money. Yea, it's true, cash could pile up. Of course the amount of cash in RPG play is way out of whack (though I would expect a significant percentage of the population to have at least some coins, especially anyone in or near the city, or living in a village along a travelled road). > To be fair, we didn't bother counting gems or crystals, as > they each had 200 to the ENC and even at my worst, I didn't > have 200 POW crystals and gems to carry around. I never > bothered counting how many rings I had, either. > > For portability, we used to take gems, if we didn't mind > losing something when we cashed them in, or Wheels > (50W=1ENC=1000L) so, we had our saddlebags full of gold coin > when paying for Resurrections. I tend to assume gems are cash equivalents, and that folks carrying large amounts of money are doing so in gems. While money changer fees are realistic, it's not worth the hassle to me other than perhaps thrown in as a bit of color (or perhaps actually dealt with if a group of PCs wandered into a town way out of their normal range and had to convert a lot of cash to local coinage). On the other hand, I love reading about and researching detail, so hearing about and talking about all of this stuff is quite enjoyable. I just realize these days that much of this kind of stuff will never make it into my play. Frank From carpgachair at yahoo.com Thu Jul 6 02:01:07 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 09:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Cooking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060705160108.87126.qmail@web31808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Once more to drag Mythworld into this: many skills, cooking being one of them, have graduated difficulty. One can choose to forego rolling for the skill if its difficulty is below the character's level and if there is no fumble, it is accomplished even if the roll is over the character's ability, but no learning roll can be taken. For average on-the-trail cooking, most characters would be over that 30% mark (basic species ability plus knowledge bonus would be close to insuring that). However, for a larger group than just the adventurers, to impress outsiders from the local power structure, etc., higher skill is needed. Then the roll and subsequent learning roll is needed. The same principle applies to other skills. In tie knot, a square knot is fairly low, but an eye splice around a bronze thimble is rather up there. There is a way around rolling for every little detail, but still permitting learn-by-experience advancement. Paul Cardwell __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From styopa1 at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 05:36:00 2006 From: styopa1 at gmail.com (Styopa) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:36:00 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heroism In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0606200812w6a55991bk3147847d5944262c@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c92296e0606191408q540a8d7t123a925111bf9904@mail.gmail.com> <4497EE0B.3077.11D402B@tom.zunder.org.uk> <1150812330.1aa53d84df7b8@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> <56e64e7a0606200812w6a55991bk3147847d5944262c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e64e7a0607131236o1130a88aj75683fd55fdb7313@mail.gmail.com> Test? Is it just me or did traffic on this list absolutely suddenly die? I was even digging through my spam filter, to make sure I hadn't accidently lost them into there...? Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060713/7da620b5/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 06:34:37 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:34:37 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heroism In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0607131236o1130a88aj75683fd55fdb7313@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c92296e0606191408q540a8d7t123a925111bf9904@mail.gmail.com> <4497EE0B.3077.11D402B@tom.zunder.org.uk> <1150812330.1aa53d84df7b8@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> <56e64e7a0606200812w6a55991bk3147847d5944262c@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0607131236o1130a88aj75683fd55fdb7313@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0607131334t6ebadcebu5a1e6113c872b243@mail.gmail.com> We're still here. In my case, I've been busy with work, holidays, and running my RQ campaign. David On 7/13/06, Styopa wrote: > > Test? Is it just me or did traffic on this list absolutely suddenly die? > I was even digging through my spam filter, to make sure I hadn't > accidently lost them into there...? > > Thanks! > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060713/5231d7b4/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 06:57:46 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:57:46 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heroism In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0607131236o1130a88aj75683fd55fdb7313@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c92296e0606191408q540a8d7t123a925111bf9904@mail.gmail.com> <4497EE0B.3077.11D402B@tom.zunder.org.uk> <1150812330.1aa53d84df7b8@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> <56e64e7a0606200812w6a55991bk3147847d5944262c@mail.gmail.com> <56e64e7a0607131236o1130a88aj75683fd55fdb7313@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44B6B3CA.6000807@gmail.com> Nope traffic just sort of died. Perhaps folks are awaiting the release of DBRP or Mongoose products. I'm still running my campaigns & doing my variants. takk, Sven Styopa wrote: > Test? Is it just me or did traffic on this list absolutely suddenly die? > I was even digging through my spam filter, to make sure I hadn't > accidently lost them into there...? > > Thanks! > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >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/20060713/6d4a72b2/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 19:45:39 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:45:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQRules/Coinage Exchange and Encumbrance In-Reply-To: <20060713193616.7ADE19645B1@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060714094539.52057.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Frank L Filz: >> In the old RQ 2nd ed. Copy I have, 10C = 1L and 20L = 1W. 100 >> coppers or silvers = 1 ENC, and 50 W = 1 ENC. >> >> Also, 10 Bolgs=1Clack in non-troll areas, but trolls treat >> Bolgs as Clacks in troll areas. 1Bolg has the same ENC as a >> Clack/Lunar. > Hmm, according to both editions of Trollpak, at least in the Argan Argar > description, a bold is worth 1/10 of a clack to trolls, and worthless to > non-trolls. We always took that to mean that in troll society, they used bolgs in place of clacks, but they traded with outsiders at a rate of 10 bolgs = 1 clack. So, Derak the Dark Troll buys a piece of spidersilk for 50 bolgs and sells it to a human Issaries merchant for 5L (it's worth in bolgs at 1 bolg = 1 clack), but he demands payment in bolgs. As the Issaries merchant trades with trolls a lot, he has some spare bolgs and knows that 10 bolgs = 1 clack, so he gives Derak 500 bolgs. Cunning, eh? Bolgs are only worthless to non-humans who don't trade with trolls. They are lead and can be mashed up to make sling stones. They can also be used to annoy Yelmalions and other Solars. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060714/25e2b25d/attachment.html From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Fri Jul 14 19:51:31 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:51:31 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Bolgs In-Reply-To: <20060714094539.52057.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060714094539.52057.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1152870691.57a3283c9ab2b@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> I personally liked the idea that bolgs were a big troll joke, and they were effectively worthless. They only used them to annoy humans ("I'll pay for that meal with... bolgs.") and to give to their trollkin spearmen to make them think that they're getting something useful for their time and effort. From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Jul 14 22:18:12 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:18:12 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Bolgs In-Reply-To: <1152870691.57a3283c9ab2b@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> References: <20060714094539.52057.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> <1152870691.57a3283c9ab2b@webmail6.leeds.ac.uk> Message-ID: Not to mention their uses as sling stones and between-meal snacks. Lead is sweet, after all! Say...do you think that the "trollkin curse" could actually just be a case of racial lead poisoning? :D On 7/14/06, Nikk Effingham wrote: > > I personally liked the idea that bolgs were a big troll joke, and they > were > effectively worthless. They only used them to annoy humans ("I'll pay for > that > meal with... bolgs.") and to give to their trollkin spearmen to make them > think > that they're getting something useful for their time and effort. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060714/e4f046a5/attachment.html From carpgachair at yahoo.com Sat Jul 15 01:43:42 2006 From: carpgachair at yahoo.com (Paul Cardwell) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Heroism In-Reply-To: <56e64e7a0607131236o1130a88aj75683fd55fdb7313@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060714154342.63942.qmail@web31808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Three Re: Heroism postings were found on the Bulk files today. I labeled each "Not Spam" and hope they get the message. 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 Jul 15 04:06:53 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:06:53 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: increasing characteristics/Playing Using MRQRules/Coinage Exchange and Encumbrance In-Reply-To: <20060714094539.52057.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060713193616.7ADE19645B1@mini.thinbits.net> <20060714094539.52057.qmail@web51015.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0607141106o358bd8b5s106d117fb0a3f528@mail.gmail.com> And I've "exchanged" bolgs for Wheels with a couple of trolls just by converting their own bolgs to slingstones. On 7/14/06, Simon Phipp wrote: > > Frank L Filz: > > >> In the old RQ 2nd ed. Copy I have, 10C = 1L and 20L = 1W. 100 > >> coppers or silvers = 1 ENC, and 50 W = 1 ENC. > >> > >> Also, 10 Bolgs=1Clack in non-troll areas, but trolls treat > >> Bolgs as Clacks in troll areas. 1Bolg has the same ENC as a > >> Clack/Lunar. > > > Hmm, according to both editions of Trollpak, at least in the Argan Argar > > description, a bold is worth 1/10 of a clack to trolls, and worthless to > > non-trolls. > > We always took that to mean that in troll society, they used bolgs in > place of clacks, but they traded with outsiders at a rate of 10 bolgs = 1 > clack. > > So, Derak the Dark Troll buys a piece of spidersilk for 50 bolgs and sells > it to a human Issaries merchant for 5L (it's worth in bolgs at 1 bolg = 1 > clack), but he demands payment in bolgs. As the Issaries merchant trades > with trolls a lot, he has some spare bolgs and knows that 10 bolgs = 1 > clack, so he gives Derak 500 bolgs. Cunning, eh? > Bolgs are only worthless to non-humans who don't trade with trolls. They > are lead and can be mashed up to make sling stones. They can also be used to > annoy Yelmalions and other Solars. > > See Ya > > Simon > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060714/949dab14/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Thu Jul 20 13:04:00 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:04:00 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Magic Spirit Sorcery Skills Message-ID: <1c92296e0607192004m2e5e1fe5w3f152242d643fab7@mail.gmail.com> I've a question regarding RQIII magic spirits. Has anyone developed a system for assigning the sorcery skill levels of magic spirits that can cast sorcery spells? David From perala at cc.joensuu.fi Sat Jul 22 16:50:54 2006 From: perala at cc.joensuu.fi (perala at cc.joensuu.fi) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 09:50:54 +0300 Subject: [Rq-rules] Knockback domino Message-ID: <1153551054.44c1cace9c0b5@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> I had another moment of Munchkinism. Here is the question: Can knockback into people cause a chain reaction? For instance, lets say that a Giant (STR 170, SIZ 170) is cranky and punches person A (SIZ 12) in face. He recieves 72 (d3+20d6) points of damage and flies into person B (SIZ 11). Flight is 60 meters and according to Knockback into people-rule both recieve d6 points of damage per 5 meters or fractions flown. That means 12d6 points of damage, on average 42 points. Now, does it end here, or does person B also take flight for the damage he got into person C (SIZ 14)? That would mean 6d6, or 21 points of damage to C and 7 meters of flight into D (SIZ 18), who gets 2d6 damage and no further knockback. For the sake of argument lets assume all of Giant, A, B, C and D are correctly positioned for this effect to be possible. I'm for domino - effect, since I found no rule to forbid it, but I might be missing something essential. Comments? Furthermore if domino - effect was possible, could it be done on purpose with aiming and all (like in biljard)? And if it could be done, what would it take (an aimed blow perhaps)? Marko Per?l? From jurrubin at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 02:57:37 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:57:37 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Knockback domino In-Reply-To: <1153551054.44c1cace9c0b5@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> References: <1153551054.44c1cace9c0b5@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Message-ID: <1c92296e0607220957k5857be3dk51c278f54abc6cc1@mail.gmail.com> The short answer is person B takes flight. Of course, such a series of events depends on distances involved, surprise rolls, failed DEX rolls, etc. but it's possible. I would also take into account each person's ENC. David On 7/22/06, perala at cc.joensuu.fi wrote: > > I had another moment of Munchkinism. Here is the question: Can knockback > into > people cause a chain reaction? > > For instance, lets say that a Giant (STR 170, SIZ 170) is cranky and > punches > person A (SIZ 12) in face. He recieves 72 (d3+20d6) points of damage and > flies > into person B (SIZ 11). Flight is 60 meters and according to Knockback > into > people-rule both recieve d6 points of damage per 5 meters or fractions > flown. > That means 12d6 points of damage, on average 42 points. Now, does it end > here, > or does person B also take flight for the damage he got into person C (SIZ > 14)? > That would mean 6d6, or 21 points of damage to C and 7 meters of flight > into D > (SIZ 18), who gets 2d6 damage and no further knockback. For the sake of > argument lets assume all of Giant, A, B, C and D are correctly positioned > for > this effect to be possible. > > I'm for domino - effect, since I found no rule to forbid it, but I might > be > missing something essential. Comments? > > Furthermore if domino - effect was possible, could it be done on purpose > with > aiming and all (like in biljard)? And if it could be done, what would it > take > (an aimed blow perhaps)? > > Marko Per?l? > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060722/c51c47ed/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 03:00:23 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:00:23 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Knockback domino In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0607220957k5857be3dk51c278f54abc6cc1@mail.gmail.com> References: <1153551054.44c1cace9c0b5@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> <1c92296e0607220957k5857be3dk51c278f54abc6cc1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0607221000u454f61f6k2f150a78a02f4216@mail.gmail.com> As for doing it deliberately, there are so many variables I'd just reduce them down to a Luck (POWx5) roll of each target to avoid being in the line of flight. David On 7/22/06, David Smart wrote: > > The short answer is person B takes flight. Of course, such a series of > events depends on distances involved, surprise rolls, failed DEX rolls, etc. > but it's possible. I would also take into account each person's ENC. > > David > > > On 7/22/06, perala at cc.joensuu.fi wrote: > > > > I had another moment of Munchkinism. Here is the question: Can knockback > > into > > people cause a chain reaction? > > > > For instance, lets say that a Giant (STR 170, SIZ 170) is cranky and > > punches > > person A (SIZ 12) in face. He recieves 72 (d3+20d6) points of damage and > > flies > > into person B (SIZ 11). Flight is 60 meters and according to Knockback > > into > > people-rule both recieve d6 points of damage per 5 meters or fractions > > flown. > > That means 12d6 points of damage, on average 42 points. Now, does it end > > here, > > or does person B also take flight for the damage he got into person C > > (SIZ 14)? > > That would mean 6d6, or 21 points of damage to C and 7 meters of flight > > into D > > (SIZ 18), who gets 2d6 damage and no further knockback. For the sake of > > argument lets assume all of Giant, A, B, C and D are correctly > > positioned for > > this effect to be possible. > > > > I'm for domino - effect, since I found no rule to forbid it, but I might > > be > > missing something essential. Comments? > > > > Furthermore if domino - effect was possible, could it be done on purpose > > with > > aiming and all (like in biljard)? And if it could be done, what would it > > take > > (an aimed blow perhaps)? > > > > Marko Per?l? > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/20060722/8343b2cb/attachment.html From tcantine at incentre.net Sun Jul 23 14:59:00 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 22:59:00 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Knockback domino In-Reply-To: <1153551054.44c1cace9c0b5@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> References: <1153551054.44c1cace9c0b5@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Message-ID: My knockback house rules provide for this. I calculate basic knockback as the rolled damage bonus of the attacker (or original impactor) plus current movement rate in m/SR, minus the rolled damage bonus of the target, to a minimum of zero. In the case of secondary knockbacks, I treat the current movement rate as however many meters remain unspent of the current knockback. So, applying this to your example, here's how it goes. Giant's damage bonus is 20d6. We'll assume person A has a damage bonus of +1d4. The Giant has not taken a running charge at this, so his movement rate is zero. That gives us a knockback for person A of 20d6-1d4, or about 67 meters. Now it becomes relevant just how far apart A and B are. Let's say 5 meters. Let's also assume B has no damage bonus. A therefore strikes B at an effective speed of 67-5=62 m/SR. Add 1d4 for A's damage bonus, and subtract nothing for little B's lack of a damage bonus, and the knockback for B is about 65 m. However, that's a pretty elastic collision. They're not likely to bounce that much. So we convert some of that kinetic energy into damage. I once calculated, for fun, the approximate amount of damage someone would suffer on impact if launched from a trebuchet against a solid stone wall, and got something like 100d6. (Looking it over now, I think it should have been about 60d6. 60 m/s is about the speed you'd be moving after falling from a height of 180 m, and RQ3 says you take 1d6 for every 3m you fall.) So, probably the impact between A and B should soak up more than half the kinetic energy, giving each about 20 or 30 d6 worth, and reducing the distance they travel accordingly. Actually, I would probably rule that A is no longer an intact character, and B takes damage from flying bits of A. No, wait. 5 m is still within Giant's follow-through, so they both end up smeared across Giant's fist. Anyway, let's reverse it, and look at the domino part. The thing about knocking over dominoes is that you knock down a potentially unlimited amount of stuff for a very small initial force. So let's say David (SIZ 10, no damage bonus) shoves Goliath (SIZ 20, +1d6 damage bonus) and gets a special success on knockback. 0-1d6 gives us zero distance, so Goliath just sort of falls over. But Big Butch (SIZ 22, +1d6 damage bonus) is right next to him, and doesn't get out of the way. 0 + 1d6 - 1d6 can range from zero to 5, so Big Butch can be knocked back into Large Larry, and so on, assuming nobody makes a DEX check to get out of the way. On 22-Jul-06, at 12:50 AM, perala at cc.joensuu.fi wrote: > I had another moment of Munchkinism. Here is the question: Can > knockback into > people cause a chain reaction? > > For instance, lets say that a Giant (STR 170, SIZ 170) is cranky and > punches > person A (SIZ 12) in face. He recieves 72 (d3+20d6) points of damage > and flies > into person B (SIZ 11). Flight is 60 meters and according to Knockback > into > people-rule both recieve d6 points of damage per 5 meters or fractions > flown. > That means 12d6 points of damage, on average 42 points. Now, does it > end here, > or does person B also take flight for the damage he got into person C > (SIZ 14)? > That would mean 6d6, or 21 points of damage to C and 7 meters of > flight into D > (SIZ 18), who gets 2d6 damage and no further knockback. For the sake of > argument lets assume all of Giant, A, B, C and D are correctly > positioned for > this effect to be possible. > > I'm for domino - effect, since I found no rule to forbid it, but I > might be > missing something essential. Comments? > > Furthermore if domino - effect was possible, could it be done on > purpose with > aiming and all (like in biljard)? And if it could be done, what would > it take > (an aimed blow perhaps)? > > Marko Per?l? > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From perala at cc.joensuu.fi Wed Jul 26 01:03:07 2006 From: perala at cc.joensuu.fi (perala at cc.joensuu.fi) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:03:07 +0300 Subject: [Rq-rules] Knockback domino In-Reply-To: References: <1153551054.44c1cace9c0b5@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Message-ID: <1153839787.44c632ab7800d@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Thanks, your analysis was interesting. I think I'll be making some additions to my own house rules. Marko Per?l? > My knockback house rules provide for this. I calculate basic knockback > as the rolled damage bonus of the attacker (or original impactor) plus > current movement rate in m/SR, minus the rolled damage bonus of the > target, to a minimum of zero. In the case of secondary knockbacks, I > treat the current movement rate as however many meters remain unspent > of the current knockback. > > So, applying this to your example, here's how it goes. > > Giant's damage bonus is 20d6. We'll assume person A has a damage bonus > of +1d4. The Giant has not taken a running charge at this, so his > movement rate is zero. That gives us a knockback for person A of > 20d6-1d4, or about 67 meters. > > Now it becomes relevant just how far apart A and B are. Let's say 5 > meters. Let's also assume B has no damage bonus. A therefore strikes > B at an effective speed of 67-5=62 m/SR. Add 1d4 for A's damage bonus, > and subtract nothing for little B's lack of a damage bonus, and the > knockback for B is about 65 m. > > However, that's a pretty elastic collision. They're not likely to > bounce that much. So we convert some of that kinetic energy into > damage. I once calculated, for fun, the approximate amount of damage > someone would suffer on impact if launched from a trebuchet against a > solid stone wall, and got something like 100d6. (Looking it over now, I > think it should have been about 60d6. 60 m/s is about the speed you'd > be moving after falling from a height of 180 m, and RQ3 says you take > 1d6 for every 3m you fall.) So, probably the impact between A and B > should soak up more than half the kinetic energy, giving each about 20 > or 30 d6 worth, and reducing the distance they travel accordingly. > > Actually, I would probably rule that A is no longer an intact > character, and B takes damage from flying bits of A. No, wait. 5 m is > still within Giant's follow-through, so they both end up smeared across > Giant's fist. > > > > Anyway, let's reverse it, and look at the domino part. The thing about > knocking over dominoes is that you knock down a potentially unlimited > amount of stuff for a very small initial force. So let's say David (SIZ > 10, no damage bonus) shoves Goliath (SIZ 20, +1d6 damage bonus) and > gets a special success on knockback. 0-1d6 gives us zero distance, so > Goliath just sort of falls over. But Big Butch (SIZ 22, +1d6 damage > bonus) is right next to him, and doesn't get out of the way. 0 + 1d6 - > 1d6 can range from zero to 5, so Big Butch can be knocked back into > Large Larry, and so on, assuming nobody makes a DEX check to get out of > the way. > > On 22-Jul-06, at 12:50 AM, perala at cc.joensuu.fi wrote: > > > I had another moment of Munchkinism. Here is the question: Can > > knockback into > > people cause a chain reaction? > > > > For instance, lets say that a Giant (STR 170, SIZ 170) is cranky and > > punches > > person A (SIZ 12) in face. He recieves 72 (d3+20d6) points of damage > > and flies > > into person B (SIZ 11). Flight is 60 meters and according to Knockback > > into > > people-rule both recieve d6 points of damage per 5 meters or fractions > > flown. > > That means 12d6 points of damage, on average 42 points. Now, does it > > end here, > > or does person B also take flight for the damage he got into person C > > (SIZ 14)? > > That would mean 6d6, or 21 points of damage to C and 7 meters of > > flight into D > > (SIZ 18), who gets 2d6 damage and no further knockback. For the sake of > > argument lets assume all of Giant, A, B, C and D are correctly > > positioned for > > this effect to be possible. > > > > I'm for domino - effect, since I found no rule to forbid it, but I > > might be > > missing something essential. Comments? > > > > Furthermore if domino - effect was possible, could it be done on > > purpose with > > aiming and all (like in biljard)? And if it could be done, what would > > it take > > (an aimed blow perhaps)? > > > > Marko Per?l? > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 01:47:35 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:47:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Magic Spirit Sorcery Skills/Knockback domino In-Reply-To: <20060725150338.805579D5631@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060725154735.86587.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> David Smart: > I've a question regarding RQIII magic spirits. > > Has anyone developed a system for assigning the sorcery skill levels > of magic spirits that can cast sorcery spells? Generally it hasn't come up in my games except when Sorcerers' Ghosts take the field, in which case I created a sorcerer from scratch. But, I normally used the 25% Beginner, 50% Apprentice, 75% Adept, 90% Magus rule of thumb. Sometimes when I've been lazy I've used INTx3 or INTx5 as quick skill/spell levels. What we need is something like the RQ2 spirit/RQ3 Daka Fal tables with percentages linked to INT/POW and to skill levels. But that might be a bit complicated. Marko Per?l?: > I had another moment of Munchkinism. Here is the question: Can knockback into > people cause a chain reaction? Oh, absolutely. You can also do the "Spike" manouvre and knock someone into the ground with an overhead smash. > For instance, lets say that a Giant (STR 170, SIZ 170) is cranky and punches > person A (SIZ 12) in face. He recieves 72 (d3+20d6) points of damage and flies > into person B (SIZ 11). Flight is 60 meters and according to Knockback into > people-rule both recieve d6 points of damage per 5 meters or fractions flown. Yep, probably right, but I've never liked the knockback flight damage myself. I prefer to use the 12D6 as a maximum and if the knocked back person hits something before he stops, then he takes the remainder of the flight as damage. So, I knock you back 60 metres, but you hit a brick wall at 20 metres, so you take 40metres-worth or 8D6 damage. The rationale being that the firther you fly, the slower you get and the less force behind you, which is rubbish from a physics point of view but reasonable from a game point of view. It also gets around the problem: 1. A giant hits me doing 72 points of damage, I fly away for 60 metres and hit a wall doing 12D6 damage. 2. A giant hits me doing 72 points of damage, I fly away and hit a wall 1m away, 1D6 damage. 3. In the amended version, the first case would actually take no damage as his movement is used up and the second one would take prety much the full whack. > That means 12d6 points of damage, on average 42 points. Now, does it end here, > or does person B also take flight for the damage he got into person C (SIZ 14)? Yes, he would. > That would mean 6d6, or 21 points of damage to C and 7 meters of flight into D > (SIZ 18), who gets 2d6 damage and no further knockback. For the sake of > argument lets assume all of Giant, A, B, C and D are correctly positioned for > this effect to be possible. That's exactly how I'd play it. If I felt particularly generous, I might give them a DEX or Luck roll to get out of the way, but if they are stacked together it might be difficult. > I'm for domino - effect, since I found no rule to forbid it, but I might be > missing something essential. Comments? It's fun and can be used in all sorts of circumstances. Our Great Troll jumped onto the roof of an apartment in the Rubble, using the Jumping spell, and landed with some force (the GM used the Falling rules to determine how much damage he would do to the roof) and smashed through the roof, falling to the floor below, and the floor below that and the one below that ... He ended up opening the door, brushing himself down and walking out as if nothing had happened. > Furthermore if domino - effect was possible, could it be done on purpose with > aiming and all (like in biljard)? And if it could be done, what would it take > (an aimed blow perhaps)? I'd say it would be difficult and an aimed blow (half chance) would be enough. But, it depends on the situation - if everyone was walking in a line and a giant jumped out and pushed the first one back, then he could cannon into the others and knock them all down. Similarly, a good sweep attack could _both_ knock opponents into each other _and_ hit said opponents with the sweep. Giants are fun. I like the bellyflop option as well - the giant jumps up and lands on a group of opponents - they must make a DEX roll to avoid him otherwise he does in effect a Trample doing double damage bonus to them. So, your big giant (20D6) would do 40D6 to anyone he bellyflops over. However, a Set Spear would probably skewer the giant as well, so it's not the best tactic. Tom Cantine: > My knockback house rules provide for this. I calculate basic knockback > as the rolled damage bonus of the attacker (or original impactor) plus > current movement rate in m/SR, minus the rolled damage bonus of the > target, to a minimum of zero. In the case of secondary knockbacks, I > treat the current movement rate as however many meters remain unspent > of the current knockback. That's an interesting way of doing it. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060725/a1772865/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Wed Jul 26 02:44:02 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:44:02 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Magic Spirit Sorcery Skills/Knockback domino In-Reply-To: <20060725154735.86587.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060725150338.805579D5631@mini.thinbits.net> <20060725154735.86587.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0607250944l33de7cf5u28f276d921428e43@mail.gmail.com> On 7/25/06, Simon Phipp wrote: > > Giants are fun. So is a high-STR dwarf with a True-Hammered morningstar rolling a critical success swinging up at a target standing slightly above him. From leonbk at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 05:21:16 2006 From: leonbk at yahoo.com (Leon Kirshtein) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:21:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Magic Spirit Sorcery Skills/Knockback domino Message-ID: <20060725192116.28125.qmail@web32113.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I have decided that spirits can not cast or be taught sorcery spells and INT spirits and familiars can not hold Sorcery in their Int. Leon --- rq-rules-bounces at crashbox.com wrote: > David Smart: > > > I've a question regarding RQIII magic spirits. > > > > Has anyone developed a system for assigning the sorcery skill levels > > of magic spirits that can cast sorcery spells? > > Generally it hasn't come up in my games except when Sorcerers' Ghosts take the field, in which case I created a sorcerer from scratch. > > But, I normally used the 25% Beginner, 50% Apprentice, 75% Adept, 90% Magus rule of thumb. Sometimes when I've been lazy I've used INTx3 or INTx5 as quick skill/spell levels. > > What we need is something like the RQ2 spirit/RQ3 Daka Fal tables with percentages linked to INT/POW and to skill levels. But that might be a bit complicated. > > Marko Per?l?: > > > I had another moment of Munchkinism. Here is the question: Can knockback into > > people cause a chain reaction? > > Oh, absolutely. You can also do the "Spike" manouvre and knock someone into the ground with an overhead smash. > > > For instance, lets say that a Giant (STR 170, SIZ 170) is cranky and punches > > person A (SIZ 12) in face. He recieves 72 (d3+20d6) points of damage and flies > > into person B (SIZ 11). Flight is 60 meters and according to Knockback into > > people-rule both recieve d6 points of damage per 5 meters or fractions flown. > > Yep, probably right, but I've never liked the knockback flight damage myself. I prefer to use the 12D6 as a maximum and if the knocked back person hits something before he stops, then he takes the remainder of the flight as damage. So, I knock you back 60 metres, but you hit a brick wall at 20 metres, so you take 40metres-worth or 8D6 damage. The rationale being that the firther you fly, the slower you get and the less force behind you, which is rubbish from a physics point of view but reasonable from a game point of view. > > It also gets around the problem: > 1. A giant hits me doing 72 points of damage, I fly away for 60 metres and hit a wall doing 12D6 damage. > 2. A giant hits me doing 72 points of damage, I fly away and hit a wall 1m away, 1D6 damage. > 3. In the amended version, the first case would actually take no damage as his movement is used up and the second one would take prety much the full whack. > > > That means 12d6 points of damage, on average 42 points. Now, does it end here, > > or does person B also take flight for the damage he got into person C (SIZ 14)? > > Yes, he would. > > > That would mean 6d6, or 21 points of damage to C and 7 meters of flight into D > > (SIZ 18), who gets 2d6 damage and no further knockback. For the sake of > > argument lets assume all of Giant, A, B, C and D are correctly positioned for > > this effect to be possible. > > That's exactly how I'd play it. If I felt particularly generous, I might give them a DEX or Luck roll to get out of the way, but if they are stacked together it might be difficult. > > > I'm for domino - effect, since I found no rule to forbid it, but I might be > > missing something essential. Comments? > > It's fun and can be used in all sorts of circumstances. > > Our Great Troll jumped onto the roof of an apartment in the Rubble, using the Jumping spell, and landed with some force (the GM used the Falling rules to determine how much damage he would do to the roof) and smashed through the roof, falling to the floor below, and the floor below that and the one below that ... He ended up opening the door, brushing himself down and walking out as if nothing had happened. > > > Furthermore if domino - effect was possible, could it be done on purpose with > > aiming and all (like in biljard)? And if it could be done, what would it take > > (an aimed blow perhaps)? > > I'd say it would be difficult and an aimed blow (half chance) would be enough. But, it depends on the situation - if everyone was walking in a line and a giant jumped out and pushed the first one back, then he could cannon into the others and knock them all down. Similarly, a good sweep attack could _both_ knock opponents into === Message Truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From tcantine at incentre.net Wed Jul 26 15:49:34 2006 From: tcantine at incentre.net (Tom Cantine) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 23:49:34 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Knockback and falling damage. In-Reply-To: <20060725154735.86587.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060725154735.86587.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8445ABEF-1C6A-11DB-BB14-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> I worked out the following table of damage scales for impact at various speeds, although I suppose I should expand it to take into account the enormous amounts of knockback a giant can deliver. Damage Equivalent speed Typical situation 1D3 1-2 m/SR Walking into wall; tripping over cat 1D4 3-4 m/SR Running into wall; falling from 1 m 1D6 5-6 m/SR Sprinting into wall; falling from 2-3 m. 2D6 7-8 m/SR Trotting horse. 3D6 9-10 m/SR Charging horse I based these values loosely on the falling damage rule, noting that every 3 m of height adds a d6 of damage, and so I inferred that damage is linear with kinetic energy. Actually, that seems pretty reasonable, all other things being equal. However, it seems to me that knockback distance is a linear function of velocity, not of kinetic energy (which is proportional to the square of velocity). To fling someone 60m would require a minimum velocity of about 45 m/s, which is about the speed one would attain after falling about 100 m. So damage on landing should be about 33d6. I don't think that damage should max out at 12d6, because the entire body is hitting a solid surface, and while 12d6 is every bit as lethal as 33d6, the degree of overkill is a useful indication of how recognizable the residue will be. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1340 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060725/82539ff4/attachment.bin From esoteric2723 at comcast.net Wed Jul 26 21:38:35 2006 From: esoteric2723 at comcast.net (Brad Furst) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:38:35 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Knockback and falling damage. In-Reply-To: <8445ABEF-1C6A-11DB-BB14-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> References: <20060725154735.86587.qmail@web51009.mail.yahoo.com> <8445ABEF-1C6A-11DB-BB14-000D9334A9EA@incentre.net> Message-ID: <2C51E42A-DF1E-44FD-8DD1-687534EA2E91@comcast.net> Yes, it's square with respect to time, but we don't use time as a measure for falling in gaming. It's linear, with respect to distance, which is how we measure falls in gaming. :-) Terminal velocity occurs falling from about 280 feet. More distance than that is negligible to damage. On Jul 25, 2006, at 10:49 PM, Tom Cantine wrote: > I worked out the following table of damage scales for impact at > various speeds, although I suppose I should expand it to take into > account the enormous amounts of knockback a giant can deliver. > > Damage Equivalent speed Typical situation > 1D3 1-2 m/SR Walking into wall; tripping over cat > 1D4 3-4 m/SR Running into wall; falling from 1 m > 1D6 5-6 m/SR Sprinting into wall; falling from 2-3 m. > 2D6 7-8 m/SR Trotting horse. > 3D6 9-10 m/SR Charging horse > > I based these values loosely on the falling damage rule, noting > that every 3 m of height adds a d6 of damage, and so I inferred > that damage is linear with kinetic energy. Actually, that seems > pretty reasonable, all other things being equal. > > However, it seems to me that knockback distance is a linear > function of velocity, not of kinetic energy (which is proportional > to the square of velocity). To fling someone 60m would require a > minimum velocity of about 45 m/s, which is about the speed one > would attain after falling about 100 m. So damage on landing should > be about 33d6. > > I don't think that damage should max out at 12d6, because the > entire body is hitting a solid surface, and while 12d6 is every bit > as lethal as 33d6, the degree of overkill is a useful indication of > how recognizable the residue will be. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060726/98e875be/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Wed Jul 26 23:17:14 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:17:14 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Knockback and falling damage. In-Reply-To: <20060726113918.9DE4F9DF03C@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060726131714.97773.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> Brad Furst: > Yes, it's square with respect to time, but we don't use time as a > measure for falling in gaming. > > It's linear, with respect to distance, which is how we measure falls > in gaming. > :-) Anything that uses equations of motion to work out RQ damage is a bit complicated and probably too realistic. > Terminal velocity occurs falling from about 280 feet. More distance > than that is negligible to damage. Soltak Stormspear (from whence came the soltakss in my email address) had a cloak made of shadowcat fur that enabled him to completely ignore the effects of wind passing over him - the cloak would billow around him but he would be unaffected. It also meant that he ignored terminal velocity and could fall very, very quickly. Tom Cantine: > However, it seems to me that knockback distance is a linear > function of velocity, not of kinetic energy (which is proportional > to the square of velocity). To fling someone 60m would require a > minimum velocity of about 45 m/s, which is about the speed one > would attain after falling about 100 m. So damage on landing should > be about 33d6. Strictly speaking, it should be based on momentum, which is dependent on both velocity and mass, the bigger you are the harder you hit. The following illustrates perfectly why RQ abstracts things into easy to use tables. With the above caveat of "Anything that uses equations of motion to work out RQ damage is a bit complicated and probably too realistic", we have: Disregarding air resistance as negligible, the only force stopping you from moving in a straight line is gravity pulling you down, so the distance travelled depends on how far up you are hit. So, using s=ut+1/2at^2 for downward movement, with u=0 (initial downward velocity = 0), a=10 (approx), we have s=0+5t^2 t=sqrt(s/5) Using v = d/t for horizontal distance, v=velocity, t=time, we substitute for t and get d=v * sqrt (s/5) For someone knocked flat on their centre of gravity, so they fall 1m, d=v*sqrt(1/5), d=0.44v (approx). For someone knocked a bit higher, so they fall 2m, d=0.6v (approx). Are you still with me, or have your eyes glazed over yet? So, if you fling someone at a velocity of 45m/s, then they only move approx 20m in a flat whack but they move 27m on a slightly arced whack. To fling someone 60m, using v=d/0.44 gives a velocity of 136 m/s, using v=d/0.6 gives 100m/s. Of course, hitting someone while they are standing on a hill does change the values slightly as the vertical distance changes. As does the angle of projection, so a giant hitting you with an upward swing would potentially knock you further than with a straight poke to the ribs, depdning on the angle concerned. According to the maths, the horizontal component of the momentum doesn't actually change, so you should take the same damage if you hit a wall straight away as if you hit a wall just before you hit the ground. But where's the fun in that? The vertical component is merely falling damage, so if you fall 1m you get a bumped head, so it's best to ignore that. Now, the problem comes when working out how much damage is done for a certain velocity. The easiest way of doing this is to work out the velocities achieved at each falling distance, using the falling damage chart, then using the same damages for calculated velocities. So, a giant hits you and knocks you 60 metres, we know from above that this equates to a velocity of between 100 and 136 m/s, so we cross reference our falling distance/velocity/damage table to see how much damage that equates to. Simple. Except, however, that damage depends on mass as well as velocity, so you have to take into account the SIZ of the person flung. So, you need a distance/damage/velocity/momentum chart and read the values off that. See how fun using physics can be when misapplied? Do you think you can draw up the tables to make the calculations easier? :-) > I don't think that damage should max out at 12d6, because the > entire body is hitting a solid surface, and while 12d6 is every bit > as lethal as 33d6, the degree of overkill is a useful indication of > how recognizable the residue will be. 12D6 is only lethal if you haven't got lots of hit points and armour. But, yes, it shouldn't max out at any realistic number. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060726/a4f21012/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 00:01:36 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:01:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Knockback and falling damage. In-Reply-To: <20060726113918.9DE4F9DF03C@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060726140136.19536.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> More silliness with maths. To calculate the final velocity (v) when falling a certain distance (s): Using v^2 = u^2 + 2as, we have v^2 = 0 + 20s (u=0m a=10) v=sqrt (20s) With the previously-calculated formulae for horizontal distance/velocity, we can work out the horizontal distances travelled for a certain starting height. All distances are in metres, all velocities in m/s. Plugging these into an Excel spreadsheet gives the following handy table: Horizontal Horizontal Distance Equivalent Distance Distance Travelled Velocity Damage (0.44) (0.6) 1 4.47 No effect 2 3 3 7.75 1D6 3 5 6 10.95 2D6 5 7 9 13.42 3D6 6 8 12 15.49 4D6 7 9 15 17.32 5D6 8 10 18 18.97 6D6 8 11 21 20.49 7D6 9 12 24 21.91 8D6 10 13 27 23.24 9D6 10 14 30 24.49 10D6 11 15 33 25.69 11D6 11 15 36 26.83 12D6 12 16 39 27.93 13D6 12 17 42 28.98 14D6 13 17 45 30 15D6 13 18 48 30.98 16D6 14 19 51 31.94 17D6 14 19 54 32.86 18D6 14 20 57 33.76 19D6 15 20 60 34.64 20D6 15 21 63 35.5 21D6 16 21 66 36.33 22D6 16 22 69 37.15 23D6 16 22 72 37.95 24D6 17 23 75 38.73 25D6 17 23 78 39.5 26D6 17 24 81 40.25 27D6 18 24 84 40.99 28D6 18 25 87 41.71 29D6 18 25 90 42.43 30D6 19 25 93 43.13 31D6 19 26 96 43.82 32D6 19 26 99 44.5 33D6 20 27 102 45.17 34D6 20 27 So, you are whacked by a giant on a flat trajectory, 1m from the ground and travel 10m. This does 8D6 damage. The giant hits you a little bit higher for the same distance and the wall you hit does 5D6 damage. It's inadvisable to be hit for more than 20m or so, as it may damage your health. See what madness maths leads you into? It's best to forget about it and use a simple, incorrect but reasonable-looking table. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060726/322c4659/attachment.html From adam at charioteer.org Thu Jul 27 03:26:37 2006 From: adam at charioteer.org (Adam Canning) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:26:37 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060726113918.8F17B9DF03B@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <44C7B3DD.29394.FC451D@adam.charioteer.org> Last Weekend I picked up a copy of Mongoose's Runequest and the Adventure Rune of Chaos. Thoughts so far. The Credits don't seem to include either Perrin or Stafford. But have Sprange as both Author and Designer. I miss almost everyone having small quantities of Battle/Spirit/Basic Magic. This version Magic is only for specialists who have POW to spare integrating Runes. The new experience system is inferior to the old. [Basically get roughly one tick per 5 hours play you can put where you want but gain +1 to a skill if you fail to make the check.Increasing a Stat costs three ticks] Hero Points make for some odd effects especially since you'll want to save them up to become Runelords or Priests [The old needing skills etc no longer applying]. All non Siz stats being equally easy [or Hard] to increase. The Dodge, Resistance, Persistance Skill triad seems to show a preference for D&D's triune saving throws rather than the old stat rolls. I don't see much of the point with the renaming of Spell Properties [Progressive rather than Variable] or the new nonstat based durations. Despite being 124 pages long it seemed less valuable as a single book game than RQ2 [While mentioning 6 magic systems it detailed only 1 [With about as many spells as RQ2's Battle Magic but players will have less access to them], PC alchemy is hived off to another book, less monsters, Only three Magic Crystals] Most of this seems to be to push sales of the MRQ Companion and thus doubling the cost of the basic rules. The core rule book gives the impression of being padded with margins and text styles to fit the page count rather than being efficient. The Adventure should have another name. This one gives away a plot point. It also isn't as much fun to run [or from comments play] as the Garhound Contest which has a similar plot. Other than apparantly being in the Barbarian belt [Probably] it has had almost all locational clues filed off. Plus the refernces to Elfs rather than Elves got on my nerves. [The Elfs appear to have no connection to Aldrya and the one that turns up seems more like a D&D Elf than an RQ one. Oh and the farming village has a plentiful supply of high quality bastard swords stockpiled. Before anyone gets the impression I hated all of it, the new team tests and assistance rules were a nice addition. The number of actions a turn and fatigue rules might grow on me but I doubt it. In general It looks like a game written by someone who didn't like most of the core memes of RQ2 or3 -- Adam Canning From devinc at aol.com Thu Jul 27 03:54:51 2006 From: devinc at aol.com (devinc at aol.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:54:51 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Knockback and falling damage. In-Reply-To: <20060726140136.19536.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8C87EF3BA95E75A-7A8-1DFA@FWM-D27.sysops.aol.com> Not this again! The bugaboo of impact damage has haunted gaming boards for decades. And trust me, even guys with physics degrees cannot agree on what actually causes impact damage. Is it velocity, elasticity of collision, kinetic energy, blah blah blah. After observing a great many of these debates, it is my conclusion that it's simply not worth the effort to try to have a realistic impact mechanism. Just use the simplest table that seems somewhat believable and don't worry about it. Devin -----Original Message----- From: soltakss at yahoo.com To: rq-rules at crashbox.com Sent: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 7:01 AM Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Knockback and falling damage. More silliness with maths. To calculate the final velocity (v) when falling a certain distance (s): Using v^2 = u^2 + 2as, we have v^2 = 0 + 20s (u=0m a=10) v=sqrt (20s) With the previously-calculated formulae for horizontal distance/velocity, we can work out the horizontal distances travelled for a certain starting height. All distances are in metres, all velocities in m/s. Plugging these into an Excel spreadsheet gives the following handy table: Horizontal Horizontal Distance Equivalent Distance Distance Travelled Velocity Damage (0.44) (0.6) 1 4.47 No effect 2 3 3 7.75 1D6 3 5 6 10.95 2D6 5 7 9 13.42 3D6 6 8 12 15.49 4D6 7 9 15 17.32 5D6 8 10 18 18.97 6D6 8 11 21 20.49 7D6 9 12 24 21.91 8D6 10 13 27 23.24 9D6 10 14 30 24.49 10D6 11 15 33 25.69 11D6 11 15 36 26.83 12D6 12 16 39 27.93 13D6 12 17 42 28.98 14D6 13 17 45 30 15D6 13 18 48 30.98 16D6 14 19 51 31.94 17D6 14 19 54 32.86 18D6 14 20 57 33.76 19D6 15 20 60 34.64 20D6 15 21 63 35.5 21D6 16 21 66 36.33 22D6 16 22 69 37.15 23D6 16 22 72 37.95 24D6 17 23 75 38.73 25D6 17 23 78 39.5 26D6 17 24 81 40.25 27D6 18 24 84 40.99 28D6 18 25 87 41.71 29D6 18 25 90 42.43 30D6 19 25 93 43.13 31D6 19 26 96 43.82 32D6 19 26 99 44.5 33D6 20 27 102 45.17 34D6 20 27 So, you are whacked by a giant on a flat trajectory, 1m from the ground and travel 10m. This does 8D6 damage. The giant hits you a little bit higher for the same distance and the wall you hit does 5D6 damage. It's inadvisable to be hit for more than 20m or so, as it may damage your health. See what madness maths leads you into? It's best to forget about it and use a simple, incorrect but reasonable-looking table. See Ya Simon _______________________________________________ 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/20060726/36c584cc/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Thu Jul 27 04:43:16 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:43:16 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44C7B3DD.29394.FC451D@adam.charioteer.org> References: <20060726113918.8F17B9DF03B@mini.thinbits.net> <44C7B3DD.29394.FC451D@adam.charioteer.org> Message-ID: <1c92296e0607261143p1381439ma0d67b25124f702c@mail.gmail.com> But, in your opinion, do the new team tests and assistance rules alone make the book a worthwhile purchase? On 7/26/06, Adam Canning wrote: > > ... the new team > tests and assistance rules were a nice addition. The number of > actions a turn and fatigue rules might grow on me but I doubt it. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060726/5b919572/attachment.html From Mechashef at emailme.net.au Thu Jul 27 07:05:32 2006 From: Mechashef at emailme.net.au (Mechashef) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:05:32 +1000 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44C7B3DD.29394.FC451D@adam.charioteer.org> Message-ID: <20060726210535.0C76297C915@mail.velocitynet.com.au> "In general It looks like a game written by someone who didn't like most of the core memes of RQ2 or3" I was in the initial play test and was invited into the cutdown restricted one but declined. This was largely because I got exactly the same impression as you wrote. From tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Jul 27 03:33:22 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:33:22 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44C7B3DD.29394.FC451D@adam.charioteer.org> References: <44C7B3DD.29394.FC451D@adam.charioteer.org> Message-ID: On 26 Jul 2006, at 18:26, Adam Canning wrote: > Last Weekend I picked up a copy of Mongoose's Runequest and the > Adventure Rune of Chaos. > > .. > > In general It looks like a game written by someone who didn't like > most of the core memes of RQ2 or3 > Exactly my view. Actually, not actually 'like' but 'know'. They just are such d20 people that it colours their whole outlook. Still it isn't too terrible is it. Once you've ripped out the whole hero points/legendary abilities shit. > -- > Adam Canning > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From tom at zunder.org.uk Thu Jul 27 19:13:41 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:13:41 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060726210535.0C76297C915@mail.velocitynet.com.au> References: <20060726210535.0C76297C915@mail.velocitynet.com.au> Message-ID: It's so difficult. On a public level it's great they're publishing RQ again. On a private level it's not quite the game I'd have liked. On 26 Jul 2006, at 22:05, Mechashef wrote: > > "In general It looks like a game written by someone who didn't like > most of the core memes of RQ2 or3" > > I was in the initial play test and was invited into the cutdown > restricted > one but declined. This was largely because I got exactly the same > impression as you wrote. > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From aluban at yahoo.fr Thu Jul 27 19:48:45 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:48:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44C7B3DD.29394.FC451D@adam.charioteer.org> Message-ID: <20060727094845.27519.qmail@web27701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Adam Canning a ?crit : Despite being 124 pages long it seemed less valuable as a single book game than RQ2 [While mentioning 6 magic systems it detailed only 1 [With about as many spells as RQ2's Battle Magic but players will have less access to them], PC alchemy is hived off to another book, less monsters, Only three Magic Crystals] Most of this seems to be to push sales of the MRQ Companion and thus doubling the cost of the basic rules. The core rule book gives the impression of being padded with margins and text styles to fit the page count rather than being efficient. Note that the basic rules will be freely available as a SRD document on mongoose's site. But, yes, I can hardly imagine playing MRQ without the companion, especially after reading the few previews available at mongooses's site. I can also hardly imagine a Lankhmar setting with runic magic and no sorcery. So it is a must-buy. In general It looks like a game written by someone who didn't like most of the core memes of RQ2 or3 To be honest, this was my impression while reading versions 1 to 4 of playtest draft rules. But Ken Hite did a great work re-introducing RQ2 concepts into the fifth version. Personnally, I have mixed feelings about MRQ. I like both combat and magic chapter, even if I think runic magic is quite difficult to master for so limited powers. On the other hand, character creation chapter needs a lot of re-work. The introduction of the D&D "roll X+1 dice and keep X" method for characteristic rolls applied to classical RQ3 stats is a joke. It doesn't have the same impact in terms of probability on rolling 3d6 than 2d6+6 and results in ridiculously high INT and SIZ scores for all human characters. As can be seen with their character sheet preview, beginning skill scores are also dramatically low. There are not enough points to create a character with decent mundane skill percentage and one or more advanced skill. There is also the fact they kept localized hit points and not general hit points, as was strongly suggested during playtest. I think this will be a major problem in the years to come. --------------------------------- 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/20060727/fdeaf308/attachment.html From aluban at yahoo.fr Thu Jul 27 19:50:14 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:50:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20060727095014.28236.qmail@web27701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I couldn't say more. Thomas Zunder a ?crit : It's so difficult. On a public level it's great they're publishing RQ again. On a private level it's not quite the game I'd have liked. On 26 Jul 2006, at 22:05, Mechashef wrote: > > "In general It looks like a game written by someone who didn't like > most of the core memes of RQ2 or3" > > I was in the initial play test and was invited into the cutdown > restricted > one but declined. This was largely because I got exactly the same > impression as you wrote. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 --------------------------------- 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/20060727/3f54ccd9/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 19:51:34 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:51:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Knockback and falling damage. In-Reply-To: <20060727091403.05DEC9E8EBE@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060727095134.87917.qmail@web51014.mail.yahoo.com> Devin: > Not this again! The bugaboo of impact damage has haunted gaming boards for decades. And trust me, even > guys with physics degrees cannot agree on what actually causes impact damage. Is it velocity, elasticity of > collision, kinetic energy, blah blah blah. > After observing a great many of these debates, it is my conclusion that it's simply not worth the effort to try to > have a realistic impact mechanism. Just use the simplest table that seems somewhat believable and don't > worry about it. My thoughts exactly. Use a simple table that balances in game terms and forget the rest. My last two posts were intended to illustrate how complex and silly things could get, not as a realistic way of calculating damage. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060727/ca15784b/attachment.html From soltakss at yahoo.com Thu Jul 27 20:03:11 2006 From: soltakss at yahoo.com (Simon Phipp) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:03:11 +0100 (BST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060727091403.05DEC9E8EBE@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <20060727100311.50439.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> I'll be getting my copy of Mongoose RQ tomorrow at Continuum, with any luck, so will have the weekend to digest and discuss. Comments are sure to follow. It is always difficult when discussing or commenting on new versions of rules etc. People have their own agendas, so this always colours the arguments. So, someone who liked RQ2 and hated RQ3 will say that it's not like RQ2. Someone with a bee in their bonnet about D20 in general will feel that Mongoose are not doing RQ justice. Dinosaurs like me will say it isn't as good as it was in my day. Don't forget that some of the early RQ2 offerings were absolutely rubbish as source material (Trolls and Trollkin, Fangs, Militia and whathisface, something and scorpionmen, although I know that people found them useful as pregenerated NPCs) but then they brought out the RQ2 gems. Initially, RQ3 was poor, although the rulebook was good, (Monster Coliseum, all the RQ2 reprints) but then they brought out some good stuff. Even Hero Wars had abysmal rulebooks but then brought some interesting things out eventually. I would expect that the first few things to come out Mongoose would be pretty poor, but as they get the feel of RQ they'll bring out better stuff. Thomas Zunder: > It's so difficult. > On a public level it's great they're publishing RQ again. > On a private level it's not quite the game I'd have liked. It never is, though. We took several years of distrust to move to RQ3 and we still use some RQ2 rules and other house rules. Still, something is much better than nothing. 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. See Ya Simon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060727/6a173a64/attachment.html From adam at charioteer.org Thu Jul 27 23:01:09 2006 From: adam at charioteer.org (Adam Canning) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:01:09 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060727091402.ECC439E8EBD@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <44C8C725.11760.1EB1AA@adam.charioteer.org> > Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:43:16 -0500 > From: "David Smart" > Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest > To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." > Message-ID: > <1c92296e0607261143p1381439ma0d67b25124f702c at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > But, in your opinion, do the new team tests and assistance rules alone make > the book a worthwhile purchase? As I understand it the SRD will be going up in a week or two. Printing out the appropriate pages [20 and 22] is a better Idea. Especially since I'm not entirely sure how to integrate them with the traditional experience system. > Exactly my view. Actually, not actually 'like' but 'know'. > They just are such d20 people that it colours their whole outlook. > Still it isn't too terrible is it. Sprange claimed to know nothing about the plans for a new BRP when it was mentioned. But then he seems to have had a heavy turnover of staff recently. So that might explain why he thought that the concerns of people who have played the game for years should be brushed off by "They''ve only seen half of it." > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:13:41 +0100 > From: Thomas Zunder > > It's so difficult. > On a public level it's great they're publishing RQ again. > On a private level it's not quite the game I'd have liked. If you loose the quite I might agree. Apparantly the EWF and Godlearner rules are planned to be unbalanced with everythinng else. -- Adam Canning From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 28 00:59:57 2006 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:59:57 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060727094845.27519.qmail@web27701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060727094845.27519.qmail@web27701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44C8D4ED.4030203@sbcglobal.net> 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. Guy -- --Guy Hoyle "Live every day as if you're dying Of a contagious disease that turns people you bite into zombies." The Onion, January 25, 2006 | Issue 42?04 From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jul 28 01:04:47 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:04:47 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44C8D4ED.4030203@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: >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... Cheers, Nick Middleton From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Fri Jul 28 01:19:41 2006 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:19:41 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44C8D98D.3070507@sbcglobal.net> Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >>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... > Well, that makes me feel a lot better. -- --Guy Hoyle "Live every day as if you're dying Of a contagious disease that turns people you bite into zombies." The Onion, January 25, 2006 | Issue 42?04 From slposey at concentric.net Fri Jul 28 01:20:49 2006 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:20:49 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060727094845.27519.qmail@web27701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20060727094845.27519.qmail@web27701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <44C8D9D1.7010206@concentric.net> Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: > > > */Adam Canning /* a ?crit : > > Despite being 124 pages long it seemed less valuable as a single book > game than RQ2 [While mentioning 6 magic systems it detailed only 1 > [With about as many spells as RQ2's Battle Magic but players will > have less access to them], PC alchemy is hived off to another book, > less monsters, Only three Magic Crystals] Most of this seems to be to > push sales of the MRQ Companion and thus doubling the cost of the > basic rules. The core rule book gives the impression of being padded > with margins and text styles to fit the page count rather than being > efficient. > > Note that the basic rules will be freely available as a SRD document on > mongoose's site. THAT'S what I'm interested in seeing. How "variant" can a 3rd party product be and still be considered "official"? What (if any) parts of MRQ are considered sacrosanct? Seems to me if it's open enough the fan community (us) could steer things back to where we wanted by publishing add-on/replacement rules that make MRQ more RQ2/3-like. Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net From kpmcdona at mindspring.com Fri Jul 28 01:27:44 2006 From: kpmcdona at mindspring.com (Kevin McDonald) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:27:44 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44C8D4ED.4030203@sbcglobal.net> References: <20060727094845.27519.qmail@web27701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <44C8D4ED.4030203@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <44C8DB70.1050301@mindspring.com> Guy Hoyle wrote: > 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. I am not sure it *is* the case. The Glorantha: Second Age preview contains the following quote: "Ordinary people practice their own spells and charms, helping them to feed, clothe and shelter themselves in what would otherwise be a hostile environment." (page 2) Maybe the common magic stuff will be in a later supplement (Glorantha SA, Cults, etc)? ~Kevin McD From ffilz-lists at mindspring.com Fri Jul 28 01:42:35 2006 From: ffilz-lists at mindspring.com (Frank Filz) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:42:35 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Mongoose Runequest References: <20060727100311.50439.qmail@web51006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <005901c6b193$49188390$59162f09@IBMSKFUWSTXPIP> 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. And I'll definitely be interested in the source material, though I'll have to take a wait and see attitude on how useful 2nd age material is since I'm pretty likely to stay in 3rd age. If the material is remotely useful though, I'll buy it. One reason is to support keeping Glorantha/RQ alive. The other is that I learned long ago that whether I am actively playing RQ at any given time or not, I will eventually return to the game, and I'll regret not having purchased the intervening source material (I was even starting to regret not having ever purchased RQ2 but I recently acquired a boxed set, and I've filled in my collection with most of the original stuff, plus the reprints, and all the AH stuff [even gateway, except Ninja], even enough dupes that I can loan out cults books and not feel at risk of losing the most important stuff). Frank From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jul 28 01:54:29 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:54:29 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44C8D98D.3070507@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: >>>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... > > >Well, that makes me feel a lot better. Well, if it helps any Guy, I should point out that you should be hearing that through my gritted teeth... ;-> Cheers Nick Middleton From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Jul 28 07:47:45 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:47:45 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44C8D4ED.4030203@sbcglobal.net> References: <20060727094845.27519.qmail@web27701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <44C8D4ED.4030203@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <8738A475-066C-4A06-914F-6085DBC39E65@zunder.org.uk> It's actually more runic that before, one seeks and integrates rues into oneself, chnaging oneself. Also the default level of magic is not Glorantha, so it's lower than we are used to. On 27 Jul 2006, at 15:59, Guy Hoyle wrote: > 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. > > Guy > > > > -- > --Guy Hoyle > > "Live every day as if you're dying Of a contagious disease that > turns people you bite into zombies." > The Onion, January 25, 2006 | Issue 42?04 > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Jul 28 07:49:12 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:49:12 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No, it's very much RuneQuest. Not quite the same, but definitely a RQ. We need to decide, do we want to be grumpy ld men or not? Give it a fair trial, forget the playtest, see how it plays.. On 27 Jul 2006, at 16:04, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >> 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... > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Jul 28 07:50:14 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:50:14 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44C8D9D1.7010206@concentric.net> References: <20060727094845.27519.qmail@web27701.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <44C8D9D1.7010206@concentric.net> Message-ID: You could make it very RQ2/3 like with very few deletions. On 27 Jul 2006, at 16:20, Stephen Posey wrote: > Alban de ROSTOLAN wrote: >> */Adam Canning /* a ?crit : >> Despite being 124 pages long it seemed less valuable as a >> single book >> game than RQ2 [While mentioning 6 magic systems it detailed >> only 1 >> [With about as many spells as RQ2's Battle Magic but players will >> have less access to them], PC alchemy is hived off to another >> book, >> less monsters, Only three Magic Crystals] Most of this seems >> to be to >> push sales of the MRQ Companion and thus doubling the cost of the >> basic rules. The core rule book gives the impression of being >> padded >> with margins and text styles to fit the page count rather than >> being >> efficient. >> Note that the basic rules will be freely available as a SRD >> document on mongoose's site. > > > > THAT'S what I'm interested in seeing. How "variant" can a 3rd party > product be and still be considered "official"? What (if any) parts > of MRQ are considered sacrosanct? > > Seems to me if it's open enough the fan community (us) could steer > things back to where we wanted by publishing add-on/replacement > rules that make MRQ more RQ2/3-like. > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 10:39:32 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:39:32 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I can't speak for anyone else, but I will continue to be a grumpy Id man. Although I'm not 100% sure what that means. :D I'm looking forward to DBRP, though...if it ever comes out. Certainly Mongoose seems to have lived *down* to my expectations, so maybe Chaosium will exceed my hopes. On 7/27/06, Thomas Zunder wrote: > > No, it's very much RuneQuest. Not quite the same, but definitely a RQ. > We need to decide, do we want to be grumpy ld men or not? > Give it a fair trial, forget the playtest, see how it plays.. > > On 27 Jul 2006, at 16:04, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > >> 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... > > > > Cheers, > > > > Nick Middleton > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- 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/20060727/5f7920e9/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 11:02:39 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:02:39 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1c92296e0607271802n28e50659l132a0f3ce754fc51@mail.gmail.com> Same here. Especially if it means Ann-Margret is going to make an appearance. Oh. That was Grumpy Old Men. Never mind. David On 7/27/06, Peter Maranci wrote: > > I can't speak for anyone else, but I will continue to be a grumpy Id man. > Although I'm not 100% sure what that means. :D > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060727/232be8f5/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 11:53:44 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:53:44 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44C96E28.2000801@gmail.com> Despite your dismissive & deriding comments (bordering on insulting - but that's been par for Mongoose) of those of us who don't feel the way the "Company Flack" does, we have given MRQ a fair trial & we found it wanting. I prefer to be a "grumpy old man" & either use my old copies or use DBRP which so far seems to integrate the original with it's variants in its mechanics & spirit. If I wanted to play a D20 variant (despite Mongoose labeling it RuneQuest), I would buy a D20 variant. Takk, Sven Thomas Zunder wrote: > No, it's very much RuneQuest. Not quite the same, but definitely a RQ. > We need to decide, do we want to be grumpy ld men or not? > Give it a fair trial, forget the playtest, see how it plays.. > > On 27 Jul 2006, at 16:04, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > >>> 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... >> >> Cheers, >> >> Nick Middleton >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 12:45:13 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:45:13 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I hate to admit it, but I only just realized that "ld" was a typo (and that it was a lowercase L, not an uppercase i). Sorry if I sounded like a smartass. I have to admit, I wonder how I'd feel about MRQ if I had a different opinion of Stafford. But it only takes a moment's reflection: I'd still dislike it rather intensely. The design choices that were made show clearly that the people who wrote MRQ neither appreciated nor really understood what made RQ such a great game. I'll refrain from mentioning...um...another system which may come out soon. :D ->Peter On 7/27/06, Peter Maranci wrote: > > I can't speak for anyone else, but I will continue to be a grumpy Id man. > Although I'm not 100% sure what that means. :D > > I'm looking forward to DBRP, though...if it ever comes out. Certainly > Mongoose seems to have lived *down* to my expectations, so maybe Chaosium > will exceed my hopes. > > > On 7/27/06, Thomas Zunder wrote: > > > > No, it's very much RuneQuest. Not quite the same, but definitely a RQ. > > We need to decide, do we want to be grumpy ld men or not? > > Give it a fair trial, forget the playtest, see how it plays.. > > > > On 27 Jul 2006, at 16:04, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > > > >> 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... > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Nick Middleton > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > -- > 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/ > -- 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/20060727/045abaf7/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 13:40:19 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:40:19 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Gaming Humor Message-ID: <1c92296e0607272040o52afb0c2p81c0f3a2e6ff1f1f@mail.gmail.com> In an attempt to knowingly hijack the list from the recent Mongoose thread, I humbly (yeah, right) offer the following motivational posters for gamers. Strangely enough, a number of them are rather appropriate for RQ. A few would likely not be considered "work appropriate" but they're still quite enjoyable. http://www.cruisegazing.com/RPG_Motivational/ David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060727/c0002bef/attachment.html From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jul 28 19:03:35 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:03:35 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >No, it's very much RuneQuest. Not quite the same, but definitely a RQ. >We need to decide, do we want to be grumpy ld men or not? >Give it a fair trial, forget the playtest, see how it plays.. I did. It's called "RunQuest" because of a business deal, not because it has any intrinsic link to the game Steve Perrin & Co designed back in the seventies, and it's quite clear that whilst Stafford wanted it to be "the same system, just not the same copyright words" (as S John Ross said at the time on RPGNet, a morally troubling turn of phrase at very least), Sprange not only didn't know RQ well, he didn't like most of what he DID know and set out to change those things. Leaving aside the (being charitable) brusque and thoughtless treatment of the Open Playtest group (and Steve Perrin in particular), and anything else I still have the Open Playtest files and I can quite clearly see from the previews that a number of things I didn't like (or agree with) are still there (and some new things I disagree with have been added). So, apart from a passing resemblance to RQII and the name, it's mostly a game a lot of the detail of which I already know I don't care for. Why then, given that I HAVE RQII and III and just about every other BRP game published, and the new BRP is on it's way (and which looks very much to my taste) should I bother wasting money on MRQ? Not forgetting that the MRQ SRD will be released shortly on the net basically for free if I'm THAT interested in the rules, and that (Mongoose's claims aside) it is now clear from their schedule and previews that in order to have a usable complete set of MRQ rules one will need several books (and that the core book has crept up in price) - MRQ, RQ Monsters and Companion at least? So it has the name "RuneQuest" on it, so what? That name became merely a vacuous trademark the moment Stafford and Chaosium got in to what ever childish spat it was that had each other chasing the various trademarks in 99/2000 - I am grateful to MRQ at least for making me realise that, and thus helping severe my irrational attachment to the name "RuneQuest". I will give the MRQ _settings_ a look (albeit Glorantha long ago stopped appealing, I don't like the look or tone of the previews I've seen, and Stafford's antics in the last year or so have done nothing to re-fire my interest in Glorantha, and I was never that interested in the Arthur one), and if Lankhmar is any good I might even buy it in my FLGS rather than waiting for it to show discounted on eBay. But if I do buy the Lankhmar book, it will be because I believe it to be well written, decently produced, good value for money and will appeals to me - to buy it on any other grounds would seem rather strange. Cheers, Nick Middleton From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Jul 28 19:44:04 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:44:04 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9552A4ED-A16F-44E1-A0A5-82CD4B06B7E5@zunder.org.uk> Nick, we are not that far apart in opinion. The playtest was crippling awful and in fact proves to me that it was a bad idea for Mongoose. The current rules are very much a rewrite of the core RQ by Ken Hite to recreat his memory of what made RQ. It then has some meta-stuff that is not very RQ on top, but just take it out (hero points, leg abilities). Other bits are just another way of doing things that aren't wrong but are different, such as combat actions, or having only hit points in locations and no core hit points. The fact that Mongoose bought the name doesn't mean it isn't RQ. It is as much a child of RQ as any other BRP game, and as such as worthy to use the name. Now.. I may not actually play it as written.. but I think we need to be careful not the throw the baby out with the bathwater when it's actually on the shelves and will get new players into the BRP fold. On 28 Jul 2006, at 10:03, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >> No, it's very much RuneQuest. Not quite the same, but definitely a >> RQ. >> We need to decide, do we want to be grumpy ld men or not? >> Give it a fair trial, forget the playtest, see how it plays.. > > I did. It's called "RunQuest" because of a business deal, not > because it > has any intrinsic link to the game Steve Perrin & Co designed back > in the > seventies, and it's quite clear that whilst Stafford wanted it to > be "the > same system, just not the same copyright words" (as S John Ross > said at the > time on RPGNet, a morally troubling turn of phrase at very least), > Sprange > not only didn't know RQ well, he didn't like most of what he DID > know and > set out to change those things. Leaving aside the (being charitable) > brusque and thoughtless treatment of the Open Playtest group (and > Steve > Perrin in particular), and anything else I still have the Open > Playtest > files and I can quite clearly see from the previews that a number > of things > I didn't like (or agree with) are still there (and some new things I > disagree with have been added). So, apart from a passing > resemblance to > RQII and the name, it's mostly a game a lot of the detail of which I > already know I don't care for. > > Why then, given that I HAVE RQII and III and just about every other > BRP > game published, and the new BRP is on it's way (and which looks > very much > to my taste) should I bother wasting money on MRQ? Not forgetting > that the > MRQ SRD will be released shortly on the net basically for free if > I'm THAT > interested in the rules, and that (Mongoose's claims aside) it is > now clear > from their schedule and previews that in order to have a usable > complete > set of MRQ rules one will need several books (and that the core > book has > crept up in price) - MRQ, RQ Monsters and Companion at least? So it > has the > name "RuneQuest" on it, so what? That name became merely a vacuous > trademark the moment Stafford and Chaosium got in to what ever > childish > spat it was that had each other chasing the various trademarks in > 99/2000 - > I am grateful to MRQ at least for making me realise that, and thus > helping > severe my irrational attachment to the name "RuneQuest". > > I will give the MRQ _settings_ a look (albeit Glorantha long ago > stopped > appealing, I don't like the look or tone of the previews I've seen, > and > Stafford's antics in the last year or so have done nothing to re- > fire my > interest in Glorantha, and I was never that interested in the > Arthur one), > and if Lankhmar is any good I might even buy it in my FLGS rather than > waiting for it to show discounted on eBay. But if I do buy the > Lankhmar > book, it will be because I believe it to be well written, decently > produced, good value for money and will appeals to me - to buy it > on any > other grounds would seem rather strange. > > Cheers, > > Nick Middleton > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Jul 28 19:47:25 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:47:25 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Gaming Humor In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0607272040o52afb0c2p81c0f3a2e6ff1f1f@mail.gmail.com> References: <1c92296e0607272040o52afb0c2p81c0f3a2e6ff1f1f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8BE40AB0-FA26-4277-B03C-DC7A445C376E@zunder.org.uk> This is the one I am using.. it's different but it's NOW. http://www.cruisegazing.com/RPG_Motivational/Change.jpg From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Jul 28 19:48:27 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:48:27 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <562FC84B-90CE-4B11-B528-B3DC15783E54@zunder.org.uk> Who here has read the final rules, or even playtest 1.5? From Nick.Middleton at invensys.com Fri Jul 28 19:54:07 2006 From: Nick.Middleton at invensys.com (Nick.Middleton at invensys.com) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:54:07 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Gaming Humour In-Reply-To: <8BE40AB0-FA26-4277-B03C-DC7A445C376E@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: >This is the one I am using.. it's different but it's NOW. > >http://www.cruisegazing.com/RPG_Motivational/Change.jpg Printed out as a colour A3 poster and going on my wall tonight! :D And for the record, I have no choice about being a Grumpy Old Git - all my gaming friends, my kids AND my ex regularly tell me I am, so it must be true: although the rumour about being born in a tweed jacket with leather elbow patches is a lie - I just wore one nearly continuously from 1982 to 1987... :P Nick Middleton From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Jul 28 19:55:13 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:55:13 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44C96E28.2000801@gmail.com> References: <44C96E28.2000801@gmail.com> Message-ID: <07FB9926-6495-44C0-B6FF-5E39C968F460@zunder.org.uk> Sven, darling, how could you think I was dismissive or insulting? I simply said 'let us not be grumpy old men' and dismiss the game out of hand when it is a valid incarnation of RQ. How can you say you have given it a fair trial and then claim it is a d20 variant, when it is definitely a BRP variant. Could I ask which version of the rules you gave it a fair chance with? Again this suggests to me that trying an open playtest was a mistake that a game company shouldn't make again. By the way, Sven, sweetheart, did you think I worked for Mongoose? Oh dear, you should be with me when I lay into Sprange at Continuum 2006 tonight.. I don't think MRQ is great, but it is competent and some of the differences may actually make it a fun game for some rpg-ers.. On 28 Jul 2006, at 02:53, Sven Lugar wrote: > Despite your dismissive & deriding comments (bordering on insulting > - but that's been par for Mongoose) of those of us who don't feel > the way the "Company Flack" does, we have given MRQ a fair trial & > we found it wanting. I prefer to be a "grumpy old man" & either use > my old copies or use DBRP which so far seems to integrate the > original with it's variants in its mechanics & spirit. If I wanted > to play a D20 variant (despite Mongoose labeling it RuneQuest), I > would buy a D20 variant. > > Takk, > Sven > > Thomas Zunder wrote: > >> No, it's very much RuneQuest. Not quite the same, but definitely a >> RQ. >> We need to decide, do we want to be grumpy ld men or not? >> Give it a fair trial, forget the playtest, see how it plays.. >> >> On 27 Jul 2006, at 16:04, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >> >>>> 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... >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Nick Middleton >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From tom at zunder.org.uk Fri Jul 28 20:02:00 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:02:00 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Gaming Humour In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07B2FCFA-D69C-437D-ACD8-B6A32E1D5D71@zunder.org.uk> Hey, I feel the same. I look at the RQ3 on my shelves and I think 'I rarely run that, why buy a new and inferior edition'. But that's not the same as saying it's awful in public when it's good enough and a far better game than d20. At my FLGS I will run it (with my house mods such as dropping hit locations, hero points, leg.abilities) set in the world of Gwenthia so that the 18 and 19 year olds there pick up a BRP product from the shelf and the pool of d100 players grows. It's hard getting any game that isn't d20 starting there now because they all have just got so used to it. And these aren't D&D grognards, it's just that so much of what they play is d20, it's easier on the mind to play another. I want it to be easier for them to pick up d100 and play. I'd love to have had a ruleset that developed more directly from RQ3 but let's face it, would that have happened? Would we all be still having this discussion if RQ4 AIG had been the new ruleset? On 28 Jul 2006, at 10:54, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >> This is the one I am using.. it's different but it's NOW. >> >> http://www.cruisegazing.com/RPG_Motivational/Change.jpg > > Printed out as a colour A3 poster and going on my wall tonight! :D > > And for the record, I have no choice about being a Grumpy Old Git - > all my > gaming friends, my kids AND my ex regularly tell me I am, so it > must be > true: although the rumour about being born in a tweed jacket with > leather > elbow patches is a lie - I just wore one nearly continuously from > 1982 to > 1987... > > :P > > > Nick Middleton > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From adam at charioteer.org Fri Jul 28 20:08:15 2006 From: adam at charioteer.org (Adam Canning) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:08:15 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060727215030.EC8DB9EF919@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <44C9F01F.5222.D730D@adam.charioteer.org> > Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:47:45 +0100 > From: Thomas Zunder > It's actually more runic that before, one seeks and integrates rues > into oneself, chnaging oneself. True and something ofthis sort would have made a nice high end magic. > Also the default level of magic is not Glorantha, so it's lower than > we are used to. Unfortunately not p62 "Rune magic. By far the most common magic in Glorantha." -- Adam Canning From nphillis at shaw.ca Fri Jul 28 22:01:23 2006 From: nphillis at shaw.ca (Newton Philis) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:01:23 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest References: <44C96E28.2000801@gmail.com> <07FB9926-6495-44C0-B6FF-5E39C968F460@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <001d01c6b23d$8bd3f1b0$de384d18@mesohordey> I don't post much on this forum, as I have not played Runequest in 15 years. However, loved it when I did. My (much younger) group now plays D&D 3.5E. Not because it has the best rules (far from it), but because the rules and adventures (and many Open Licence publishers) are so readily availible. This young group does like their "over-the-top" gaming (powerful feats, multiple splat-books, etc). There was no way in the world I could convince them to play old RQ (finding no longer published rules on E-bay, etc). Now finally a chance to swing them in back in the right direction with MRQ. 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. While it is not the classic RQ of our youth, it is a step in the right direction for the newer gaming crowd (and possible a very nice "middle ground" to the alternatives). N. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Zunder" > Sven, darling, how could you think I was dismissive or insulting? I > simply said 'let us not be grumpy old men' and dismiss the game out > of hand when it is a valid incarnation of RQ. How can you say you > have given it a fair trial and then claim it is a d20 variant, when > it is definitely a BRP variant. Could I ask which version of the > rules you gave it a fair chance with? Again this suggests to me that > trying an open playtest was a mistake that a game company shouldn't > make again. By the way, Sven, sweetheart, did you think I worked for > Mongoose? Oh dear, you should be with me when I lay into Sprange at > Continuum 2006 tonight.. I don't think MRQ is great, but it is > competent and some of the differences may actually make it a fun game > for some rpg-ers.. > From pmaranci at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 22:31:21 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:31:21 -0400 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: You know what I find interesting? That apparently no one from Mongoose is reading this list. They're certainly not commenting on it, anyway. You'd think that if they were really interested in RuneQuest, they'd be here. But they're not. 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. Sigh. ->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/20060728/4df0a325/attachment.html From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Sat Jul 29 00:48:27 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:48:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <562FC84B-90CE-4B11-B528-B3DC15783E54@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <20060728144827.86861.qmail@web33504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes, I was in playtest 1.5... --- Thomas Zunder wrote: > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Jul 29 01:29:50 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:29:50 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Gaming Humour In-Reply-To: <07B2FCFA-D69C-437D-ACD8-B6A32E1D5D71@zunder.org.uk> References: <07B2FCFA-D69C-437D-ACD8-B6A32E1D5D71@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <1c92296e0607280829k28d681b4se567462634cf36c4@mail.gmail.com> And I've tweaked my RQIII variant so much over the last few years, I and my group have gotten them just where we like them. As Thomas Z. said, why buy a new and inferior edition? I'll look over the rulesset when/if they arrive at the local store but I won't run to get them. Still, it's nice to see some commercial activity with the game. The supplements should be of some interest as well. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060728/79a74dcf/attachment.html From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sat Jul 29 04:22:09 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:22:09 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Gaming Humour In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44CA55D1.9020404@gmail.com> Damn! I've played every one of those versions from Chainmail I & II on!!! I've earned the right to be a grumpy old git! Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >>This is the one I am using.. it's different but it's NOW. >> >>http://www.cruisegazing.com/RPG_Motivational/Change.jpg >> >> > >Printed out as a colour A3 poster and going on my wall tonight! :D > >And for the record, I have no choice about being a Grumpy Old Git - all my >gaming friends, my kids AND my ex regularly tell me I am, so it must be >true: although the rumour about being born in a tweed jacket with leather >elbow patches is a lie - I just wore one nearly continuously from 1982 to >1987... > >:P > > >Nick Middleton > >_______________________________________________ >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/20060728/91a6164d/attachment.html From jurrubin at gmail.com Sat Jul 29 04:31:15 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:31:15 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Gaming Humour In-Reply-To: <44CA55D1.9020404@gmail.com> References: <44CA55D1.9020404@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0607281131v75a0f768mb749d69102235b3@mail.gmail.com> Ah, Chainmail! I cut my teeth on that one, entering the wondrous world of fantasy gaming with it. David On 7/28/06, Sven Lugar wrote: > > Damn! I've played every one of those versions from Chainmail I & II on!!! > I've earned the right to be a grumpy old git! > > Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: > > This is the one I am using.. it's different but it's NOW. > > http://www.cruisegazing.com/RPG_Motivational/Change.jpg > > Printed out as a colour A3 poster and going on my wall tonight! :D > > And for the record, I have no choice about being a Grumpy Old Git - all my > gaming friends, my kids AND my ex regularly tell me I am, so it must be > true: although the rumour about being born in a tweed jacket with leather > elbow patches is a lie - I just wore one nearly continuously from 1982 to > 1987... > > :P > > > Nick Middleton > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.comhttp://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060728/7dcc1c02/attachment.html From slposey at concentric.net Sat Jul 29 04:34:19 2006 From: slposey at concentric.net (Stephen Posey) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:34:19 -0600 Subject: [Rq-rules] Gaming Humour In-Reply-To: <1c92296e0607281131v75a0f768mb749d69102235b3@mail.gmail.com> References: <44CA55D1.9020404@gmail.com> <1c92296e0607281131v75a0f768mb749d69102235b3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <44CA58AB.5040008@concentric.net> David Smart wrote: > Ah, Chainmail! I cut my teeth on that one, entering the wondrous world > of fantasy gaming with it. Dang, and I thought I was one 'cause I started with White Box D&D :-/ Stephen Posey slposey at concentric.net > > David > > On 7/28/06, *Sven Lugar* < vikingjarl at gmail.com > > wrote: > > Damn! I've played every one of those versions from Chainmail I & II > on!!! I've earned the right to be a grumpy old git! From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sat Jul 29 04:50:29 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:50:29 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <07FB9926-6495-44C0-B6FF-5E39C968F460@zunder.org.uk> References: <44C96E28.2000801@gmail.com> <07FB9926-6495-44C0-B6FF-5E39C968F460@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <44CA5C75.6080208@gmail.com> It was the whole tone of a series of emails from you that seemed like you felt we were incapable of rendering a fair & honest appraisal. These are good reasoned folk & experienced players on this board in my opinion (I include you in that - even though I called you on it). If I was mistaken on your intent, then I apologize, but it was an honest mistake. I have seen a recent edition (I won't say who came to me for my input as I don't want to get them in trouble) & was part of the first playtest group. Sprange is the company flack I was referring to, btw. His treatment of the Steve (who's been my friend since the early 70's - I'm very loyal & staunch in my friendships) as well as his comments about the original ideas of RQ put the MRQ version beyond the pale for me. Yes I do see that some attempt at drawing from RQ, but the overall feel of the game has moved into the D20 realm of "mighty-morphing super-gamer" rather than the subtlety & finesse required of "Cleaver-Quest" (aka RQ). You have D20 extraordinary non-humans rather than a RQ person who rises above the crowd by dint of effort, wit & a willingness to take risks that could kill or cripple them permanently. From day one of original play-testing with Steve (I probably have the only original hand written copy left according to Steve) I have loved that in RQ I was required to think rather than just cleave & walk to the next room. Thus it is flavor & tangibility that I'm speaking of along with some (but not all) of the mechanics. I didn't know if you were with Mongoose or not, nor would it matter to me in that I always try to speak plainly. I think it was more of the way Mongoose handled the open playtesters rather than the concept of open play-testing. The DBRP experience has gone much better & been much more open - yes it's delayed by the lead writer having to move across country & start a new job in the middle. It's being very successful & inviting for even the most minor of criticism & correction. It's turning into a fine game that I'm willing to have my name be a part of it. I've even written a mythological scenario for it that is up for inclusion in the first scenario release. - That's how playable I feel it is. To me it is a matter of management. takk, Sven Thomas Zunder wrote: > Sven, darling, how could you think I was dismissive or insulting? I > simply said 'let us not be grumpy old men' and dismiss the game out > of hand when it is a valid incarnation of RQ. How can you say you > have given it a fair trial and then claim it is a d20 variant, when > it is definitely a BRP variant. Could I ask which version of the > rules you gave it a fair chance with? Again this suggests to me that > trying an open playtest was a mistake that a game company shouldn't > make again. By the way, Sven, sweetheart, did you think I worked for > Mongoose? Oh dear, you should be with me when I lay into Sprange at > Continuum 2006 tonight.. I don't think MRQ is great, but it is > competent and some of the differences may actually make it a fun game > for some rpg-ers.. > > On 28 Jul 2006, at 02:53, Sven Lugar wrote: > >> Despite your dismissive & deriding comments (bordering on insulting >> - but that's been par for Mongoose) of those of us who don't feel >> the way the "Company Flack" does, we have given MRQ a fair trial & >> we found it wanting. I prefer to be a "grumpy old man" & either use >> my old copies or use DBRP which so far seems to integrate the >> original with it's variants in its mechanics & spirit. If I wanted >> to play a D20 variant (despite Mongoose labeling it RuneQuest), I >> would buy a D20 variant. >> >> Takk, >> Sven >> >> Thomas Zunder wrote: >> >>> No, it's very much RuneQuest. Not quite the same, but definitely a RQ. >>> We need to decide, do we want to be grumpy ld men or not? >>> Give it a fair trial, forget the playtest, see how it plays.. >>> >>> On 27 Jul 2006, at 16:04, Nick.Middleton at invensys.com wrote: >>> >>>>> 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... >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Nick Middleton >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > From vikingjarl at gmail.com Sat Jul 29 04:53:24 2006 From: vikingjarl at gmail.com (Sven Lugar) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:53:24 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Gaming Humour In-Reply-To: <44CA58AB.5040008@concentric.net> References: <44CA55D1.9020404@gmail.com> <1c92296e0607281131v75a0f768mb749d69102235b3@mail.gmail.com> <44CA58AB.5040008@concentric.net> Message-ID: <44CA5D24.5070604@gmail.com> Tyr's Taut Testicles, I've even played a fantasy variant of HG Wells "Little Wars" (later combined with some of Morchauser's copncepts) using Elastolin miniatures back in the late 50's ---- that's really frightening! ves thu hael, Sven Stephen Posey wrote: > David Smart wrote: > >> Ah, Chainmail! I cut my teeth on that one, entering the wondrous >> world of fantasy gaming with it. > > > Dang, and I thought I was one 'cause I started with White Box D&D :-/ > > Stephen Posey > slposey at concentric.net > >> >> David >> >> On 7/28/06, *Sven Lugar* < vikingjarl at gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >> Damn! I've played every one of those versions from Chainmail I & II >> on!!! I've earned the right to be a grumpy old git! > > > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com Sat Jul 29 04:52:54 2006 From: craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com (craig.t.carter at hsbcgroup.com) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:52:54 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Craig Carter is away Message-ID: I will be out of the office starting 28/07/2006 and will not return until 07/08/2006. I am on leave and I will respond to your message when I return ----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely, secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions. From DevinC at aol.com Sat Jul 29 16:24:51 2006 From: DevinC at aol.com (DevinC at aol.com) Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 02:24:51 EDT Subject: [Rq-rules] Gaming Humour Message-ID: <110.61fb0b2d.31fc5933@aol.com> I too started with Chainmail. I still remember using a 747 jet plane model for a dragon and my heroes and superheroes fighting nazgul and saving my elves in reserve to unparalyze people stuck from ghouls. I also quite enjoyed the man-to-man combat section and ran many historical battles using it. Devin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060729/5eb54cba/attachment.html From perala at cc.joensuu.fi Mon Jul 31 05:17:33 2006 From: perala at cc.joensuu.fi (perala at cc.joensuu.fi) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:17:33 +0300 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sureshot Message-ID: <1154287052.44cd05cd05c20@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> I just read the description of sureshot - spell. It said that the missile hits the target regardless of hiding or movement, but it didn't mention dodge. Does this mean that an arrow with a sureshot spell on it could be dodged? (That's the way I have understood it so far.) If it could be done, wouldn't that mean that Sureshot is a quite useless spell? (Misses only on 96-00. Isn't everybody's bow / javelin / throwing knife skills already at 95+ and thus beyond need of this spell.) Marko Per?l? From tom at zunder.org.uk Sat Jul 29 07:35:15 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:35:15 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44C9F01F.5222.D730D@adam.charioteer.org> References: <44C9F01F.5222.D730D@adam.charioteer.org> Message-ID: <6E9A20BF-293B-4661-9004-D6D5CE38142A@zunder.org.uk> On 28 Jul 2006, at 11:08, Adam Canning wrote: > > Unfortunately not > > p62 "Rune magic. By far the most common magic in Glorantha." > But I believe the availability of Rune Magic is higher in Glorantha than the default rulebook > -- > Adam Canning > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From tom at zunder.org.uk Sat Jul 29 07:39:30 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:39:30 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: References: <44C96E28.2000801@gmail.com> <07FB9926-6495-44C0-B6FF-5E39C968F460@zunder.org.uk> <001d01c6b23d$8bd3f1b0$de384d18@mesohordey> Message-ID: Are you sure? I am at Continuum 2006 with them and they seem well informed about how the 'old Guard' views them. On 28 Jul 2006, at 13:31, Peter Maranci wrote: > You know what I find interesting? That apparently no one from > Mongoose is reading this list. They're certainly not commenting on > it, anyway. > > You'd think that if they were really interested in RuneQuest, > they'd be here. But they're not. > > 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. > > Sigh. > > ->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/ > _______________________________________________ > 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/20060728/b0617d2f/attachment.html From tom at zunder.org.uk Mon Jul 31 05:49:11 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:49:11 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ/BRP In-Reply-To: <1154287052.44cd05cd05c20@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> References: <1154287052.44cd05cd05c20@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Message-ID: <99A60742-5B76-47EC-8636-5D76AF5E8C01@zunder.org.uk> I am at Continuum. I have now read the final MRQ. It is actually different from the last playtest I had. It's not at all bad. It is different. It has very similar statblocks to RQ2/3/BRP. It is too different for me but it is a fine game and will bring people in. I also have had some long fun chats with Charlie Krank and I am convinced I shall be supporting BRP. (It's not going to be DBRP anymore). Charlie wants it out by year end. BUT, I do recommend you all go out and buy MRQ and then we can have a real discussion.. From phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk Mon Jul 31 06:26:54 2006 From: phl0nje at leeds.ac.uk (Nikk Effingham) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:26:54 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sureshot In-Reply-To: <1154287052.44cd05cd05c20@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> References: <1154287052.44cd05cd05c20@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Message-ID: <1154291214.6f1369281bb71@webmail5.leeds.ac.uk> > I just read the description of sureshot - spell. It said that the missile > hits > the target regardless of hiding or movement, but it didn't mention dodge. > Does > this mean that an arrow with a sureshot spell on it could be dodged? (That's > the way I have understood it so far.) If it could be done, wouldn't that mean > that Sureshot is a quite useless spell? (Misses only on 96-00. Isn't > everybody's bow / javelin / throwing knife skills already at 95+ and thus > beyond need of this spell.) > Soudns right to me. If you're tied up by the feet, dangling blindfolded over a pit of lava and the greatest dodger in the world is your target, sureshot means you hit. Otherwise the spell is utterly useless - for as you say everyone with reusable access to it already has 90%+ skill. I'd also rule that it can shoot around corners (as long as the target is in range...) because as I read it that's what it allows. Nikk From ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net Mon Jul 31 06:49:36 2006 From: ghoyle1 at sbcglobal.net (Guy Hoyle) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:49:36 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sureshot In-Reply-To: <1154287052.44cd05cd05c20@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> References: <1154287052.44cd05cd05c20@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Message-ID: <44CD1B60.1030808@sbcglobal.net> perala at cc.joensuu.fi wrote: > I just read the description of sureshot - spell. It said that the missile hits > the target regardless of hiding or movement, but it didn't mention dodge. Does > this mean that an arrow with a sureshot spell on it could be dodged? (That's > the way I have understood it so far.) If it could be done, wouldn't that mean > that Sureshot is a quite useless spell? (Misses only on 96-00. Isn't > everybody's bow / javelin / throwing knife skills already at 95+ and thus > beyond need of this spell.) > Dodge isn't normally effective vs. missile weapons. I had a character for many years who relied on Dodge as his primary defense (that, and a lot of armor, and enough STR to carry the armor around). Guy -- --Guy Hoyle "Live every day as if you're dying Of a contagious disease that turns people you bite into zombies." The Onion, January 25, 2006 | Issue 42?04 From steve at perrinworlds.com Mon Jul 31 07:00:15 2006 From: steve at perrinworlds.com (Steve Perrin) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 14:00:15 -0700 Subject: [Rq-rules] Sureshot References: <1154287052.44cd05cd05c20@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> <44CD1B60.1030808@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <001101c6b41b$2868c7b0$a4407442@chaosce4015e22> Depends on how you define Dodge. I've ruled on numerous occasions that it is the only defense against missile fire. And yes, that would mean the Sureshot spell negates Dodge, as well. I might rule that it only negates the first 100% of a Dodge, though. Being that good should count for something, even against the intervention of the gods. Steve Perrin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Hoyle" To: "Discussion of RuneQuest rules." Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 1:49 PM Subject: Re: [Rq-rules] Sureshot > perala at cc.joensuu.fi wrote: >> I just read the description of sureshot - spell. It said that the missile >> hits >> the target regardless of hiding or movement, but it didn't mention dodge. >> Does >> this mean that an arrow with a sureshot spell on it could be dodged? >> (That's >> the way I have understood it so far.) If it could be done, wouldn't that >> mean >> that Sureshot is a quite useless spell? (Misses only on 96-00. Isn't >> everybody's bow / javelin / throwing knife skills already at 95+ and thus >> beyond need of this spell.) >> > > Dodge isn't normally effective vs. missile weapons. I had a character > for many years who relied on Dodge as his primary defense (that, and a > lot of armor, and enough STR to carry the armor around). > > Guy > > -- > --Guy Hoyle > > "Live every day as if you're dying Of a contagious disease that turns > people you bite into zombies." > The Onion, January 25, 2006 | Issue 42?04 > > _______________________________________________ > RQ-Rules mailing list > RQ-Rules at crashbox.com > http://crashbox.com/mailman/listinfo/rq-rules > From adam at charioteer.org Mon Jul 31 07:39:55 2006 From: adam at charioteer.org (Adam Canning) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:39:55 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <20060730204909.5A408A0CB73@mini.thinbits.net> Message-ID: <44CD353B.8838.1420D5@adam.charioteer.org> > Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:35:15 +0100 > From: Thomas Zunder > On 28 Jul 2006, at 11:08, Adam Canning wrote: > > > > > Unfortunately not > > > > p62 "Rune magic. By far the most common magic in Glorantha." > > > > But I believe the availability of Rune Magic is higher in Glorantha > than the default rulebook Rune of Chaos [a supposedly Glorantan set adventure] gives no indication of a higher availability in Glorantha. None of the NPC's at the back have any magic and the possibility of acquiring a single rune is a big thing [The entire hook and reward for the adventure] Of course religon also seems not to play any part in that adventure either. And being able to be set anywhere in glorantha a bit rum. Also when I asked Sprange about it at the Open Day he seemed surprised that I thought higher availability to magic was appropriate. It was as if the idea of mentioning cultic ties or having minor spells for NPC's was an Out of Contect Problem to him. - Adam Canning From lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au Mon Jul 31 08:17:59 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44CD353B.8838.1420D5@adam.charioteer.org> Message-ID: <20060730221759.97231.qmail@web33501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- Adam Canning wrote: > > Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 22:35:15 +0100 > > From: Thomas Zunder > > On 28 Jul 2006, at 11:08, Adam Canning wrote: > > > > > > > > Unfortunately not > > > > > > p62 "Rune magic. By far the most common magic in > Glorantha." > > > > > > > But I believe the availability of Rune Magic is > higher in Glorantha > > than the default rulebook > > Rune of Chaos [a supposedly Glorantan set adventure] > gives no > indication of a higher availability in Glorantha. > None of the NPC's > at the back have any magic and the possibility of > acquiring a single > rune is a big thing [The entire hook and reward for > the adventure] > > Of course religon also seems not to play any part in > that adventure > either. And being able to be set anywhere in > glorantha a bit rum. > > Also when I asked Sprange about it at the Open Day > he seemed > surprised that I thought higher availability to > magic was > appropriate. It was as if the idea of mentioning > cultic ties or > having minor spells for NPC's was an Out of Contect > Problem to him. > I suppose I should have asked this question many, many months ago... But how much RuneQuest (II and III) has Matthew played? What happened to the playtest suggestion (universally considered "a very good idea") that every sapient being received a rune as part of their "coming of age" ceremony? Regards, Lev __________________________________________________ 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 Mon Jul 31 08:35:04 2006 From: lev_lafayette at yahoo.com.au (Lev Lafayette) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:35:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Rq-rules] Sureshot In-Reply-To: <1154287052.44cd05cd05c20@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> Message-ID: <20060730223504.86738.qmail@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --- perala at cc.joensuu.fi wrote: > I just read the description of sureshot - spell. It > said that the missile hits > the target regardless of hiding or movement, but it > didn't mention dodge. Does > this mean that an arrow with a sureshot spell on it > could be dodged? (That's > the way I have understood it so far.) If it could be > done, wouldn't that mean > that Sureshot is a quite useless spell? (Misses only > on 96-00. Isn't > everybody's bow / javelin / throwing knife skills > already at 95+ and thus > beyond need of this spell.) > > Marko Per???l??? > No, a Sureshot cannot be dodged. Dodge is a type of movement (I am yet to encounter a dodge without movement). The rules (Magic p 37) specify that the shot hits "regardless of movement, concealment, range etc". Only if a 96-00 is rolled does the spell fail and the shot is missed. Besides, it would be a pretty crappy Divine spell if a mundane dodge could defeat it. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From jurrubin at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 09:22:09 2006 From: jurrubin at gmail.com (David Smart) Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:22:09 -0500 Subject: [Rq-rules] Re: Sureshot In-Reply-To: <20060730223504.86738.qmail@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1154287052.44cd05cd05c20@wwwmail.joensuu.fi> <20060730223504.86738.qmail@web33508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1c92296e0607301622i40e424dcha3636242d8857462@mail.gmail.com> I also believe that Dodge has no effect. Neither does the Arrow Cutting skill out of the "Land of the Ninja" supplement. To balance this, I rule that Sureshot doesn't give any skill checks and can be affected by Ki version the Arrow Cutting skill (also out of "Land of the Ninja"). David From tom at zunder.org.uk Mon Jul 31 11:17:24 2006 From: tom at zunder.org.uk (Thomas Zunder) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:17:24 +0100 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <44CD353B.8838.1420D5@adam.charioteer.org> References: <44CD353B.8838.1420D5@adam.charioteer.org> Message-ID: Again, chatted to matt sprange at Continuum and i think he's very back seat with RQ, it's 'his team' what does it. The demo team, who are good guys, had fun running it but some feedback from other RQ-heads was 'ok, but much too slow' I find RQ3 far too complex and slow now, so it's not for me. BUT, a lot of people do like that so don't dismiss it out of hand. It's not streamlined, it's more complex than RQ3 which is not for me. I want more like Stormbringer. Charlie seems to want to take the powers issue out of the BRP book development (maybe leave a stub) since the balancing it an almost endless loop that is delaying the main book. Moon Design enquired if they could do dual statted HQ/RQ Third Age Glorantha books (they have the rights to Third Age Glorantha) but Mongoose reportedly said 'no'. From reports the Mongoose Open Licence will be very light and allow very broad useage of the SRD and fairly loose use of the RQ logo. But no Glorantha products with RQ from anyone else. From aluban at yahoo.fr Mon Jul 31 19:05:04 2006 From: aluban at yahoo.fr (Alban de ROSTOLAN) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:05:04 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest In-Reply-To: <562FC84B-90CE-4B11-B528-B3DC15783E54@zunder.org.uk> Message-ID: <20060731090504.83224.qmail@web27714.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> I read playtest 1.5, and will give a try to the final version when it comes out. There are several things I didn't like in 1.5, but I spotted some changes in the previews, and I hope there will be more in the printed version. 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. 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060731/126d1b55/attachment.html From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon Jul 31 22:10:38 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:10:38 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Runequest 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 -----Original Message----- Thomas Zunder Who here has read the final rules, or even playtest 1.5? __ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon Jul 31 22:50:40 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:50:40 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Open Licence and SRD Message-ID: Hi All The mongoose site doesn't say much (other than mail Matthew) re the SRD and Open Licence. Any ideas what these look like or do we have to wait till the site is updated. By the way, what is a SRD? (From menton here I assume it's a free download of core rules) 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/20060731/7a3ce611/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 22:55:25 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:55:25 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Open Licence and SRD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: SRD stands for System Reference Document. I believe it was first used by Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro for the d20 system that they have online. ->Peter On 7/31/06, Den, Tony T wrote: > > Hi All > > The mongoose site doesn't say much (other than mail Matthew) re the SRD > and Open Licence. Any ideas what these look like or do we have to wait till > the site is updated. By the way, what is a SRD? (From menton here I assume > it's a free download of core rules) > > *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 > > > -- 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/20060731/51dd0be6/attachment.html From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon Jul 31 22:59:35 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 14:59:35 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Open Licence and SRD Message-ID: Cool, thanks. What are you doing up so early/late? Its only 3PM here at Grenwitch +1 ________________________________ Peter Maranci SRD stands for System Reference Document. I believe it was first used by Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro for the d20 system that they have online. ->Peter On 7/31/06, Den, Tony T wrote: Hi All The mongoose site doesn't say much (other than mail Matthew) re the SRD and Open Licence. Any ideas what these look like or do we have to wait till the site is updated. By the way, what is a SRD? (From menton here I assume it's a free download of core rules) Tony .livejournal.com/ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 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/20060731/a737df67/attachment.html From Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za Mon Jul 31 23:05:00 2006 From: Tony.Den at standardbank.co.za (Den, Tony T) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:05:00 +0200 Subject: [Rq-rules] RQ Minis Message-ID: 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/rq-rules/attachments/20060731/4ae55611/attachment.html From pmaranci at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 23:08:59 2006 From: pmaranci at gmail.com (Peter Maranci) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:08:59 -0400 Subject: [Rq-rules] Mongoose Open Licence and SRD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's 9AM here, Eastern Time. I've been up since 5:50 this morning. As usual. :D I was a bit unclear before, so maybe I should have said that the acronym "SRD" was first used by WoTC. They've posted d20 versions of the D&D Player's Handbook other system books online as SRDs. I presume that the Mongoose RQ SRDs will be at least a little different from the D&D books. :D Hey, the livejournal link in your .sig has apparently been truncated. Could you email it to me? I don't think you're on my flist! ->Peter On 7/31/06, Den, Tony T wrote: > Cool, thanks. What are you doing up so early/late? Its only 3PM here at > Grenwitch +1 > > ------------------------------ > * *Peter Maranci > > > > SRD stands for System Reference Document. I believe it was first used by > Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro for the d20 system that they have online. > > ->Peter > > On 7/31/06, Den, Tony T wrote: > > > > Hi All > > > > The mongoose site doesn't say much (other than mail Matthew) re the SRD > > and Open Licence. Any ideas what these look like or do we have to wait till > > the site is updated. By the way, what is a SRD? (From menton here I assume > > it's a free download of core rules) > > > > *Tony* > > > .livejournal.com/ > > __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > *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 -- 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/20060731/6bffd949/attachment.html